Dear Mr English, I don't want a tax cut

[shrub]

the numbers are out...

to work out how this affects you go to http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/

Oh happy day, i get an extra $26.00 a week. Because it is such an insignificant number and will have no impact on my lifestyle I'm going to do the smart thing and increase my savings by $26.00 a week. i didn't need it before I got it, so I might as well hang on to it.

[Flatcap]

the numbers are out...

to work out how this affects you go to http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/

At least $100 a week for me and the mussis
Glad i voted for National......

[Tank]

Enough to pay for a new KTM super moto with fuel and best part of the insurance. Thanks Mr Key.

[Mully]

Cheers Billy.

Much appreciated.

That's going to smack the living shit out of the mortgage......

W00t

[rainman]

YES! That's what I've been telling you. PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL!

Well duh! Not sure who has been claiming they are. If fact, it's a fairly core component of my logic thus far.

You can't charge a more valuable person too much tax as they'll fuck off overseas.

All depends on what "too much" is. And there are a few which I would be happy to see fuck off overseas - they do not all add as much value as you seem to think.

[cowpoos]

I'm sure you'd be happy with an F4 - don't count on any tax cuts this lifetime that will get you one of those puppies that hasn't been ridden with no oil and left in the rain for 5 years. My bet is Father John and Uncle Bill will give us around $20.00 a week tax cut and take around $15.00 a week in extra GST. And your new MV will be a little more expensive thanks to the rise in GST - probably about your annual tax cut.

Gotta love politicians and their PR companies - they can make people excited about getting ripped off.

But....the top 10% pay 70% of the tax.

True. As Georgie said, "It's all up to what you value". Why do we value the useless twats at the very top so much, that we misallocate our limited resources looking after them to the detriment of everyone else? 'Tis a form of inferiority complex, I think.



That;s the average, though - so distorted by the extremes. From LEED for 2008 (a bit slow to update, think they take 9 months), median annual earnings is $30,480. 78% of people earn less than the average, IIRC. You can't sensibly take an hourly rate and multiply it out full time - too many part-time employees, or self-employed battlers.



Dunno about the UK, but surely if we are a low-wage and low-skill economy we should be working on that as a means to improve the place, build growth, reduce social problems, etc? (Rather than just keep kicking those on the bottom of the heap). Stands to reason, dunnit? Tax cuts for the people at the very top don't help us at all - it's just a misallocation of resources.



That's because they are obscenely overpaid.



So, a global market for CEO's get's them to be paid more, while the same global market for low-skill roles end up with them paid less? Ain't capitalism grand? Where do you think this is going, medium term? Try running Air NZ without baggage handlers. Fyfe is probably the best of a bad lot, but still can't see him being worth $3m. He's just not that exceptional.



1. This is just a race to the bottom. Tax is not the only instrument for doing this. What about fewer FTAs, less overseas ownership, localisation incentives? If we are not initially as productive as others what would it take for us to get there? (Other than slashing wages through global wage arbitrage). Besides, if you keep cutting company tax you lose income, and either have to raise individual tax (shrieks!) or lose public services (meaning the punters pay for them anyway, tax, user pays, little difference). Where does this reasoning end?
2. Seriously high-paid types will always bugger about with trusts and structures. Align the rates all you like, this will still happen. Besides, why not align them at the top rate and not the bottom?
3. Like the tax-free allowance. Not sure about raising it with kids but that could be because it's Rog's idea and I find it hard to believe anything he proposes could be good for us. Also long term I'm less keen for greater population, but that's another kettle of fish.
4. So why not 25% GST? Slowing import consumption is good, except where a large part of your economy is retail. What are the total costs of kicking import-driven consumption in the head? How many importers and shopkeepers will go to the wall. What will their staff then do? Or is it just a game of passing the cost to the ordinary punter so we can reward our not-so-super-Supermen, again? (Don't get me wrong, I like reducing frivolous imports, just think we should build localised manufacturing first).

Here are some facts from the IRD, wage and salary earners only, so excluding filthy bennies and people deriving an income from investments, among others. 2008 figures:
- Top 1.12% (26,710 people) make $232.485.96 on average. Given the band starts at $150k I expect there are some big numbers in there, and perhaps if I had better data and could exclude that pesky 0.12% the average would creep up to Marty's $325k. Or maybe the wealthy are not affected by the recession like the poor are, and the 2009 data shows them making out like gangbusters, yet again.

Those 26,710 people make as much as the bottom 887,840 (actually a few less, it's hard to be exact as the data is banded) - all of whom earn less than $19,000 per annum. Average income for this group is $7201.41 per annum. $138.49 per week. Yes, below minimum wage if they work a full 40 hour week. Perhaps not everyone is fortunate enough to have a full time job?

BTW, the 887,840 are 37.4% of the wage and salary earning population, which in 2008 was 2,375,550.

Doesn't look to me like removing the beneficiaries makes much difference.

71.5% of the wage earners earned $45k or less, or just 39.5% of the income, average $19k-ish per year.
26.4% earned between $45k ad $120k, 49.2% of the income, average $64k-ish. (Most of the gimme-my-tax-cut crowd here, I guess).
2.1% over $120k, being 11.3% of the income. Average $186k and change.

If I could get more detail on the top band I suspect the data would look more extreme, there must be quite a few just inside that $150k range.

That sound fair to you? That bottom 72% are just all lazy fucks, I guess?

What is the baseline cost to run a household for Mr and Mrs NZ Average, I wonder? Rent/mortgage, food, petrol, cars, schools, insurance, medical and all the rest? This is why we need WfF and similar things, I suspect.

[shrub]

Cheers Billy.

Much appreciated.

That's going to smack the living shit out of the mortgage......

W00t

That's what I'll do with my tax cut - pay off my mortgage. And the funniest thing is I feel, well, DIFFERENT now. I feel kind of confident, positive and as though it's actually worth doing something with my life. I want to be a part of the bright new future that New Zealand now has, and that tax cut suddenly makes it worth while to better myself, work harder and do something positive with my life. I'm going to stop doing postgrad studies and become a forex trader like John Key.

*Leaves thread singing* I'm so excited, I just can't hide it.....

[cowpoos]

True. As Georgie said, "It's all up to what you value". Why do we value the useless twats at the very top so much, that we misallocate our limited resources looking after them to the detriment of everyone else? 'Tis a form of inferiority complex, I think.



That;s the average, though - so distorted by the extremes. From LEED for 2008 (a bit slow to update, think they take 9 months), median annual earnings is $30,480. 78% of people earn less than the average, IIRC. You can't sensibly take an hourly rate and multiply it out full time - too many part-time employees, or self-employed battlers.



Dunno about the UK, but surely if we are a low-wage and low-skill economy we should be working on that as a means to improve the place, build growth, reduce social problems, etc? (Rather than just keep kicking those on the bottom of the heap). Stands to reason, dunnit? Tax cuts for the people at the very top don't help us at all - it's just a misallocation of resources.



That's because they are obscenely overpaid.



So, a global market for CEO's get's them to be paid more, while the same global market for low-skill roles end up with them paid less? Ain't capitalism grand? Where do you think this is going, medium term? Try running Air NZ without baggage handlers. Fyfe is probably the best of a bad lot, but still can't see him being worth $3m. He's just not that exceptional.



1. This is just a race to the bottom. Tax is not the only instrument for doing this. What about fewer FTAs, less overseas ownership, localisation incentives? If we are not initially as productive as others what would it take for us to get there? (Other than slashing wages through global wage arbitrage). Besides, if you keep cutting company tax you lose income, and either have to raise individual tax (shrieks!) or lose public services (meaning the punters pay for them anyway, tax, user pays, little difference). Where does this reasoning end?
2. Seriously high-paid types will always bugger about with trusts and structures. Align the rates all you like, this will still happen. Besides, why not align them at the top rate and not the bottom?
3. Like the tax-free allowance. Not sure about raising it with kids but that could be because it's Rog's idea and I find it hard to believe anything he proposes could be good for us. Also long term I'm less keen for greater population, but that's another kettle of fish.
4. So why not 25% GST? Slowing import consumption is good, except where a large part of your economy is retail. What are the total costs of kicking import-driven consumption in the head? How many importers and shopkeepers will go to the wall. What will their staff then do? Or is it just a game of passing the cost to the ordinary punter so we can reward our not-so-super-Supermen, again? (Don't get me wrong, I like reducing frivolous imports, just think we should build localised manufacturing first).

Calling bullshit here. Compare the effort of a comfy office job (say, an accountant) vs almost any minimum wage labouring or factory job, no contest, the worse paid job is harder work. At the top end there can be more stress, but not always. And responsibility... pah. What I'd respect would be accountability. I've seen so many cases of senior execs stumbling from one incompetent action to the next being pushed gently aside with a large golden handshake. One company I worked for the CEO signed a partnership that completely destroyed a big chunk of the business (one that ould have been a great engine for growth). Cost millions. Was he marched out unceremoniuosly? Not quite, over 2 or so years he made about $3.5m. AUD$, too, and that's just the real salary and handshake component, not the options and other perks. Complete cretin. And yet he floated off to another big paying role, because he knew the right people.

Unfortunately his is not an unusual or isolated case. Reynolds going to show some accountability for the terrible state of Telecom? Not likely.

As for risk, the mighty captains of the banking industry are clearly taking the consequences of their risky behaviour... oh, wait...

Have you had your feelings hurt for being denied a more senior role??

[cowpoos]

That's what I'll do with my tax cut - pay off my mortgage. And the funniest thing is I feel, well, DIFFERENT now. I feel kind of confident, positive and as though it's actually worth doing something with my life. I want to be a part of the bright new future that New Zealand now has, and that tax cut suddenly makes it worth while to better myself, work harder and do something positive with my life. I'm going to stop doing postgrad studies and become a forex trader like John Key.

*Leaves thread singing* I'm so excited, I just can't hide it.....

Your change of tact surprises me?? its not sarcasium is it?

[MisterD]

Finally John'n'Bill look like they've got a clue as to which direction they're heading in. Now start cutting spending guys, there's no earthly reason it should be more than 30% of GDP.

Still we're forecast to be out of deficit three years earlier than the last estimate which is all good. At a guess, I should be mortgage-free about three years earlier too...

I shall have a small yet prudent Macallan now.

[sidecar bob]

Company tax in the high 20's is a relief.
I currently pay many times the value of my bike collection in tax annually, any less will be great.

[cowpoos]

Oh happy day, i get an extra $26.00 a week. Because it is such an insignificant number and will have no impact on my lifestyle I'm going to do the smart thing and increase my savings by $26.00 a week. i didn't need it before I got it, so I might as well hang on to it.

So you only earn around 50k thats not what you have been implying...through you hard work,etc,etc or have you been/are evading tax?

[Pussy]

It's a whole lot better than what that snivelling little leftie Cullen could ever have come up with.
John and Bill have done a good job

[cowpoos]

It's a whole lot better than what that snivelling little leftie Cullen could ever have come up with.
John and Bill have done a good job

They have....and for everyone!!

[shrub]

So you only earn around 50k thats not what you have been implying...through you hard work,etc,etc or have you been/are evading tax?

Very close, but I am also a full time student doing postgrad research and at the moment I normally work around 8 - 10 hours a week as a management consultant. Fortunately I can charge enough to get away with only working part time and still have a good lifestyle, and once I finished my studies (hopefully in 6 months) I intended to spend the newly freed up time writing a book and riding motorcycles, but these tax cuts have me excited about earning more money.

To hell with lifestyle, I want to work all the time now!