2011 Budget

[Oscar]

I still reckon that those useless pricks in Parliament deserve alot less money than they can get.

Thats why I think the following;

Prime Minister earns 500k a year. Cut this back to 250k a year.
All other members of Parliament earn 150k a year.

Even with this wage cut, they can still live the life they lead. It just means less binging of properties, and overseas homes.

Destroy all taxpayer credit cards. No more are to be made.

All members of Parliament will have to buy their own cars. No cars supplied as part of their job.

The government will have 5 cars for VIP transport. No more no less.

Members of Parliament will have performance reviews on a 3 month basis. This is where the taxpayer will vote on the performance of this particular member. This will be followed up by a professional performance review assess them as well, to filter out bad ministers.

I think its about time we teach them that they need to be in it for the job instead of the money.

All this I think should save the Government at least 10-20$ million a year.

Anyone agree?

Nope.

If you think MP's are in it for the money, I suggest that you hang out with one for a ‎couple of days. I don't care what they get paid, it just ain't worth it for the shit they ‎have to put up, see and listen to on a daily basis.‎ National, Labour, ACT Maori or Green, I doubt any of them are earning substanially more than they got in private life.

The PM definitely isn’t in it for the money. He had to put his investments into a blind ‎trust on becoming an MP, so the job is almost certainly costing him money. ‎Notwithstanding this, you may be interested to know that "a substantial part" of Key's ‎salary goes to charity.‎

[Ender EnZed]

Prime Minister earns 500k a year. Cut this back to 250k a year.
All other members of Parliament earn 150k a year.

That's a raise for the back benchers.

The PM definitely isn’t in it for the money. He had to put his investments into a blind ‎trust on becoming an MP, so the job is almost certainly costing him money. ‎Notwithstanding this, you may be interested to know that "a substantial part" of Key's ‎salary goes to charity.‎

Somehow I doubt he'll run short anytime soon though.

[Ocean1]

Lol I'm sure you know exactly how it works , it's the same way farmers pay $1500 tax per year. Clever accounting.

Short of actually lying I haven't got a clue how it works.

Tell me the basics eh?

[rainman]

I reckon a great leap forwards would have been to put the higher tax band back up again.

The Nats can't reverse the tax cuts, even if they were to sit down and figure out this is the best rational course of action, because they would be voted out in a heartbeat. I don't think they are sufficiently ideology-free to actually conclude this is the best course of action, of course, but either way, they can't do it. So, one must conclude, either they are too stupid to see the obviousness of this, or too protective of their own self-interested arses not to lie to us.

I'm still voting National this year.

Slow learner, huh?

The PM definitely isn’t in it for the money. He had to put his investments into a blind ‎trust on becoming an MP, so the job is almost certainly costing him money. ‎Notwithstanding this, you may be interested to know that "a substantial part" of Key's ‎salary goes to charity.‎

Got any evidence of this, or just trotting out spin lines?

[oneofsix]

The PM definitely isn’t in it for the money. He had to put his investments into a blind ‎trust on becoming an MP, so the job is almost certainly costing him money. ‎Notwithstanding this, you may be interested to know that "a substantial part" of Key's ‎salary goes to charity.‎

Money no not money - power. He has got the money but not enough to give him the power he now craves. not smart enough to get the power via the money, well not enough money. It also gives him a nice pension. Hey if he is a good boy and does what the IMF wants he may even be allowed a hotel maid or two.

[mashman]

The Nats can't reverse the tax cuts, even if they were to sit down and figure out this is the best rational course of action, because they would be voted out in a heartbeat. I don't think they are sufficiently ideology-free to actually conclude this is the best course of action, of course, but either way, they can't do it. So, one must conclude, either they are too stupid to see the obviousness of this, or too protective of their own self-interested arses not to lie to us.

or being told what to do by a third party ... most likely

[Winston001]

I wish for once we had a government that looked for ways for NZ to earn more as a solution to our economic woes...

Why can't the government look at opportunities to support innovation and technology? We have businesses that are growing like crazy in the country, and they're almost entirely high-tech businesses, so why not support R&D more?

Why not look at adding value to our exports instead of exporting raw materials for others to add value to?

Snap. I wish for the same. I'm coming to the view that politicians can't do this because voters don't understand or support it. National and ACT have tried in the past, Labour under Lange tried, Muldoon before that, and they all lost voter support. Actually even Norm Kirk tried and got stymied by the Labour caucus.

The problem in essence is that NZ does not exist as a single cultural entity. We have too many divisions in our society and no broad appreciation of our vulnerability as a tiny nation. So we cannot agree on a common purpose - instead we argue in nasty destructive ways while the economic pie goes mouldy.

[Flip]

Just two points; 1, why would you sell a asset that was paying you 17% to pay off a debt that was costing you 6%, sounds like an asset fire sale to your BRT mates to me? and 2, I have still got all my tax cuts, so to all those hard working middle class people who voted National because they thought they would be better off! SUCKERS!

[Brian d marge]

Just two points; 1, why would you sell a asset that was paying you 17% to pay off a debt that was costing you 6%, sounds like an asset fire sale to your BRT mates to me? and 2, I have still got all my tax cuts, so to all those hard working middle class people who voted National because they thought they would be better off! SUCKERS!

Because this is how the IMF works,,, opens the country up for investment ( wall street and big business)
See what it did with water ...and rice I think

It will be digging up the forests soon ( AND VERY LITTLE will return to NZ )

been done before and is happening now

Stephen

[Mully]

The Nats can't reverse the tax cuts, even if they were to sit down and figure out this is the best rational course of action, because they would be voted out in a heartbeat.

Funnily enough, I was discussing this with a mate of mine (both of us, apparently, are rich pricks, but that's by the by)..

We both thought that the Gummint should reverse the tax cuts. The problem is, of course, that Phil Goff and his mates (despite screaming for the Nats to reverse them) would them be bitching that there was a broken promise.

It's like the superannuation age - common sense says it needs to be raised - albeit gradually (I'd say 55 or over, it stays 65. People 35-54, moves to 66. People under 35, goes to 67) - but because the Nats have said they wont move it, to alter it would have Phil (I've got nothing, put me out of my misery) Goff screaming.

It's also interesting (almost exactly like the ACC Levy debacle) that Labour refuses to rule out reversing what National have done. I idly wonder if they're all in on a massive game against the populace.

[superman]

Short of actually lying I haven't got a clue how it works.

Tell me the basics eh?

You don't lie. Ok lets say someone is a music teacher/singer performer as their business. Anything at all related to this business can be bought through the business, therefore an outgoing in the business and GST is also written off when buying for a business to my understanding. And as incoming-outgoing = profit/loss you reduce profit and therefore reduce the amount of taxed income.

This is my very crude understanding of the system. But there are certain set percentages by the government on how much you claim back on certain costs, but most importantly asset aquisition is non-taxed and an outgoing. IE buy a nice shiny vehicle for your business, stationary, computers, for a music teacher anything music education or music related at all you can buy GST free and write off on business, such as CDs, speakers, concert tickets. Anything.

In the end you end up with a nice car, nice computer, nice sound system. And your business hasn't made as much money for the year because of the things you bought for your business. So to my understanding the business grows nicely with the profit from the year, and that is not taxed because of course the profit isn't liquid anymore.

[Ender EnZed]

It's like the superannuation age - common sense says it needs to be raised - albeit gradually (I'd say 55 or over, it stays 65. People 35-54, moves to 66. People under 35, goes to 67) - but because the Nats have said they wont move it, to alter it would have Phil (I've got nothing, put me out of my misery) Goff screaming.

It's hardly revoltionary to suggest that by 2016 it'll be 66 and that by 2027 it'll be 67. I'd be amazed if it wasn't.

[Clockwork]

Um...that's called the free market...are you a communist or summat

Somethin like that yeah... maybe a nationalist might be a better label though.

We're a little fish in a big pond, we can't compete in the free market and we need to do whatever we can to hold on to what few assets we have. We simply shouldn't be paying prifts to other countries for services that we provide only to ourselves such as power, telecommunications.. banking etc...

Seriously, once its all sold where will that leave us econmically?

[Clockwork]

You don't lie. Ok lets say someone is a music teacher/singer performer as their business. Anything at all related to this business can be bought through the business, therefore an outgoing in the business and GST is also written off when buying for a business to my understanding. And as incoming-outgoing = profit/loss you reduce profit and therefore reduce the amount of taxed income.

This is my very crude understanding of the system. But there are certain set percentages by the government on how much you claim back on certain costs, but most importantly asset aquisition is non-taxed and an outgoing. IE buy a nice shiny vehicle for your business, stationary, computers, for a music teacher anything music education or music related at all you can buy GST free and write off on business, such as CDs, speakers, concert tickets. Anything.

In the end you end up with a nice car, nice computer, nice sound system. And your business hasn't made as much money for the year because of the things you bought for your business. So to my understanding the business grows nicely with the profit from the year, and that is not taxed because of course the profit isn't liquid anymore.

THB I'm not sure how this works but I was up in Reatihi a couple of months ago and got chatting to an elderly farmer in the local Cossie club. He was saying that it had bee a good year for him this year and was probably going to post his first profit (in something like 30 years IIRC). Later he was chatting about the history of the place, how he'd started with a small block of land which he'd slowly increased over the years by buying up adjoining blocks (while not making any profits presumably) and diversifying to the point where he now appears to be a significant land owner in the area. My guess is that the reason he's finally making a profit is that he's run out of write-offs and land buying opportunities.

I suspect that that's the sort of thing Superman is referring to. this guy has increased his personal wealth substanially while never actually making a profit.

Farmers are probably able to call a lot of their living expenses "business expenses" not sure it would be so easy for other type of small businesses though.

[marty]

Can't see if this has been posted - the deloittes summary. check out the social welfare spend.