Comments on: Nats: Pay cuts for you, tax cuts for the rich

By: TomS

TomS — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:35:10 +0000

“…they [national} are supposed to be the party of businees but in the end they are just cheeseparing chisellers poring over their spreadsheets and looking for the places where they can cut costs…”

My God, I take it all back – National’s policies truly do reflect the priorities of the business elites of New Zealand.

By: Ben R

Ben R — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:48:18 +0000

“Coge. It’s a relative measure. Those who earn over $100,000 – definitely. $80,000 – mostly. $60,000 – possibly, depending on circumstances. Why do you ask?”

Tane, following on from Johannson’s article about ‘teaching reality’ surely it’s only fair that you define what you mean by rich. Simply saying “rich” seems to me to be risking what Johannson refers to as teaching illusion (p 112) where “phantom enemies or out-groups are externalised as impediments to achieving a harmonious or better society. Appeals are made to deep-seated prejudices; scapegoats are identified and held responsible for slow progress.”

Although, in terms of the main point of this thread I agree school support staff could do with a raise.

By: coge

coge — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:16:57 +0000

Tane, I’m interested in peoples definition of “The rich”, which seems to vary somewhat. Like you could have folk earning over 100K, yet are up to their eyeballs in unsecured debt. I would say they are poor. Then you have some who don’t “earn” anything at all, yet are asset millionares. They, by my definition, are well-off. My personal interpretation would include the factor of spare time, ie time spent not earning. And of course their overall asset base, which is not always easy to determine.

By: QoT

QoT — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:35:07 +0000

If I’m getting more money because I’m paying less tax, I don’t give a shag what the technical explanation is, it’s still a damn tax cut.

By: Stack

Stack — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:31:48 +0000

There is a sour bitterness about English these days. Maybe it’s frustrated ambition – we know what he thinks of Key. Or perhaps old Bill has just been too long in the “tranches”.

By: Tane

Tane — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:12:48 +0000

Coge. It’s a relative measure. Those who earn over $100,000 – definitely. $80,000 – mostly. $60,000 – possibly, depending on circumstances. Why do you ask?

Sean, I wrote this post. Do you have an actual point or are you just trolling?

By: sean

sean — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:09:54 +0000

Nothing to see here except another strawman from SP – surely you don’t need to make up stuff to fill space? aru remal….

By: randal

randal — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:06:01 +0000

burt none of that made any sense…try again

By: coge

coge — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:05:48 +0000

Tane, I don’t follow. How do you define “the rich”?

Thanks.

By: burt

burt — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:39:54 +0000

Also, $8m for this â€˜pay jolt’ …. Wasn’t more tax payers money than that allocated toward horse racing prize money. Priorities priorities – gotta keep the Vela’s happy eh Helen.

By: Steve Pierson

Steve Pierson — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:38:19 +0000

vidiot. It is true that they only adjust for inflation above 45K, below that, espcailly if you are only of the 50% if people with an income below $27K you are getting a real tax cut.
we ran a graph about it back in May.

By: Dom

Dom — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:37:55 +0000

What a great way to pull the shine off your tax cut announcement – tell us everything about it except what it is.

By the time their policy release comes around it will be like a stripper coming onto the stage naked – there will be literally nothing left to reveal.

By: randal

randal — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:34:57 +0000

they [national} are supposed to be the party of businees but in the end they are just cheeseparing chisellers poring over their spreadsheets and looking for the places where they can cut costs. none of them has ever done a days work in their lives but they have taken it upon themselves to create misery for those that do. really they are just a pack of scumbags in suits.

By: vidiot

vidiot — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:29:40 +0000

I don’t know why everyone refers to Cullen’s tax cuts as ‘tax cuts’, all they were are long overdue inflation adjustments to the tax brackets.

And after today’s blood bath, you really have to wonder how much more the NZ Super Fund has dropped. will it be another $1bn off the value of the fund. I have a feeling it will be.

Also, $8m for this ‘pay jolt’ why wasn’t it in this years budget, it’s peanuts, compared to what was dished out in May.

By: Steve Pierson

Steve Pierson — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:18:39 +0000

What a scumbag. But then he was part of a government that let the minimum wage fall in real terms and saw the incomes of the poorest 30% fall fall by more than 5% in real terms.