Yes, it is. I haven’t tracked down the figures myself, but word around the traps was he’d run a good campaign and lifted Labour’s vote.

re Peter Dunne: I live in the electorate too. He’s been a really good local MP. He works hard for local people and has held Cabinet posts in both National and Labour led governments – so has some influence compared to a backbench MP in a major party.

He tends to vote liberal on social issues and is centre-right – “Classical Liberal” – on economic policy. So I’m not surprised he keeps getting re-elected with substantial majorities in that electorate. A bit surprising that he has engendered such hostility from the Left.

I agree that the competition is poor, but thats a crap reason to vote for something – sheep-like behaviour.

‘Did quite well’ is a relative term in this case.

“I don’t know who National’s standing”
Katrina Shanks – same as last time too.

Charles and Katrina, in combination, captured less votes than Dunne. Any chance of knocking him off would be contingent on a deal between Labour and National for one of them not to stand a candidate. Not a likely scenario.

http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-36.html

I don’t know who National’s standing.

Measures can be put in place, such as ‘market income’ assessments and the minor beneficiary rate of 33% for trusts. The minor beneficiary rate was introduced in 2001 as a response to an increase in distributions to minor beneficiaries after the 2000 top rate increase to 39%. This creates another distortion, and on it goes.

Although I have no sympathy for rich pricks that were reducing their tax by using their kids IRD numbers, they can suffer a rate below the top personal rate up to $60K for each tax avoidance WFF receiving child they keep. However if parents are actually paying it to the minor beneficiary, investing it for them etc, then it would be valid to tax it at the recipients nominal rate. I do wonder how many legitimate uses of the minor beneficiaries nominal rate have been trampled over by that band-aid solution.

For example, how many students getting student allowances paid to them by family trusts had a tax hike from 19.5% to 33% since 2001?

I guess the example I used is void under a more progressive tax system, nobody ever has a chance to accumulate enough personal wealth to pose such a quandary.

Following on from the Minor beneficiary distribution rate change we had the income attribution legislation. If a ‘company’ derived more than 80% of it’s income from one source then it could be invalidated as a tax entity, placing the ‘companies’ income in the hands of it’s owner(s), and on it goes.

Although I have no sympathy for rich pricks that were reducing their tax by using an umbrella tax arrangement, one needs to wonder how many legitimate businesses are actually technically non-entities under our tax laws as they stand today.

The problem the left need to simply come to grips with is that a consequence of having a progressive tax system is that tax reductions reduce progressively as well. So what? Do two things, set a zero rated threshold, instant relief to low-middle earners. Reduce tax rates and accept the progressive effect that has.

The left need to just get over the shock that somebody paying $381,270.00/year tax (personally paying for the prime ministers salary) would only pay $298,070.00/year tax (personally paying for a cabinet minister) after a sensible tax cut.

How can you possibly say that somebody paying two hundred and ninety eight thousand and seventy dollars a year tax is not paying enough when tax has been applied at 30% since about the average income threshold?

I think these were fairly leftie tax cuts – you might want to wait until you see National’s before you judge!

I expect I’ll get heaped on for challenging Labour’s “left’ credentials, but that’s par for the course on The Standard.

Nope, I’m a member of Labour and I quite agree, we haven’t done enough for beneficiaries. I wish we had done more.

Not everyone on the Left is blind to constructive criticism.

Not really, I myself have criticised Labour for not being left enough in numerous posts and comments, as have others. It’s just the “throw the baby out with the bathwater” approach of ideological purists tends to get short shrift around here.

Labour does plenty of things badly, but I don’t know what I’d change about their social welfare packages. I think creating a society in which there’s lots for poor people is more effective than just throwing money at them. While this might sound a little like Nationals “hand up, not hand out” stance, I doubt Nationals plans will do much to create a society full of opportunity.

Yes, UF’s plan would see massive spending cuts. That makes them pretty right. But by this definition, Labour’s tax plan makes them squarely centre Yes, they’re good on the minimum wage and some workers rights, but their tax cuts are very “centrist” (compared to other possibilities)

I expect I’ll get heaped on for challenging Labour’s “left” credentials, but that’s par for the course on The Standard.