Don’t be jealous, they’re better than you

Written By: - Date published: 7:11 am, May 18th, 2010 - 185 comments
Categories: Economy, tax - Tags:

National are clearly starting to worry that the New Zealand public aren’t going to fall for their tax cuts for the rich swindle with Key trying convince Kiwis that they shouldn’t be jealous of rich people getting massive windfalls because we need those rich people:

We can be envious about these things but without those people in our economy all the rest of us will either have less people paying tax or fundamentally less services that they provide

That’s right, we should feel privileged to be able to give Paul Reynolds a tax cut of thousands of dollars a week. Otherwise he might decide he’s better off sacking workers and destroying vital infrastructure somewhere else.

Even more disingenuously he tries to claim that the rich who will get a windfall include nurses and principals. Unfortunately for him the Dom has a little table that shows they’ll get somewhere between 50c and $20 a week while someone on a half a million (not too far from Key’s government salary) will get over $300.

If it wasn’t so insulting it would be funny.

185 comments on “Don’t be jealous, they’re better than you ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    18 May 2010 at 7:34 am

    That flapping noise is the sound of chickens coming home to roost.

    Key has promised so much to so many but he never had the ability to deliver what he promised. The promises were clear, there would be a tax cut for everyone. Originally it was going to be north of $50 now finally the reality is emerging that the poor will get less so that the rich will get more.

    He promised so much more, catching up with Australia, fewer murders, a higher standard of living, everything that Labour was able to deliver but more.

    Now 18 months into his Government’s term things are not looking good. The promises were clearly no more than cynical lies designed to fool enough people to vote for the Nats so they could gain power.

    But they really are clueless and you have to wonder what they were doing for the 9 years in opposition.

    I hear Labour’s internal polling has the gap down to 11%. The next election is Labour’s for the taking.

    • Lew 1.1
      18 May 2010 at 7:40 am

      micky, in what world is a 22% poll swing (being charitable and assuming equivalent coalition options) an election “for the taking”?

      I mean, great if it is, but … really?

      L

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 7:59 am

        Lew

        6 months ago the Roy Morgan gap between the 2 parties was 22%. A halving in 6 months is good.

        I understand also the Greens were polling at about 7%.

        • joe bloggs 1.1.1.1
          18 May 2010 at 8:25 am

          If your baseline is Roy Morgan polling from 6 months ago, then a more reliable comparison is the latest Roy Morgan poll results.

          The latest RM poll (April 19 to May 2) shows the gap between National and Labour-led governments is still 20.0 percentage points – 53.5% vs 33.5%.

          In other words 59% more electors would vote for a National-led government than Labour. That’s down slightly from 61.7% more electors voting National-led in the previous poll – hardly Labour’s for the taking.

          http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4489/

          • Marty G 1.1.1.1.1
            18 May 2010 at 8:29 am

            Um, Joe the very poll you’ve linked to has National on 49% vs 33.5% for Labour.

            Try reading it again.

            • joe bloggs 1.1.1.1.1.1
              18 May 2010 at 9:02 am

              I refered to right vs left not Nat vs Labour – try reading my post again

              • Bright Red …
                18 May 2010 at 9:40 am

                You’re comparing National-led government to Labour by itself genius.

          • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.2
            18 May 2010 at 8:50 am

            Joe

            I am talking about National/Labour, not right left. The Roy Morgan two party poll gap has gone from 23% to 16.5% in 6 months. Labour’s more recent poll suggests that the narrowing of the gap is ongoing.

            Capcha poll!!!!

            • joe bloggs 1.1.1.1.2.1
              18 May 2010 at 9:13 am

              Mickey, last time I looked we had a mixed member proportional voting system – the individual party vote is only one component of that. So a right left comparison is no less valid than your Nat/Lab comparison.

              Interestingly the single party comparison has Nat and Lab close to the shares of votes that they had at the last General Election – Nat 4pts up and Lab 0.5pts up.

              As I recall Nat found it a relatively straightforward task to form a coalition government at the time.

              • Lew …
                18 May 2010 at 9:34 am

                It’s only “no less valid” if you can easily pick the left-right split. For one thing, that’s probematic because of the māori party, which is currently in government with the right, but could potentially go either way (assuming Labour don’t alienate them, which is seeming less likely of late). Another problem with this line of reasoning is the status of NZ First.

                L

              • lprent …
                18 May 2010 at 10:04 am

                Nat found it a relatively straightforward task to form a coalition government at the time.

                Could be a bit more tricky next time. 2011 will not have the same political landscape as 2008.

                I can’t see Act surviving Rodney losing Epsom. Voters there are pissed from what I’ve seen and would probably vote Melissa Lee in to get rid of the architect of the Super shitty.

                The MP will come through as will the Greens. Peter Dunne is looking increasingly marginal and I suspect he will crap out at the election or even retire before it. NZF has a reasonable chance of getting back in. Winstons constituency is still there (damnit).

                It’d take considerable charm for National to get a workable coalition, even if they (unlikely) had the same vote as 2008, and there is more history getting in John Keys way.

              • Lanthanide …
                18 May 2010 at 10:26 am

                Don’t forget Jim Anderton as well. He may retire completely, or anoint a successor.

                captcha: opportunity

              • joe bloggs …
                18 May 2010 at 11:06 am

                No arguments there L & L & L

                Labour still has a long way to go to win back the support of the Maori party but miracles do happen.

                I’m not sure though that Labour can rely on the support of the Greens though. They repositioned themselves with some success in the last election – a more professional campaign than in earlier elections, and one that moved them away from their ‘left ghetto’ with some success.

                Sue Bradford’s out of the way so there are fewer barriers to the Greens taking “a step too far” towards National. And now that National has a more centrist approach and is going ahead with the ETS, there are some attractions for the Greens to move further in that direction.

                As for Winnie? I doubt that the electorate will drink deeply from that poisoned well…

              • Draco T Bastard …
                18 May 2010 at 12:19 pm

                And now that National has a more centrist approach…

                National has never had a centrist approach. What they did for the 2k8 election is persuade people that they were centre aligned rather than the hard right radicals that they are. This gloss is now wearing off.

    • Green Tea 1.2
      18 May 2010 at 8:36 am

      “He promised so much more, catching up with Australia, fewer murders, a higher standard of living, everything that Labour was able to deliver but more.”

      Labour delivered a higher standard of living?

  2. the sprout 2
    18 May 2010 at 7:37 am

    awesome condescension.
    ‘don’t be jealous’ should really help the medicine go down.

  3. Lazy Susan 3
    18 May 2010 at 7:42 am

    Good to see that Stuff have published figures for higher salaries. The Herald conveniently stopped at 100k in the table they published on Saturday.

    Will be interesting to see which media outlets follow suit on Thursday and adequately explain that this is a huge redistribution of wealth from low and middle-income earners to the rich.

    Was disappointed to see that even National Radio skirted around this when they analysed the Budget yesterday morning.

    Another thing to note is there is already a de-facto extra 2% tax on income up to $110,000
    through the ACC earners levy. For some reason all income above $110,000 is free of this levy – another nice perk for the rich.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1
      18 May 2010 at 8:01 am

      The ACC levy stops at $110,000 because thats the indemnity level, ie you dont get lost income payments for amounts greater than this.

      • Lazy Susan 3.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 8:18 am

        Thanks ghostwhowalksnz, understand.

        Interesting to note this levy has gone up by 43% in 2 years which disproportionally affects low and middle income earners.

        • Clarke 3.1.1.1
          18 May 2010 at 8:29 am

          While that’s true, it’s still the cheapest and best-run injury compensation scheme in the western world. Not that there aren’t improvements that could be made, but just sayin’ …

    • Mark 3.2
      18 May 2010 at 8:55 am

      Rdistribution of wealth Susan.?
      Try some calculations on how much money someone on $100k pays in tax versus someone on $30k.
      Then add in GST paid and deduct working for families and then see which way the redistribution of wealth goes.

      You give the game away with your name Lazy .
      The world dosent owe you a living.

      • Lazy Susan 3.2.1
        18 May 2010 at 10:03 pm

        Mark – the world dosent (sic) owe me a living and I don’t expect it to give me one.

        I don’t need to “try some calculations” as you suggest as I’ve already done them.

        I’m fortunate enough to be in a well paid job and will benefit from these tax cuts but don’t need or want them.

        You’re quick to make assumptions – next time you post I suggest you make it more considered.

        • HitchensFan 3.2.1.1
          19 May 2010 at 9:09 am

          hahahaha. Fail, Mark you dozy illiterate dickwad
          nice one, Susan. I’m in the same boat as you, but I love to see rightwingers make such assumptions that everyone in the top tax bracket thinks in the same selfish, smallminded way they do.

  4. tc 4
    18 May 2010 at 8:02 am

    Crikey the sheer arrogance of the man in these times when the top end of town have increased their earnings way beyond any sane rate over the last 10 years……..the election sure is there for the taking MS but not the way Goff’s performing, Labour are yet to master the 10sec soundbite and it could cost them dearly.

    • luva 4.1
      18 May 2010 at 8:14 am

      And who was in power for the majority of the past 10 years as

      “the top end of town have increased their earnings way beyond any sane rate”

      • Marty G 4.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 8:29 am

        Labour. And you obviously agree it’s got to change. Vote Green.

        • luva 4.1.1.1
          18 May 2010 at 8:46 am

          I will give you that one Marty and accept that position.

          What I can’t stand is those from the red team who cry about the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer when this trend has continued at pace since 1984 right through Saint Helens reign.

      • r0b 4.1.2
        18 May 2010 at 8:43 am

        By all means vote Green, good advice. But let’s not perpetuate too many myths about the last Labour government. During their time the gap between rich and poor was starting to narrow at last. In 2008 I commented:

        Labour led governments were slowly beginning to turn it around and lift children out of poverty.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10503896

        Child poverty rate falling in NZ
        Monday Apr 14, 2008 By Simon Collins

        Child poverty is finally on the way down in two of the three rich countries where it increased the most in the 1980s and 90s – Britain and New Zealand.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/4606691a10.html

        Children lifted out of poverty
        By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post | Friday, 04 July 2008

        Fewer children are living in poverty – but working-age singles are increasingly the new poor, according to the Social Development Ministry. And the gap between rich and poor appears to be narrowing for the first time in decades, the ministry says in a report.

        The government-commissioned survey shows that while the median household income grew by 6 per cent in real terms between 2004 and 2007, the incomes of those in the low-to-middle band went up the fastest, at 12 per cent, compared with just 2 to 4 per cent for those on higher incomes.

        The Government’s Working for Families boost to low- and middle-income families with dependent children is a major factor – Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson said it was a key driver behind the survey finding that 130,000 children had been lifted out of poverty. More people in paid work was the other reason.

        Kiss all that goodbye, the Nats will get back to making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

        And thus it came to pass.

        • just saying 4.1.2.1
          18 May 2010 at 10:33 am

          rOb, I agree with your last comment, but find your respnse to luva a bit disingenuous. The short-lived, very slight, dip in the rise of the gap between rich and poor, at the end of Labour’s terms, didn’t come within a bull’s roar of returning the level to where it was at the beginning of their reign. The net effect was a dramatic rise in inequity during Labour’s last stint in government. I have no doubt that that gap would have been greater had National been in power, but that’s not really the point.
          I believe the poor have a legitmate grievance with Labour. I believe the poor rightly feel they’ve been abandoned by the party that was set-up to represent them, and especially in a time when community animosity towards the poor is at an all-time high, it feels like Labour is still trying to distance itself lest some of the bad smell rubs off on them. And that really hurts.

          • r0b 4.1.2.1.1
            18 May 2010 at 11:27 am

            The short-lived, very slight, dip in the rise of the gap between rich and poor, at the end of Labour’s terms

            Ummm – from above:

            The government-commissioned survey shows that while the median household income grew by 6 per cent in real terms between 2004 and 2007, the incomes of those in the low-to-middle band went up the fastest, at 12 per cent, compared with just 2 to 4 per cent for those on higher incomes.

            Yes, Labour could have made a lot more progress with another term. Instead we got the Nats, on the empty promise of tax cuts North of $50. It’s crazy, but there it is.

            • just saying 4.1.2.1.1.1
              19 May 2010 at 8:09 am

              rOb,
              I stand corrected. I went back to the graph on inequality on frog blog and found that it started at the beginning of the eighties, not the nineties as I had thought, which, of course creates a quite different impression.
              I do stand by the rest of my post though, and very much hope that Labour will return to its principles and lead according to them, rather than just cower reactively to public opinion as read in polls and focus groups. I think they’d be surprised by the result.

  5. kriswgtn 5
    18 May 2010 at 8:13 am

    its all good

    more of us poor people will be dead by then

    hah the guy is a fuckin asshole and anyone sucked in by his lies in 2008 is as big as one IMO

    vote the fuckwad out

    • Jared 5.1
      18 May 2010 at 8:24 am

      Dead? Overreacting much?

      Also, your notion around principals is incorrect, most earn around 100k, and many more in the secondary sector earn north of $130-$160k.
      You might disagree with appeasing those in a higher income, but the truth is that they have largely been ignored by the previous government, labelled rich pricks etc.
      Don’t blame National for looking after its voters, in the same way Labour appeases its low income voters. No one is worse off, except now the higher income individuals finally get some recognition in society rather than being treated as income tax revenue.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 12:30 pm

        most earn around 100k,

        Which “most” are you talking about because it sure as hell isn’t the 75% of people that earn less than the average wage.

  6. Tigger 6
    18 May 2010 at 8:23 am

    Also note the arrogance that he thinks anyone earning $70K or more supports him and these tax cuts. I’m ‘rich’ and I don’t. Don’t want the extra money. Don’t need it.

    • HitchensFan 6.1
      18 May 2010 at 10:58 am

      Tigger, me too. I don’t want it. The extra $40 bucks or whatever a week won’t make a difference to me. I’d MUCH rather see it in the pockets of a Porirua family or something.

      And before all your rightwing dickf*cks start telling me to donate it to charity then, that’s exactly what I will be doing.

    • Pete 6.2
      18 May 2010 at 10:58 am

      Ditto. It says something about a society (and its leaders) when those that need the most support are the least likely to get it.

      And, sorry, I don’t buy the argument that those at the ‘top’ will pull everyone else up after them – I believe that was called trickle-down back in the day…

    • Bright Red 6.3
      18 May 2010 at 11:18 am

      I prefer the money to be spent by the public service than charities but seeing as they insist on giving me a tax cut I’ll be giving it to charities and political parties with a better vision for this country.

  7. Herodotus 7
    18 May 2010 at 8:24 am

    Why is everyone jumping at Labs possable rise. They are crap cf my comments & others on their tokenism <$1 re GST on F&V, opposing landlords contributing to the tax system with rorts that previous Nat & Lab governments supported. Lab has displayed no bold economic leadership yet. So by default we want a weak opposition to take over government. And remember folks the leaders of Lab still have connections to 84. So we have a left leaning Nat or a Right leaning Lab.
    Nat or Lab just feed different sections of the poor-middle income with scraps, they both endorese increasing the wealth of the filthy rich. Remember also how owners & directors of Fin coys were able to walk away, the same regarding leaky home sure Nats freed up the system (foolishly) but the Greens withLab allowed kiln dired timber to be the predominate timber used (Just as mad) and where are those who profiteered from Sacremento, Auck Waterfront, Papatoetoe ?
    To vent my final frustration in the matter and feel good for the rest of the day, guys get a grip and smell the roses, Lab as they are are no more the answer than Nat. Also when did the filty rich become and then increase their wealth in 84 -87 and 2000-08 Lets see some real action from Lab, get them to work hard for us and not giving tokenism to their support base, for I tell you they are not and are not supporting their base.

    • Craig Glen Eden 7.1
      18 May 2010 at 10:56 am

      Yup getting rid of total crap in your system is a good thing and you have certainly got a lot of crap out in this posting, I hope you have a good day Herodotus.

  8. aj 8
    18 May 2010 at 8:27 am

    Poll in nz.yahoo.com ‘Are tax cuts for the wealthy a good idea?’

    46% yes if it means a boost for the economy
    51% no its not fair on those who earn less
    3% don’t know

    Over 12,000 votes

    • Tigger 8.1
      18 May 2010 at 8:41 am

      I love how they’ve skewed the ‘yes’ answer there.

      • Lew 8.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 8:45 am

        That such an obviously begged question still fails to gain a majority tells us a fair bit, though. Or perhaps just a fair bit about yahoo online poll voters.

        L

    • Draco T Bastard 8.2
      18 May 2010 at 12:34 pm

      Ok, so, that 97% against tax cuts for the rich. It has, after all, been proven quite conclusively around the world over the last 30 years that tax cuts for the rich don’t boost the economy.

  9. Adrian 9
    18 May 2010 at 8:56 am

    How can you satarise a statement like ” don’t be jealous of the rich getting a $480 tax cut and you get $6 because they deserve it”. He’s got to be taking the piss, just seeing what he can get away with, which gives more credence to the theory that he bought his way into this job ( I heard it cost him $2 Mil ) as a fun thing to do. He will lose the next election on that statement alone and then then watch him disappear to Hawaii or wherever. Good riddance. It’s galling to realise that we have a PM who is not a loyal NZer, just an opportunist, but what can you expect from a man who organised a financial raid against his own country, forcing a run on the dollar and costing a huge number of farmers their farms while personally pocketing $22 million bucks.

  10. burt 10
    18 May 2010 at 9:03 am

    The difference between Labour and National;

    National admit that the rich are required to finance social policy – Labour, like they always do, denigrated the rich driving them away and/or into complicated and expedient tax structures which when the first sign of economic trouble showed up left us in recession.

    Keep it up IrishBill, tell us how we can spend on social policy with no high earners paying the bulk of the tax….

    • Maynard J 10.1
      18 May 2010 at 9:35 am

      I thought most people emigrating were lower income earners. Have you got sauce?

      And to claim that tax rorts started under Labour? Of course, no one had an accountant before Labour got in, the very profession was created in the mid 2000’s in response to a demand for tax rorts.

      • Bright Red 10.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 10:28 am

        Yeah, that’s a myth Key is pushing. Most people who emigrate are low-skill going for better pay in Aussie. Tax has nothing to do with it.

        Indeed, the Govt was skiting the other day about all the rich people wnating to come to NZ under that new visa.

    • burt 10.2
      18 May 2010 at 9:47 am

      The income taxes people really pay

      In Ireland and New Zealand, taxpayers at the income level of an average production worker are -already exposed to the top marginal rate of 48% and 33% respectively. In Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom workers must earn about twice the average before they start paying the top rate.
      On the other hand, Swiss and US employees are not confronted by the top rate unless their salaries reach ten times the average production worker’s wage.

      So having spent almost a decade denigrating Irelands tax setting it turns out Labour pretty much choose the same path to ruin. Thankfully National don’t think average income earners are rich and must be punished.
      Casting fairness aside and going for the easy option of plucking the goose with the least amount of hissing has a lot to answer for first OECD country in recession late 2007 being one of the things your team needs to own up to and take responsibility for I won’t hold my breath.

      • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1
        18 May 2010 at 10:28 am

        ©OECD Observer No 216, March 1999

        And under National, when will the top marginal rate kick in?

        I agree that labour could have done much more to delay recession. They could have repealed the RB act for starters. Whether or not the things other countries did, are the things we ought to have done, is another question.

      • r0b 10.2.2
        18 May 2010 at 10:40 am

        NZ headed in to recession along with several other countries. According to Reserve Bank Governor Dr Allan Bollard the reasons were:

        “The international financial crisis actually played little role in the early part of New Zealand’s economic recession. Rather, it was drought, falling house prices and high petrol prices that dragged New Zealand GDP growth negative over the first three quarters of 2008″.

        Which of these were Labour’s fault Burt, and why? And why was Bill English singing the praises of Labour’s economic management?

        Bill English had to swallow the proverbial dead rat this morning and effectively acknowledge that Michael Cullen had done something right in his stewardship of the Government’s finances in the past nine years.

        Having condemned his predecessor for many years for paying off debt too quickly, English said: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.”

        “In New Zealand we have room to respond. This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for,” he told reporters at the Treasury briefing on the state of the economy and forecasts.

      • Lanthanide 10.2.3
        18 May 2010 at 10:48 am

        Of course Labour had a tax cut policy that would have put the top tax rate at $80k, after their first round raised it to $70k.

        National decided to scrap Labour’s policy and left the threshold at $70k, as an excuse that they then had to take the top rate from 39% to 38%, and now all the way down to 33%.

        If National had any intellectual honesty, they would do what Goff is now saying Labour will do, which is raise the threshold out over $100k where it really should be.

        Of course National don’t have any intellectual honesty, they are much more interested in giving huge tax cuts to those earning far an excess of a reasonable top threshold, and they are using the low top threshold as their excuse to do this.

        In other words, they are taking the symptoms of the low threshold and prescribing medicine to fix it, that incidentally will give huge benefits to those at the top. The correct medicine is to push the threshold out and leave the rate where it is.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.2.4
        18 May 2010 at 1:06 pm

        Yes, the stupid “flat tax” that Roger Douglas et al in the 4th Labour government brought in. This isn’t an argument for less tax on the rich but more tax on the rich with less tax on the poor. Basically, a more progressive income tax system.

        I’d also like to point out here that the entire tax system needs to be rethought from first principals. The present system tat we have now has been designed by the rich for the rich over the last few centuries so it should be no surprise that they benefit the most from them.

      • burt 10.2.5
        18 May 2010 at 1:10 pm

        Draco,

        You missed the talking points; The tax system was fair and reasonable under Labour then fundermentally unchanged under national it has become unfair and it is working in the interests of the rich. Don’t be silly and say it has to be rethought from first principals when it was perfect till late 2008.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.2.5.1
          18 May 2010 at 1:27 pm

          I never said it was perfect. In fact, I believe that a lot of people commenting here believe that it is imperfect. NACTs tax cuts for the rich is going to make it worse.

  11. Santi 11
    18 May 2010 at 9:15 am

    You said: ‘The next election is Labour’s for the taking.’

    That must the best joke I’ve heard this year. Labour Party is 100% doomed and will suffer a heavy defeat in 2011. Bye, bye, Philler Goff.

  12. Sookie 12
    18 May 2010 at 9:16 am

    In any other sophisticated Western democracy (excluding the US) it is accepted that if you are rich, you pay more tax, because you can afford it. The arrogance of the tiny minority of high earners in NZ wanting a free lunch is astonishing, especially if they benefitted from an excellent education and healthcare system while working their way up the greasy pole.

    These proposed tax cuts are infuriating to me because like most university educated people in their early 30’s, I am not earning 70K. I am getting clobbered by the 33% rate plus my student loan at 10%, so almost half of everything I earn over 48K is gone to Smile and Wave and his mates. Not that i’d ever vote for the twonk, but I know of plenty of people in similar circumstances that did, and they won’t be making the same mistake again.

    • Jared 12.1
      18 May 2010 at 9:41 am

      So, idealogically, the burden of the income tax revenue take should be shouldered by “those who can afford it”. And I don’t disagree that the tax rate should be proportionate, but what I have seen over the past 9 years is a pandering to the lower income class (labours core voters) who now essentially pay zero or very little tax, whilst ignoring those who pay the lions share. Do the higher incomes not deserve a tax break? or do we just treat them as an income tax cash cow (and GST cash cow considering their spending).

      Typical left ideology, persecute the rich while ensuring the lower class vote.

      • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 10:53 am

        “So, idealogically, the burden of the income tax revenue take should be shouldered by “those who can afford it’.”

        Not ideologically, pragmatically. An ideological response might be to say that it is only fair that the burden should fall on those who can’t afford to pay it.

      • Clarke 12.1.2
        18 May 2010 at 11:34 am

        Just to make the obvious point, paying 38% of your income over $70K whilst enjoying all the advantages of a stable Western democracy in possibly the best country on Earth isn’t exactly “persecution”, Jared.

      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.3
        18 May 2010 at 1:09 pm

        …who now essentially pay zero or very little tax,…

        And they still can’t afford to live.

    • J J 12.2
      18 May 2010 at 9:48 am

      What makes you think the tax changes will result in rich people paying less tax than the poor? If you do not believe this to be the case, your initial statement is purposeless.

      • Jared 12.2.1
        18 May 2010 at 9:57 am

        I didn’t say rich people would pay less tax than the poor, nor did I knowingly imply it. What I did say was that the higher income individuals shouldn’t be looked at merely as a cash cow for income tax revenue, but valued citizens. The state for the last 9 years has looked down on them, constantly criticising them, yet ignoring the income tax they provide.
        Now a political party, elected assumedly by higher income individuals on a promise of tax cuts is providing tax cuts. But, because those on a higher income benefit, its inheirently wrong.

        • Pascal's bookie 12.2.1.1
          18 May 2010 at 10:31 am

          “Now a political party, elected assumedly by higher income individuals on a promise of tax cuts of north of fifty dollars a week for the average age earner is providing tax cuts for the wealthy. But, because those on a higher income benefit, its inheirently wrong.”

          Fixed.

        • J J 12.2.1.2
          18 May 2010 at 6:47 pm

          was replying to Sookie’s post

    • Cactus Kate 12.3
      18 May 2010 at 9:00 pm

      “like most university educated people in their early 30’s, I am not earning 70K”

      And why aren’t you? because if you are in your early 30’s with a University education and not earning 70k then I have to ask the question, why did you waste your money on the University education?

      • Salsy 12.3.1
        18 May 2010 at 11:17 pm

        Are you joking? We didnt all study economics..

      • Marty G 12.3.2
        18 May 2010 at 11:49 pm

        Nurses and teachers are uni educated and not earning over 70K (except a few senior ones).

        what about someone who took time out of work for raising kids? What about someone who took a non-high paying profession because they believe in it? What about the fact that bugger all jobs pay over 70K?

      • HitchensFan 12.3.3
        19 May 2010 at 9:11 am

        and there we have it again. They live in an unreal world, rightwingers.

      • Nee 12.3.4
        20 May 2010 at 10:38 am

        really? Maybe some people aren’t in it for the money Kate? Maybe some get educated to help others or for the sake of education itself. Did you only go to uni to make money? Really?Maybe for some it is not about the money?Maybe vote ACT.Maybe move to east Auckland and look out over the ridge to GI stroke your blue and yellow feathers and bask in your assumed superiority at their expense.

  13. Gooner 13
    18 May 2010 at 9:24 am

    Sorry to point out the obvious, but Goff barely registers as preferred PM. If Labour wants any chance in 2011 that needs to change, and pronto. We all know, pointing out the obvious, that MMP elections have become very presidential in nature and if Goff is @ 7% the Left cannot win the election.

    And to expand on mickey’s comment, anybody remember Helen Clark promising NZ would move up the OECD rankings, and how Labour would be “very careful guardians of taxpayers money” and how she opposed removing the ability to smack your children as it was “against human nature”?

    All politicians make bold statements that come back to bite them. It’s better to under-promise and over-deliver.

    • Tom 13.1
      18 May 2010 at 10:01 am

      Good point. Key and Hide have most certainly met your test over the super city. They under promised and over delivered on their corporatisation and privatisation agenda. On the other hand, some may see it as just plain old fashioned lying.

    • Akldnut 13.2
      18 May 2010 at 7:10 pm

      Goober – It’s better to under-promise and over-deliver.

      What reality are you living in?

      Nact Motto “It’s better to over-promise and under-deliver.”

      There fixed for ya!

  14. 350ppm 14
    18 May 2010 at 10:15 am

    Who’s jealous of the super wealthy? Suspicious is the word. If they didn’t get rich just plain ripping people off (e.g. bankers, investment company execs), they did it at the expense of the environment, and externalised the costs to the rest of us.

    • Cactus Kate 14.1
      18 May 2010 at 9:02 pm

      Which means if he or she is your boss you are profiting from that ripping off, rorting of the environment and beating up the downtrodden. How many workers are giving their salaries back for aiding and abetting such an owner? Answer – none.

      • The Voice of Reason 14.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 9:18 pm

        Wages and salaries are not profits, Kate. They are an exchange of time, skills and labour for a set amount of money. Not the same thing at all. And for what its worth, Finsec have campaigned on behalf of their members against bank policy to upsell loans to people who can’t afford them. Even if that meant missing out on bonuses.

      • Marty G 14.1.2
        18 May 2010 at 9:35 pm

        strong unions protect the environment. in Sydney the builders’ union (used to?) refuse to work on projects that would be environmentally or socially destructive – that meant giving up wages

      • Nee 14.1.3
        20 May 2010 at 10:53 am

        Um Ms Cactus, and you certainly are prickly aren’t you- your premise is false. You are assuming there are options for everyone about where they work. Be realistic if a said worker asked their company to be accountable to Fair Trade and fair work practices and real environmental accountability how long would they last in the said company? About 5 minutes! Business models are generally about profit at all costs no matter what the true costs to people and the environment are – aren’t they Kate? And some people work where they work because it is a job and the need the money which comes first so they can support their family etc.
        A person can still work for said company but make personal choices outside of that job supporting the causes they want. Some people don’t have the luxury of absolutism.
        Some people live in a world, where what they believe and what they have to do to survive are sometimes mediated processes.

  15. RedLogix 15
    18 May 2010 at 10:24 am

    Well allow me to report in realtime that Key’s comment has gone down like the proverbial cup of cold sick at this morning’s smoko in my workplace.

  16. Santi 16
    18 May 2010 at 10:32 am

    Redlogix said:” at this morning’s smoko in my workplace.”

    CTU or EPMU headquarters?

    • RedLogix 16.1
      18 May 2010 at 10:40 am

      Neither.

      Incidentally in the last three months alone I’ve added a documented $16m worth of savings for the major utility supplier I work for. That’s on top of the $350k pa that I’ve added over the last four years.

      Wearing my other hat, in the last ten years I’ve provided new homes,at a reasonable price and to high standard of warmth and comfort for six families.

      I’m willing to bet that’s much more than you will achieve in your whole miserable lifetime santi.

      • I dreamed a dream 16.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 11:03 am

        “I’m willing to bet that’s much more than you will achieve in your whole miserable lifetime santi.”

        Good one, RedLogix! And I am sure there are many people here who support the Left or Centre-Left who are not part of the stereotypes that people like Santi like to propagate.

        • HitchensFan 16.1.1.1
          18 May 2010 at 12:59 pm

          Yep! I’m one of ’em….so f*ck off with your stereotypes SantiBar. And I know plenty of people like myself who weren’t dumb or shortsighted or selfish enough to vote for this bunch of elitist bastards

        • Bored 16.1.1.2
          18 May 2010 at 3:18 pm

          I’m with you Red, forever hearing carping crap from “rightists” who are aspirational employees who dont know the meaning of having to make the money or the attendant worry and risk. I suspect most of them sit in corporate jobs where they pretend to be capitalists whilst actually being deluded functionary serfs.

          As a self proclaimed hard core anarchic leftist environmetal b****d I can also say I know more about the right than these delusional dill brains because I own and run businesses, employ workers, make profits and take risks etc.

      • Maynard J 16.1.2
        18 May 2010 at 12:58 pm

        I love how the left is ‘out of touch’, but if Key says that we shouldn’t be jealous of our betters, the only people who might possibly take offence are people at union HQs.

        I wouldn’t accuse santi of hanging round too many fancy golf and country clubs though, for obvious reasons.

        • Bill 16.1.2.1
          18 May 2010 at 1:04 pm

          I’m not jealous of my betters though Maynard. Don’t have any. And I’m saying that from a position of humility…unlike those who assume themselves to be superior…who can fuck right off up their own arses.

  17. Bright Red 17
    18 May 2010 at 10:32 am

    A feudal lord was wealthy on the back of the peasants, not through their own genius and hard work but because of the position they occupied in an inequal society.

    Replace lord with capitalist and peasant with worker and you have the capitalist economy.

    • Draco T Bastard 17.1
      18 May 2010 at 1:17 pm

      And that in-equal social-economic system goes all the way back to ancient Egypt.

      • Doug 17.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 4:32 pm

        Actually further back to the start of agriculture around 8,000 – 10,000 BCE.

        The development of agriculture resulted in a productive surplus which in turn allowed for specialisation of roles (creation of permanent rulers, priesthoods and workers).

        Interesting fact most people were less well off in agricultural societies than in the previous hunter gathering societies, as demonstrated by the examinisation health of human remains. Indicating that with the agricultural revolution inequalities increased. On the other hand agriculture resulted in the first population boom.

        • Puddleglum 17.1.1.1
          18 May 2010 at 9:39 pm

          At last, someone who knows about ‘the lie that dares all too often to speak its name’ (i.e., that agricultural settlement and subsequent developments have been progressively good for human health and well-being).

          As anthropologist Mark Cohen put it, “We talk of twentieth-century increases in stature (humans getting taller) as proof of improving human nutrition, yet prehistoric hunting and gathering populations were often as tall if not taller than the populations that replaced them, and the predominant trend in human stature since early pre-history has been downward. (The people of Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to whom we usually compare ourselves with pride are, in fact, among the shortest people who ever lived.) Eclectic diets of fresh vegetable foods with some meat apparently assure hunting and gathering populations a good balance of vitamins and minerals, and, in fact, such groups generally have access to relatively large amounts of meat and protein, rivaling consumption in the affluent United States and exceeding modern Third World averages by a large margin.”

          Basically, agriculture only provided one thing for the human diet – increased amounts of carbohydrates within a bland mono-cultural diet. This enabled an increase in the quantity of human life (i.e., the number of people) but, unsurprisingly, decrements in its general quality.

          Up until the late nineteenth century prehistoric health, stature, life expectancy and (interestingly) democratic forms of governance equalled and usually surpassed those experienced by all but the vanishingly small elite throughout the world (and in many cases surpassed those as well). Only agitation for public provision of sanitation, health, welfare, etc. enabled a minority in the ‘civilised’ world to improve upon this over the last century or so.

          Even so, it is arguable whether democratic forms in the most democratic states today are within cooee (sp?) of typical hunter gatherer democracy (both prehistoric hunter gatherers and extant hunter gatherer peoples). The lesson is pretty obvious – if we want a democratic society we’d be advised to pursue flatter social structures not flatter tax rates.

  18. Bill 18
    18 May 2010 at 10:45 am

    John boy’s correct that the functions performed by some people are arguably more crucial than the functions performed by others. But crucial to what and whom? Society? The economy? The privileged? The workers?

    The functions that we require to be carried out, both desirable and undesirable; both empowering and disempowering can be maintained and their execution enhanced by abolishing the idea of demarcated one person/one position in our job environments.

    Why not have a number of people engaged in empowering functions and balance it by having them also engage in ( traditionally) disempowered but necessary functions….ie, those who engage in the cruisier functions of the workplace get to clean the toilets too. Why not organise ourselves so that ‘everyone is mucking in’ and nobody gets to be too up themselves to the point they see themselves as ‘better’ human beings just because of the job position they occupy and then somehow imagining that they are deserving of inordinate rewards.

    Also solves the tax disparities as wage/salary levels converge thanks to the broadly similar across the board job mix.

  19. freedom 19
    18 May 2010 at 11:40 am

    perhaps a copy of Orwell’s ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’ should be left on Key’s bedside table.
    Also a dictionary to help him with the tough words like feudalism, corruption, and elitism

  20. marsman 20
    18 May 2010 at 11:40 am

    The rich pay,or should pay,the lion’s share of taxes because they earn the lion’s share of incomes. Wonder what the percentages are?

    • Bill 20.1
      18 May 2010 at 11:44 am

      “…because they earn the lion’s share of incomes.”

      Hmm. They earn those incomes do they? You sure?

      • jcuknz 20.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 12:35 pm

        That is foolish working class crap …. of course most of them earn their wages/ salary/income .. same as most workers are not wankers either. You don’t have to wield a hammer to be a worker, some use their brains, and that is not to say you are not using your brain as you wield the hammer.

        • Kim 20.1.1.1
          20 May 2010 at 11:50 am

          “You don’t have to wield a hammer to be a worker, some use their brains, and that is not to say you are not using your brain as you wield the hammer.”

          Then why say it Jcuknz?

  21. marsman 21
    18 May 2010 at 11:46 am

    ..correction -they receive the lion’s share.

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    18 May 2010 at 11:59 am

    We need the rich as much as we need a hole in the head. They don’t create wealth and they’re not the source of wealth. They’ve just managed to persuade us to allow them control of the wealth and it’s costing us more than we can afford.

    • jcuknz 22.1
      18 May 2010 at 12:46 pm

      I agree that the disconnect is serious but not with the idea that we do not need leaders in industry. The problem is that we have permited them to earn disproportionate levels of income. But the answer is not to punatively tax them. The current system is flawed but it is well worth the effort to see if an alternative view will work …. we can always vote them out but hopefully after a reasonable term so it is fact rather than foolish ideology at play. If the rich do spend the increase on Rolls instead of investing at least the Rolls workers benefit.

      • Draco T Bastard 22.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 1:21 pm

        We don’t need leaders in industry either. What we need is for the people with ideas to have resources made available to them. Capitalism restricts those resources so that the minority benefit from the ideas and work of others.

        • Bored 22.1.1.1
          18 May 2010 at 3:26 pm

          Individual leadership is highly overated in our current system, we pay idiots like Reynolds and Gattung to “lead” corporate monopolies as hierachical feifdoms. Then we have MSM cheerleaders priase their failed efforts, whilst the ovine class of corporate managers follow uncritically.

          True leadership comes from broad input consensus within the team OR the individual who has the balls and ability to contradict the consensus with an alternative vision. Dont see a lot of that about do you?

          • Graham 22.1.1.1.1
            18 May 2010 at 7:23 pm

            Bollocks.

            You guys are so full of envy, masquerading as self-righteous anger, it’s unbelieveable.

            You need leaders. Period. End of story. If nobody leads, nothing new happens. The leaders are those people who take the ideas and MAKE them happen.

            Quell the seething anger and try looking into reality for a change. “True leadership comes from broad input consensus within the team”? Bullshit. For starters, what are they “inputting” into? Usually something suggested by someone who LEADS the discussion/debate/meeting/whatever.

            I can’t write anymore, I can feel my blood pressure pulsing and trying to pop my eyeballs out of my skull.

            • Bored 22.1.1.1.1.1
              18 May 2010 at 7:38 pm

              So who is angry and deluded? Pop your eyeballs, you might see reality for a change.

              PS I dont do envy either, quite capable of making enough happen for myself as opposed to ovine types like yourself who need a “leader”..pathetic.

            • Draco T Bastard 22.1.1.1.1.2
              18 May 2010 at 10:17 pm

              For starters, what are they “inputting’ into?

              At a guess I’d say it was the group.

              The leaders are those people who take the ideas and MAKE them happen.

              So, definitely not the capitalists as they act to prevent the ideas becoming real (unless they get the bulk of the wealth created of course).

            • zonk 22.1.1.1.1.3
              19 May 2010 at 11:15 am

              Quick lads- over the top!

              We’ve still got a warehouse of canon shells to sell!

    • burt 22.2
      18 May 2010 at 1:12 pm

      Yes the economy would be perfect for getting Labour elected if everyone was on a benefit and the rich had been sent packing.

      • Bright Red 22.2.1
        18 May 2010 at 1:35 pm

        How much do you have to hit your head against a wall to get this dumb, burt?

        Under Labour, the numbers on benefits fell and there was a big brain-inflow. People with high qualifications chose to come to NZ. Most of our emigrants are relatively low-skill people looking for better pay in Aussie.

      • burt 22.2.2
        18 May 2010 at 3:06 pm

        Yes of course, many highly qualified people came home wanting lower wages and the opportunity to be denigrated for being rich pricks. Not satisfied with earning twice as much as they could in NZ they rushed home to be worse off ..

        Can you provide a link to support your re-write of history that we had a big brain gain under Labour ?

        • Bright Red 22.2.2.1
          18 May 2010 at 3:18 pm

          interestingly, the ‘brain drain’ myth was actually debunked about 10 years ago with papers that show that NZ imports at least as highly qualified people as it exports.

          http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2001/01-22

          Think about doctors and nurses. We lose some overseas, we get more from overseas

          • jcuknz 22.2.2.1.1
            19 May 2010 at 8:36 am

            Doctors and Nurses may be a special class because being in the health industry they value quality of life over financial rewards. The better ethical aspect of life in NZ as opposed to the overseas rat-race. The shame is that we drive our graduates overseas to repay their loans rather than to broaden their appreciation of why NZ is ‘God’s own country’.

        • Nee 22.2.2.2
          20 May 2010 at 10:57 am

          Can you prove we are having a brain gain under National?

      • Nee 22.2.3
        20 May 2010 at 7:14 pm

        Burt what actually is a “perfect” economy? I’m curious.

  23. Policy Parrot 23
    18 May 2010 at 12:05 pm

    This isn’t about jealousy at all. This is about a fundamental disconnect between Key and National and most of the rest of the country. Most taxpayers are comfortable with a high top rate of tax, perhaps not so comfortable with it extending below $100,000 however. Remember, they voted for it in 1999 by 60-40%. All other developed countries, including Australia have this progressive phenomenon.

    No, this is simply about politicians troughing, and voting themselves, and their political sponsors tax cuts. The right don’t give a shit about the public’s attitude towards politicians, as such a craven perception suits their political purposes – i.e. pressure for small government.

    Remember, the rich pricks get three tax cuts, not just one, and instead of punishing tax evaders, the government simply gives in to them. What ever happened to north of $50 per week for everyone?

  24. Anita 24
    18 May 2010 at 12:39 pm

    “all the rest of us” – it almost sounds like Key was trying to disguise the fact he’s one of “those people” and appear to be a … “hard working New Zealander”? … like the majority of voters.

    • jcuknz 24.1
      18 May 2010 at 12:51 pm

      I’d say he works harder than most, just as Helen did, so he is and she was not like most ‘hard working kiwis’ so you are right there..

      • Bright Red 24.1.1
        18 May 2010 at 3:20 pm

        I haven’t seen any evidence he does any work. The only times I see him he’s telling racist jokes, playing soldier boy and smiling and waving.

        • big bruv 24.1.1.1
          18 May 2010 at 9:40 pm

          “I haven’t seen any evidence he does any work

          Then you’re an idiot.

      • Pete 24.1.2
        18 May 2010 at 3:41 pm

        “I’d say he works harder than most”

        I don’t disagree jcuknz, he does work hard – as is wont of his role. But how do we determine ‘hard work’? Does John’s ‘hard work’ mean that he deserves six or seven times as much (or whatever it is) as those on the minimum wage who look after our elderly, or five or six times as much as the teachers who help shape the minds of our kids, or however much more it is for those who collect our rubbish, or collect the burger and fries we order?

        ‘Hard work’ is pretty comparable across industries and roles (all things being equal – i.e individual application etc), so why shouldn’t we compare apples with apples (effort with effort) and reward all ‘workers’ for the effort they put in, not for the rewards those in power give to those in power. If they don’t perform (or, say, send jobs offshore, or run-down services_ why don’t we NOT reward them with a massive salary (and, often, bonus).

        Just sayin’.

        • jcuknz 24.1.2.1
          20 May 2010 at 8:26 am

          There are other parameters to salary than how ‘hard’ you work such as security of your place in your work situation. Personally I appreciated the ‘job for life’ security of the public service after several years of working on commission in the private sector. It is a pity that that seems to no longer with us but is a result of well meaning people expanding the service beyond what is reasonable and the country can cope with. I have a deep and nagging fear for my son as he negotiates his position both here and overseas on the basis of his skills …. he deserves and gets far more than I ever did and it is justified because of both his skills and short term security of the positions he holds. I am sure there are other arguments such as the insecurity of John Key’s position which relies on the whim of public who rarely think very deeply, or have the knowledge to think carefully, to judge by comments both here and on its opposite Kiwiblog. I don’t claim to have any better knowledge but I try not show myself up as an idiot.

  25. Alexandra 25
    18 May 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Key has said (again) that the cuts to the top rate is an incentive for the rich to stop evading tax, because half of those on the top rate are doing just that. A government that is obsessed with its get tough image sees fit to reward the rich, and themselves for tax evasion. Surely the public can see this for what it is. I just cant imagine anyone being sucked in by Keys rational, its far too obscene.

  26. Santi 26
    18 May 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Key is a fool, a liar and a sell out. If only the Opposition would have a viable candidate. Unfortunately, Goff is even worse!

  27. Irascible 27
    18 May 2010 at 2:59 pm

    This lot of NACT policy fulfillment – the promised tax-cuts – are not the “block of cheese” cut but amount to little more than a single chewing gum tablet cut.
    Now wait till Hide gets Key and his mates into the trough that will be the privatisation of Auckland’s assets.

    • Cactus Kate 27.1
      18 May 2010 at 9:06 pm

      Yes and the best part is the Maori Party will vote for it all in exchange for their BMW’s.

      • jcuknz 27.1.1
        20 May 2010 at 3:47 pm

        The hypocracy of the average person going on at the tax avoidance of the rich when I’d suggest that most have evaded tax at least once in their life if not regularly. Note the different terms used.

      • Nee 27.1.2
        20 May 2010 at 7:27 pm

        No they will vote for it because your beloved right wing brothers in arms did a deal with them they want to continue to get their policy at least in play so are sticking to the deal.i’d call that clever politics.While it seems you have an issue with Maori driving nice cars – why is that?

  28. Bored 28
    18 May 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Interesting comments about the obscenity of the rich evading tax through the institutional bias the system has towards them. I was listening to John Ralston Saul on tax and he mentioned how the tax burden was placed on the less well off through consumption based taxes e.g. GST. In his opinion this was a doubly bad thing because:
    • It was hellishly inefficient and inflationary as you had to collect lots of little amounts on every transaction, and administer each multiple times as opposed to taxing at source in one hit.
    • It cost small business in particular too much time to administer.
    • The taxman could collect far more with far less effort by taxing at source.
    Time to ditch GST!!!!!!!!!

    • uke 28.1
      18 May 2010 at 3:52 pm

      Yeay!!!

      (If Roger Douglas designed it, we’ve got to take a fairly sceptical view anyway.)

      • jcuknz 28.1.1
        19 May 2010 at 8:46 am

        “Since Sir Roger designed it”, actually I think the truth is that Treasury did that and he had the brains to implement it. Treasury … all those sensible hard working kiwis that Labour is so keen on. Just as it was the kiwis who sorted out the rort that NZ Rail used to be when Sir Roger told them the government wasn’t going to give them the extra money they were asking for and had asked for time and time again in previous years, to which previous governments had just rolled over..

  29. kerry 29
    18 May 2010 at 3:36 pm

    I didnt realise there were so many poor right wingers out there…..just desperate for a tax cut!

    Personally if you are earning over hundred grand a year and cant make ends meet I would look at contacting a budget advisor.

    poor old john boy seems to confuse jealousy with fairness…….the wanker!

  30. pollywog 30
    18 May 2010 at 4:24 pm

    yeah yeah, i know what Keys been saying all along, but what is Goff and Labour saying about the high income taxcut as virtual payrise for the rich these days ?

    not a fucking thing cos they’re just gonna pocket the change and stop pretending they dont fall into the ‘rich prick’ bracket. They haven’t got a righteous leg to stand on.

    Goff just paid token lipservice at the start but is now silently laughing all the way to the bank.

    true or false ?

  31. Alexandra 31
    18 May 2010 at 5:06 pm

    Cutting the top tax rate is nat/act policy not labours. True, Goff stands to gain but the question that should be asked is whether he would cut the top tax if Labour was in government. Given Labour is saying they will put the top rate back up and applying your test, the answer has to be …false.

  32. Brett Dale 32
    18 May 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Im waiting for the budgeting until i comment, otherwise you end up like some werido on Faux News. (except for Shep)

  33. Alexandra 33
    18 May 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Thats true Brett, you should wait

  34. Draco T Bastard 34
    18 May 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Well, Campbell Live just had a bit on about Hotchins and his 43k/month holiday. Proof positive that we just can’t afford the rich. They lose us billions of dollars every year and keep it all themselves.

  35. zonk 35
    18 May 2010 at 7:28 pm

    What about the hard working and underpaid New Zealanders who do essential jobs and are about to be kicked in the guts by these changes?

  36. logie97 36
    18 May 2010 at 7:49 pm

    It’s not about envy Mr Key – it’s about fairness.

    And for starters, here’s how you could make GST more equitable, John.
    Just levy it once – on the wholesale price.

    Oops that would expose the excessive mark-ups some retailers put on the average P.A.Y.E. punter.
    But it would also mean that we all paid the same amount of GST on any one item.

    Why do I say that? Because the rich generally never buy retail. Neither do the self employed, for that matter.

  37. aj 37
    18 May 2010 at 8:37 pm

    The National government f’ckd up in the 90’s with the leaky home result. {Listen to Plunket vs Banks on Natrad just after 8am today, good entertainment}
    It occurred to me that a years worth of tax cuts for the already weathly would go a long way to redressing this wrong.

  38. big bruv 38
    18 May 2010 at 9:36 pm

    Jealousy

    The foundation stone of all left wing political parties.

    You want the rewards without the sacrifice or the hard work, suck it up lads, it is time that the real tax payers got to keep some more of their own money, many of us have had enough of paying for Labour’s election promises and seeing our hard earned dollars being wasted on welfare parasites and DPB bludgers.

    While the tax rates should be lowered even further this is at least a start, next in line should be the elimination of so many useless government departments, then an all out attack on the social welfare system, if we do that then those who do want to better themselves will have a real chance of doing so, as for the parasites, well though luck for them, we can no longer afford to be ripped off by these low life.

    Some might call it tough love, I prefer to call it reality, it is long overdue.

  39. Nick 39
    18 May 2010 at 11:18 pm

    IrishBill, do you consider people earning $70,000, with a mortgage and a couple of kids, rich?

    Why does this blog like pulling successful people down so much? I am on a low income at the moment but certainly have aspirations to make a lot of money eventually. You have to wonder about the self-esteem and occupations of many of the contributors on the blog, as all you seem content to do is tear down anyone even moderately successsful.

    Very sad. The class warfare and politics of envy of this blog, and your funders the Labour Party, is the main reason we have the worst brain drain in the OECD.

    • Marty G 39.1
      18 May 2010 at 11:51 pm

      Nick. A person earning $70,000 doesn’t get a tax cut when the 38% rate is reduced to 33%. It applies only to income over $70K.

      And even if you’re on 100K, which is rich, it’s over 3 times the median income, you’re not getting much of a tax cut from this. The people getting the real tax cuts are the ones on hundreds of thousands, millions.

    • Marty G 39.2
      18 May 2010 at 11:54 pm

      Our brain drain was never worst in the OECD, that was just a Key line (find me the authoritative source) and we don’t get any money from Labour.

      And don’t think that just because people oppose tax cuts for the well-off they aren’t well-off themselves. I’ll bet Irish has lost more money on the horses than you’ll ever see my boy.

    • logie97 39.3
      18 May 2010 at 11:57 pm

      Amazing how the intolerant, jackboot sympathisers like Big Bruv and Nick commenting on this blog measure success in dollar terms.

      Depending on the discussion, they would also class certain politicians as bludgers and wasters – I have often read them bemoaning the fact that the left members of parliament can hardly muster one successful businessman, yet in dollar terms they could clearly be classified as successful.

      Just one day the people, those providing the labour and skills to keep the rich and powerful in the lifestyle they believe they are entitled to, might withdraw their labour en-mass – then we might see the true worth of money and perhaps a changing of the guard…

    • Daveosaurus 39.4
      19 May 2010 at 1:07 pm

      If anyone earning $70,000 per annum is finding it difficult to make ends meet they’re in urgent need of budget advice. I’m sure anyone on the dole, or on super, or on the DPB, would be able to show them hundreds of ways to cut down on unnecessary expenditure.

      Of course, if National puts up GST tomorrow, as is predicted, just about everything will cost 2% more, which probably won’t help anybody. Here’s three words for you: High Tax National. Get used to them, because if GST goes up tomorrow, you’ll be hearing them a lot over the next eighteen months.

      • jcuknz 39.4.1
        20 May 2010 at 8:39 am

        While I agree that it is a silly position to be in … hard up on $70T …. the problem is the position you have to maintain to earn $70T and the foolish expectations forced on people by their fellows in advertising and workmates. Charles Dicken had another part of it with his character talking about spending 19/6 or 20/6 when on an income of 20/-.

  40. felix 40
    19 May 2010 at 12:02 am

    Two questions for you regular bloke/blokette righties, first time National voters, decent people working hard for your $50 – $70K and raising your families and waiting patiently for a bit of acknowledgment:

    1. When the tax cuts are announced and you find out how much you’re really getting (after all this faffing around and nanny-state nonsense that you thought we were getting rid of), what do you reckon Johnny’s excuse will be this time?

    Will it be a) “He meant North of 50 cents a week” ?

    or will it be b) “He meant North of $50 a year” ?

    2. Sounds like a ton of money going into Kiwirail, eh? As that other Rotten Johnny famously sneered, “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”

  41. Sanctuary 41
    19 May 2010 at 9:06 am

    He didn’t say “north of $50” and his press secretary has rung and warned every reporter who has mis-represented him.

    • freedom 41.1
      19 May 2010 at 9:42 am

      here is one version of the reported time he said it, from Stuff
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/449057
      and from the Herald
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10511339
      and the more honest article off Scoop
      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0805/S00337.htm

      • MikeG 41.1.1
        19 May 2010 at 10:06 am

        What you’re forgetting is that if you are facing south, then going north is going backwards. We just assumed that he was facing north when he made the statement.

    • Pascal's bookie 41.2
      19 May 2010 at 9:45 am

      It’s aspirational.

      This Prime Minister refuses to accept that just because NZ is in the southern hemisphere that that means we are at the bottom. That sort of defeatist thinking won’t get us anywhere.

      He has instructed Terramap to start printing the new, right way up, maps that will hopefully remove the unfortunate confusion some have had around these comments.

    • Armchair Critic 41.3
      19 May 2010 at 9:53 am

      Did he not say it, or did he say it but not mean it? Either way I don’t recall much of an effort to correct it.
      What was it he cancelled again?

      • jcuknz 41.3.1
        20 May 2010 at 8:42 am

        I didn’t hear it so it doesn’t bother me what he said 🙂

        • Marty G 41.3.1.1
          20 May 2010 at 8:47 am

          high standards. kind of like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying ‘la la can’t hear you’

          • jcuknz 41.3.1.1.1
            20 May 2010 at 3:57 pm

            No just waiting for tomorrow so I can read it in the paper, though it will not unduely affect me because my income is below the ‘middle tax rate’ and we have been promised tax cuts to help bear the difference in GST. One of the good things about PAYE that the poor self employed and capitalists don’t get … the ability to adjust tax rates immediately for the workers.

  42. Justin Ryan 42
    19 May 2010 at 3:20 pm

    It always amazes me the comments that arise when the Government mentions tax cuts and who will be affected. Irrespective of what one earns and what tax one pays, those who earn more already pay more tax than those who earn less, yet consume resources at the same level, for example:

    Assume a flat tax rate of 20% on personal income.

    Helen Clark earns $100,000 so pays $20,000 in tax.
    Joe Bennett earns $30,000 so pays $6,000 in tax.

    Both use the same roads, hospitals, schools yet Helen is paying proportionally more than Joe anyway but is continuously getting bagged because ‘she is not paying her fair share’, well I think she is more than paying her fair share.

    • felix 42.1
      19 May 2010 at 8:01 pm

      That’s because we live in a society, Justin.

    • Daveosaurus 42.2
      19 May 2010 at 9:51 pm

      Your example also assumes that Clark does three and a third times as much work as Bennett. My observation of people earning annual wages similar to each of these figures indicate that this would be a very rare case.

    • Marty G 42.3
      20 May 2010 at 8:49 am

      Justin. Where does the money come from to pay for those roads, hospitals, schools, etc if you cut Clark’s tax? Do you put up tax on Bennett?

      National’s answer is yes.

      • jcuknz 42.3.1
        20 May 2010 at 4:04 pm

        Most of the tax paid by the lower paid goes back to them in government subsidies .. it is a damm fool roundabout keeping public servants in employment … the ‘power game’ of the nanny state which both major parties have subscribed to for decades. There is something to be said for ACT’s policy to reduce both benefits and tax at lower levels … though being human I’m not sure there might not be a fish hook in it for me.

Links to post