I never said the census data means nothing, I said that the basis of my claims was the data I got from Statistics NZ, which showed the median wage in the main centres was a bit over $40k.

I don’t think you ever asked my question, what’s the context of the table you linked to? The spreadsheet doesn’t actually describe the source of the data or anything else which explains what it is it could be, for example, horticulture industry only or any other limited data set.

I never said the census data means nothing, I said that the basis of my claims was the data I got from Statistics NZ, which showed the median wage in the main centres was a bit over $40k.

Finally, I stand behind my claim that $40,001 per year does not make you one of the wealthy, especially if you live in a main centre, especially if you have a family to feed.

Yes, it makes you ‘wealthier’ than someone on less money, but ‘wealthy’ means something else entirely and that was the term used to describe who the tax plan would benefit.

So once more for clarity, the statement “any future tax cuts will go exclusively to the wealthy” is false because $40,001 per year with a family, living in a main centre does not render you wealthy.

I never said someone earning $40K was rich.

to be honest im a bit Yawn about debating about the merits of flat tax (yuck)

Im still awfully confused madeleine as to why you think the census data means nothing. By the way when you use mean for income that skews the statistics and a stats course will quickly tell you median is a more appropriate measure of average income.

And Matthew/Madeleine (You both link to the same site so Im gonna lump you together)

“Madeliene states that 45?000 living in Auckland does not make you rich. You have not responded to this, you comment is only that the median income in Auckland is 28?000″

Ah, No… Madeleine stated:
“In the main centres the average wage is over $40k”

The census disagrees.

Finally: If you are so worried about those who struggle to survive on $45K, granted people may. Does your virtuous concern lend a hand to the 70% of income earners who earn less than $40K? And dont respond by calling me for the umpteenth time ‘Envious of the rich’ cos thats a crock and is just spin

Maybe they did, but I doubt it. It smells like a crappy libertarian piece of dishonesty to me. I suspect someone said that National is offering tax cuts that will mostly benefit high earners and these new lib’s with the same old arguments are bringing up 40k as a strawman.

Are National’s tax cuts going to mostly benefit those on 40k? If so then they’ve got a point. Somehow I doubt it though.

It’s the same BS that people use about Cullen’s ‘rich prick’ jibe, pretending that Cullen was talking about everyone in the top tax bracket, when he was just talking about Key. God what dishonest pieces of muck some people are.

They drag out these shamefully dishonest lines by the bucketful, argue that those lines are what their opponents really think, and when people fail to address one or other of the more ridiculous smears, use that omission to claim that ‘that proves it’, or that it is some sort of admission.

I don’t know who they think they’re fooling.

Can you provide the link to the page about those stats rather than just the spreadsheet? From the looks those numbers come from only part of society.

The Auckland Region Quarterly Review, for example, gives an average weekly income which works out to a much lower annual total than yours.

Hence, I put to you again that $40,001pa is not rich, and that many people earn in this tax bracket. The claim that the tax cuts “exclusively benefit the rich” is false.

Consider also Matthew’s point that wealth is determined not by mean earnings but by mean earnings relative to the cost of living. As such, when you factor in the cost of living in somewhere like Auckland would mean that people who live on $40,001 are not wealthy.

Further, there is also the fact that Working for Families treats people in this bracket as beneficiaries in need of assistance. Did Labour really give out benefits to the rich? Where were your howls of outrage?

Truly patronising isn’t it?

When you want to justify high taxes such people are rich.

When you want to justify high government spending they are poor.

Its almost as if one’s status of being rich or poor is determined not by ones actual ability to provide for oneself and ones family, but rather is conveniently defined and redefined in what ever way expands the state’s power over people’s lives and property.

Graeme Edgeler on publicaddress, I/S on No Right Turn and others have discussed this in more detail than I could.

L

L

Was the rumour going around true that it would take 75% to entrench the seats?

L

L