Written By: - Date published: 1:40 pm, October 8th, 2008 - 86 comments
Categories: national, tax -
Tags:
As predicted on The Standard, National has announced it would abolish the increases in the bottom threshold to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Here’s a break down of what would happen:
April 1 2009: Lift 33 cent thresold from $40K to $48K, reduce 39 cent rate to 38 cents.
April 1 2010: Lift 33 cent threshold from $48K to $50K, reduce 38 cent rate to 37 cents.
April 1 2011: Reduce 21 cent rate to 20 cents.
What wouldn’t happen – the parts of Labour’s tax cuts that would be replaced:
April 1 2010: Lift 21 cent threshold from $14K to $17.5K, lift 39 cent threshold from $70K to $75K. cancelled.
April 1 2011: Lift 21 cent threshold from $17.5K to $20K, lift 39 cent threshold from $75K to $80K.
So, where does this leave you? Here’s the difference in National and Labour’s tax cuts across income levels (above 100K, National’s cuts keep rising, Labour’s plateau at 80K):
That’s right. Most people would recieve a smaller tax cut under National than they would under Labour. Because the bottom threshold would not be increased by National, Kiwis earning up to $44K, some 2.4 million people, would get the same or larger cut from Labour. But the ultra rich would recieve much more from National. Someone on $250K a year (a Leader of the Opposition, say) will get an additional tax cut of $3750 a year from National by 2011.
Now, National has announced a tax rebate – the Independent Earner Rebate – of $10 a week, rising to $15, for people earning between $24,000 and $50,000 who aren’t getting Working for Families, a benefit or Super. Take a look at the graph and you’ll see that will make up for the abolishment of the bottom threshold increases for those people but it will leave anyone on $14,000-$24,000 and anyone getting WfF, a benefit, or Super worse off.
So, tax cuts for the rich, nothing for most of us. Who could have seen that coming?
[in coming posts, we'll look at the fiscal consequences and how National would fund their cuts - as we predicted, it's by slashing Kiwisaver]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Anyway, all you have to do is compare marginal tax rates for people on $50,000 per annum in the 20+ OECD countries that have better GDP per capita purchasing power parity.
Y’know I would but I’d rather you provided some stats (or even a link!) ‘cos bro – I’m not gonna do the running for your forlorn (and retarded) argument…
So like, y’know… snap, snap!
Oh and if you’re talking 120 years ago I’m getting a good sense of where your retarded economic arguments come from…
Oh, you think old ideas are out of date then? You know Karl Marx was born in 1818. Guess he’s just irrelevant today. Or are you a Trotskyite? Sorry to be … picky.
Anyway, a quick Google shows PAYE tax rates on NZ $50,000 are 25% in the USA, about 18% for an unmarried person in Germany (but they appear to have income splitting), and 22% in Britain.
And in New Zealand – 33%.
milo: Apples with apples, please – NZ$50k doesn’t buy as much in any of those countries as in NZ. Compare a percentile of income.
Oh – and in federations, there are a bunch of different layers of taxation. NZ has no state or local taxes – only nationwide.
Come on, lift your game.
L
Oh yes – the US, and Britain those hotbeds of productivity, high saving rates and quality of life.
As for Germany – have you ever bought a glass of Coke there???
There are so many holes in your absurd direct correlation of income between nations that even a retard would feel shame to make such an argument. But you don’t, do you milo?
Oh and while we’re talking international standards you still haven;t answered my point about debt to gdp ratios (here’s a hint – they’re a much more internationally portable measure than your $50k drivel)
edit: no fair Lew! Find your own retarded rightie to make you feel clever – milo’s mine!
milo
“Calling these tax cuts to the rich is a giant con.”
just for your info 80% of National’s proposed lolly scramble will go to the top 30% of income earners.
the top 10% of income earners will receive 40% of the the lolly.
The giant con will be National convincing workers they would be better off voting for them!
Milo
“I take your point, but I still think $80k is too low. Bus Drivers are earning $50k – $60k, with overtime. And before anybody says it’s hard yakka doing the overtime, what kind of hard yakka do you think people on $120k do?”
Bus drivers earning $50K at $15 an hour (more than they get in Wellington) that is 70 hours a week – um are they ALLOWED to drive that long?
Calling these tax cuts to the rich is a giant con. The standard (heh) definition of a high net worth (or rich) individual, is somebody who has investable assets (outside the family home) of US$1,000,000.
So if my net worth is $999,999 I’m middle class?
If. You. Look. Over. Seas. You. Will. See. That. They. Do. Work.
There. All one syllable. Words.
Over has two syllables.
Match point to Sod.
Match point to Sod.
I’d like to thank my mom and pop and jesus and his mom and pop… ooh,ooh,ooh and my manager – he’s been a rock though all the tough times…
Hmn. I produce evidence. Others produce assertions. Okay, that’s clear then. G’night. You can flame me when I’m gone.
and god and milo and…
On the matter of this ‘independent earner rebate’ the tories want to introduce, thinking about it wouldn’t ‘Working for Singles’ been just as good a name? That essentially is what it is, though if it had been that would it be to quote Mr Key ‘communism by stealth?’
Steve – How about working for spinsters or working for bachelors.
How about angling for a demographic
I really want to echo Steve here if thats alright just in case anyone has any illusions about the generosity of National.
“There is no tax cut for anyone on an income below $40K under National’s plan for April 1 next year. And (.. under National) a person on 30K ends up paying more tax, unless they get the one of the very small number earning between 24K and 50K who can get the rebate”
Thanks for this Steve. I definitely will not be voting for National
Lew wouldn’t rates be our equivalent to a state or local tax ?
And aren’t both of the major parties in complete agreement that the only way to seriously lift wages (net or gross) in the longer term is to increase productivity.
hs re: rates.
No, Australians also pay rates to their local govt.
Where we have just central and local govt, they have central, local, and state govt, a whole extra layer with all of it’s own taxes and regulations in addition to the central and local levels.