Axe the tax

60 comments on “Axe the tax ”

• Comments are now closed

1. blinded by the right 1

   2 March 2010 at 12:14 pm

   They would be well advised to stay on message, and not sing on camera.
2. Brett Dale 2

   2 March 2010 at 12:31 pm

   Never thought I would see the labour party, be against a tax.
3. Bill 3

   2 March 2010 at 12:50 pm

   What is this ‘middle’ New Zealand when it’s at home?

   That a space inhabited by middle class or ‘normal’ New Zealanders? If so, what about the rest of us…either the working class ( assuming a class definition to the MNZ terminology) or (assuming a non-class definition) those of us tending more to the fringes or falling outside any mainstream perception of normality? Do we count in this cosy but dead little world view? Or is ‘middle’ NZ just another fluff term devoid of meaning beyond its implicit exclusivity…that being that only the boring, uninspired and uninspiring can live here in this little rut that runs around down here? Why use such an off putting piece of terminology?

   Is this where and what Labour is pitching itself to and as?

   Just asking.
   • Bright Red 3.1

     2 March 2010 at 1:56 pm

     I would take middle NZ to exclude the rich few.
4. Bearhunter 4

   2 March 2010 at 2:00 pm

   “I would take middle NZ to exclude the rich few.”

   And by definition the poorest as well, surely.
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     2 March 2010 at 2:05 pm

     Marty’s post says “middle New Zealand”.

     Labour’s site says middle and low income kiwis:
     “GST will hurt most middle to low income Kiwis.”

     “But the real sting will be in National’s proposed income tax changes. The winners will be the highest earners, the losers will be those on middle and low incomes.”

     That’s from the map page of their tour.

     Don’t confuse Marty’s post for Labour’s rhetoric.
5. tsmithfield 5

   2 March 2010 at 2:11 pm

   I understand that the taxpayer is paying for Labour’s spin offensive via the leaders budget. At least theres going to be a GST increase to help fund it.
   • Armchair Critic 5.1

     2 March 2010 at 2:16 pm

     Did you read the fourth paragraph of the post? This is legitimate spending, just like other leaders spending from their budgets.
     • tsmithfield 5.1.1

       2 March 2010 at 2:26 pm

       Where did I say it wasn’t legitimate?
       • Armchair Critic 5.1.1.1

         2 March 2010 at 2:40 pm

         At about the same place as you implied a link the rise in GST and the funding of the leaders budget. Got any proof to show a link between the two?
         Back to the bigger issue – got any thoughts on why the party that campaigned on tax cuts is now planning to raise taxes, again, having already cancelled tax cuts, should not be called out as a bunch of hypocrites? Or is that too much to ask?
         Really, saying “I never said that” is pretty weak. I would have been more impressed if you had pinged me for using the “National did it too, so it must be okay” argument.
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2

         2 March 2010 at 5:09 pm

         Ah, so you were just being stupid – again.
   • lprent 5.2

     2 March 2010 at 5:03 pm

     I understand that the taxpayer is paying for National’s spin offensive via the leaders budget. At least theres going to be a GST increase to help fund it.

     A one word change and it still makes sense…. Why do you dribble so…..
6. Santi 6

   2 March 2010 at 2:40 pm

   This must be a world first: the socialist NZ Labour Party campaigning against a tax!

   Comrade Helen Clark must be fuming in New York, while Michael Cullen, enjoying a very comfortable retirement, thank you, laughs all the way to the bank.
   • Clarke 6.1

     2 March 2010 at 3:07 pm

     Is that the best you can do? Is the National Party’s tax-the-poor-to-pay-the-rich money grab so indefensible that all you can come up with is a few tired jabs at “Comrade Helen”?
   • Macro 6.2

     2 March 2010 at 5:51 pm

     nah!!! nah!!! nah!!!
     Such a clever piece of logic Santi!
     My God! Your Brilliant!
7. PeteG 7

   2 March 2010 at 2:47 pm

   It may be “legitimate” spending, but is it cost effective? Or sensible? On a proposed policy only, where many of the details are still unknown?

   “Axe The Tax” isn’t even relevant to the campaign. I guess it sounds catchier than ‘Axe the bit of the tax that is a possible increase unless the counterbalancing tax and benefit adjustments are worthwhile changes” but it misses the mark.

   I’m despairing over Labour strategy, I would like to see them rebuild into a viable opposition party but I can’t see current antics appealing to many outside the already devoted.

   This campaign is another cringe.
8. tsmithfield 8

   2 March 2010 at 2:49 pm

   Armchair Critic “Back to the bigger issue got any thoughts on why the party that campaigned on tax cuts is now planning to raise taxes, again, having already cancelled tax cuts, should not be called out as a bunch of hypocrites?”

   As I understand it, it is a rearrangement of existing taxes, rather than a tax rise. I am sure National would love to cut taxes further. However, that would mean cutting services/benefits etc. I am sure you would not want that. Although, from my perspective, I would welcome it.

   However, readjusting the tax system so that more of the tax is consumption-based does give people a degree of choice as to whether they pay tax or not. According to my bank manager NZers spend at a rate of approx 1.06 x their income (using debt to fund the difference). Therefore, anything that encourages saving is a good thing.
   • lprent 8.1

     2 March 2010 at 3:24 pm

     I suspect the real question is on whom the costs of the tax changes falls most strongly. Note that the costs include things like rising rents because of property tax changes. Fiscally neutral does not mean that it won’t affect groups adversely.

     At present even through all of the really fuzzy signals that the government is throwing it looks like the government is pulling money from those who are struggling to stay afloat and giving it to those who are affluent.

     Yes it will probably increase savings. But at the cost of pushing more people down into the poverty traps without opportunities to get out.

     But this is a government that likes removing opportunities for people that don’t vote for them to compete with their affluent offspring. They’re killed second chance education with the ACE cuts. They removed second chance education with the training allowances for those on the DPB and probably elsewhere. They’re now talking about removing second chance access to tertiary education with the over-20’s exemption. Meanwhile they’re shoving copious amounts of tax money into private schools.

     The ‘rearrangement’ will just push people underwater and attempt to hold them there until they drown. Hardly useful for NZ in the long term.
9. Herodotus 9

   2 March 2010 at 3:18 pm

   Where is any indepth discussion on our ability to pay our way. In a few years time GSt will rise again income tax will increase and there will be some new taxes incurred by us by who ever is in power. How can we as acountry increase our govt debt, contigent liabilities such as Pensions, health care for the aging and a decreasing work force to become productive ebnough to cover yhese costs above. BUT no all we get from Lab is knee jeck reaction to Nat, and what was Nat knee jerk to Lab. There are some serious issues that no one wants to address, who will pay for our current position a debt based country and future reqirementas mentioned above. Lab magic bus tour (Part ii) is only arguing the symptoms to really fix is to understand the underlying cause and treat these. Lab may win votes for me currently thery donot posses the cure. Remember we consume 73% of our GDP. So we roughly export the same value as govt spending !!
   p.s. Marty Labours WFF and other benefits were not fair to all as well.
   • TightyRighty 9.1

     2 March 2010 at 5:04 pm

     herodotus, no way will WFF ever be acknowledged as discriminatory. It defies belief that anyone with children should not be getting more money at the expense of those who are single.
     • PeteG 9.1.1

       2 March 2010 at 5:16 pm

       I have paid my own way to bring my own kids up, and now I should pay for others to bring their kids up?

       I’m not against some family support but WFF takes it far too far and distorts the tax take and benefits far too much. If it can’t be scaled back then I might end up having to pay more for myself in retirement after paying taxes right though my working life.

       The more groups that get preferential treatment the more anomalies we will have.
       • TightyRighty 9.1.1.1

         2 March 2010 at 5:24 pm

         I know pete. while young, i feel you’re pain. don’t worry though. It’s fair that kids can have ipods while you will potentially freeze in you’re council one room flat. it’s already been defended here hundreds of times.
       • IrishBill 9.1.1.2

         2 March 2010 at 6:37 pm

         I’m picking that you’ve also had the benefit of free education, family support, award wages, subsidised housing (or the cheap housing market it created) and a whole lot of other things that today’s young parents couldn’t even dream of. And now you’ll be expecting to be looked after by them with superannuation set at 66% and free healthcare.

         While, for obvious reasons, I don’t buy into the blame-the-boomers narrative I’d still suggest that anyone who was born between 1946 and 1965 isn’t in a position to complain about how hard they had it compared with the kids/ young parents of today.
         • Herodotus 9.1.1.2.1

           2 March 2010 at 7:40 pm

           So how will all this posturing solve the real issues out there, and for my 2cents worth it will only get worse as our inability to face up to this growing debt and minimal real GDP growth. This is just the initial stages as we become aware that we cannot live as to that which we were acostomed to as we are spending more than we earn, and playing deck chairs with a tax system may fix a symptom for a short period byut the patient is becomming terminally ill.
           I could if I was shallow or a uni grad point out a Monty Python take on how hard it was in my time, but those who are in the know are already away of it !!
       • pollywog 9.1.1.3

         2 March 2010 at 11:03 pm

         “I have paid my own way to bring my own kids up, and now I should pay for others to bring their kids up?”

         yeah sure, it takes a village to raise a child…

         …i mean, wheres the love bro ?
10. Tiger Mountain 10

    2 March 2010 at 3:18 pm

    How illuminating, the usual suspects niggle away at “Axe the Tax’ and so far, totally ignore Marty G’s other post today on bourgeoning unemployment numbers.
    • blinded by the right 10.1

      2 March 2010 at 4:00 pm

      Lie, damn lies, and statistics. I avoid anything written by Marty G using statistical analysis, as I do anything by DPF using statistical analysis.

      Besides, who can be arsed thinking about numbers when there is a big red bus?
11. vto 11

    2 March 2010 at 5:24 pm

    how much of an average person’s (middle new zealand?) average income gets spent on GST each week you think?
    • Macro 11.1

      2 March 2010 at 5:55 pm

      After paying for rent/mortgage the remaining amount I would imagine. What’s your take?
    • Lanthanide 11.2

      2 March 2010 at 5:57 pm

      John Key’s live on-air guesstimate on Campbell Live was that a person earning $48k will spend $20k of it on GST-accruing expenses, or $384/week.
      • Herodotus 11.2.1

        2 March 2010 at 6:29 pm

        You would back out the cost of housing (Mortgage or rent) given in 07 the cost of housing was about $275/week or $14k p.a. add this $20k + PAYE tax $10k +4k????. Given thatthe housing cost is for a household. There is $4k unaccountable and the housing costs look a bit heavy. But he may be using a calc that rounds up to the $0,000. So with that it does work!!!
      • vto 11.2.2

        2 March 2010 at 7:41 pm

        So, say $400 per week on things that attract GST (leave aside housing even though it does in fact attract GST – or rather, the cost of housing would drop by the amount of GST if the developing and building of new houses no longer had GST applied).

        Of that $400 then $45 is GST. This is to rise by 20%. Hence that $45 will become $54, an increasse of $9.

        Or rather, people will have $9 less each week. That is how much the tax savings have to be then. Correcto?
        • Macro 11.2.2.1

          2 March 2010 at 8:32 pm

          $48,000 that OLD LIE! Anyone who believes that the majority of incomes fall in the $48k range is seriously mistaken!
          You asked for the “average” – there are 3 common measures of central tendency – mean, median, and mode as any Year 9 child will tell you. The one measure that least describes the highly skewed distribution of income – such as now exists in western countries – is mean; the one Key and Campbell choose to use – because it suits the lie that we are all doing quite nicely thank you very much.
          The mode – ie the most common wage – is around $20k.
          The median – the figure above and below which 50% of incomes lie – is around $30k.
          Both of these figures far more accurately describe the “average” NZ yearly income.
          A person on $48k is in the top 25% of incomes. NOT a representative figure at all.
          That families continue to make ends meet is due to the fact that now both partners work – if they possibly can.
          There is a fundamental idea in western economies that todays youth will earn more than their parents in real terms. That is a very false assumption to make. In fact, that principle died in the 1970’s – but the idea still persists to our detriment today.
          eg. off-shoring of jobs, “equal employment” opportunities for women, democratization of communist USSR, and the recent emergence of China, and India mean that wages and salaries for even highly qualified positions are under constant downward pressure from millions of equally qualified people globally.
          • Herodotus 11.2.2.1.1

            2 March 2010 at 9:15 pm

            Macro, income does not take into account gov assistance either, so you can be in a situation whereby you have greater disposable income than gross income, and there are many cases whereby this holds true for those in the lower income brackets. I can see a case where there is a strong possibilitiy that the majority can have the increase in GST compensated by a reduction in tax.
            Do not forget that some spend that attracts GST is from tourists that will be kept bythe govt without any requirement for an offset. If the Nats cannot compensate the majority in May then there will be hell to pay, until then is this not just scare mongering, with the potential of making LAb look like calling wolf when ther eis no wolf and loss credibility?
            • Macro 11.2.2.1.1.1

              2 March 2010 at 9:37 pm

              What I am particularly concerned about here is the CONTINUED MISREPRESENTATION by Key and the Media on what is the actual status of income distribution in this country which – since the 1980’s has been steadily becoming more and more inequitable. It is little more than a damned lie and needs to be challenged at every instance.

              Raising GST, by its very nature, is of major benefit to the small number of people who are very rich and who can hide their spending in companies and tax write offs. Furthermore they don’t spend anywhere near the same proportion of their income as those who are forced to spend all of theirs in order to survive.
              • Herodotus …

                2 March 2010 at 9:53 pm

                If you spent all you money with GST @ 12.5% and were compensated by the increase to 15% then you are no worse off.
                We do not have many very rich.. did you not read that 50 of the wealthest people earned below the 38% threashold?
                So if they can hide the spending @15% would they not be doing this now to hide $100k spending pre GSt they would only be rorting the system by $2.5k on top of the $12.5k already. So attack the cause notthe symptom
12. sdm 12

    2 March 2010 at 8:45 pm

    I posted this on Tumeke – the maths was a little hard but I wonder if you people might consider

    I know we dont have the details, but consider the follwing family weekly budget.

    Income – 900.00
    PAYE 178.41.
    NETT 721.59

    SAY 720.00

    Lets say they spend it as follows

    Rent – 350
    Expenses – 270
    Debt servicing – 50
    Savings 50.

    So they only pay GST on the 270 – $30.

    So their total tax bill is $178.41 + 30 = 208.41.

    Lets say the GST was to go up to 15%.

    Thus the $270 (240 nett) would become $276.00 ($240 + 15%). So the increase in GST makes these people $6 a week worse off.

    But if you offset that by a tax cut of say 2.5% across the brackets, then my calucations which could be wrong would be that the PAYE would reduce from $178.41 to $155.92 (or lets just say a $22.50 a week saving).

    So total tax paid has dropped from $208.41 to $191.92. Thus the family is $16.50 a week better off under my scenario.

    (no allowance for WFF has been made.)

    Gotta remember people – if you cut tax over a persons entire income but increase GST, GST is only payable on certain things (not debt servicing, rent, mortgage or savings).
13. tsmithfield 13

    2 March 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Macro “That families continue to make ends meet is due to the fact that now both partners work if they possibly can.”

    So you would accept that many families would have a combined income of 48k?

    From VTO’s figures it looks like an individual/combined income of 48k would need a tax cut of approx 1% to compensate for the extra GST. That sounds doable to me. If someone on 20k is spending 15k a year on GST incurring expenses they will need a tax cut of approx 1.9%. Again perfectly doable.

    So why all this bitching and moaning about a 2.5% rise in GST? Its all just politics without substance. Once this truth has been made known Labour are going to look like a bunch of tards.
14. Macro 14

    2 March 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Of course SOME families WILL have a combined income greater than $48,000. MANY MORE won’t. Do some basic maths. The reality is that couples who both earn high incomes will be more likely be both working full time – they can afford the childcare etc.
    Low income families however will be able to take advantage of 20 hours free child care possibly – so one partner will be working around 20 hours per week – $15,500 (20 hours per week at $15 per week – way above what many on part time employment are being paid actually) plus $31,000 (40 hours per week at $15) is still less than $48,000. Of course you will tell me that you don’t know any people who are being paid at $15/hour which may be true, but then let me tell you that there are in fact hundreds of thousands.
    So tc – your argument while it may offer you a glimmer of hope is in fact little more than a straw man. An essentially false proposition that is easily refuted.
    • tsmithfield 14.1

      2 March 2010 at 9:26 pm

      What both Sdm and myself have shown is that it takes bugger all of a tax cut to compensate for the increase in GST. So, to waltz around the show claiming that the end of the world is nigh as Labour are doing is grossly misleading and patently untrue.
      • Macro 14.1.1

        2 March 2010 at 9:42 pm

        AND AT THE SAME TIME HAND GREAT BUNDLES OF EXTRA CASH TO YOUR RICH MATES!
      • Macro 14.1.2

        2 March 2010 at 9:44 pm

        And no! you haven’t shown anything of the sort.
15. The Voice of Reason 15

    2 March 2010 at 9:28 pm

    A wee reminder (cheers, Jenny) of the rest of the itinerary for those readers who want to move their politics from the keyboard to the streets:

    Wednesday 3 March
    Rotorua, Tokoroa, Te Kuiti

    Thursday 4 March
    New Plymouth, Stratford, Hawera

    Friday 5 March
    Wanganui, Bulls, Feilding

    Saturday 6 March
    Palmerston North, Foxton, Shannon, Levin, Otaki, Waikanae, Paraparaumu

    Sunday 7 March
    Wellington Central, Rongotai, Ohariu, Hutt South, Mana, Rimutaka

    Monday 8 March
    Picton, Nelson, Westport

    Tuesday 9 March
    Westport, Reefton, Hanmer Springs,
    Rangiora

    Wednesday 10 March
    Christchurch Central, Christchurch East, Waimakariri, Port Hills, Ilam and Wigram

    Thursday 11 March
    Christchurch, Ashburton, Temuka, Timaru, Waimate, Oamaru

    Friday 12 March
    Dunedin North and Dunedin South

    I wonder if spelling Wangaz without an H is to stop Michael Laws throwing himself under the wheels of the bus?
16. Jenny 16

    2 March 2010 at 9:50 pm

    Hi Marty,

    “Ax the Tax”, a great sentiment we can all agree on.

    Sorry I didn’t make the bus tour when it was in Auckland.

    Unfortunately I didn’t see the tour itinerary till you posted it today. Therefore I was unaware it was in Auckland on the weekend. I would have really have liked to have been able to attend. (I was actually at home in Papakura on Sunday when the bus was here in the main street at 3pm and could have easily made it.)

    Sadly because of work and family commitments I won’t be able to attend any of the bus stops in other centres either.

    Are there any transcripts or video or audio of any of the Auckland events?
17. tsmithfield 17

    2 March 2010 at 9:53 pm

    Macro: “AND AT THE SAME TIME HAND GREAT BUNDLES OF EXTRA CASH TO YOUR RICH MATES!”

    Umm…in absolute terms the wealthy will be paying a helluva lot more in additional GST than the poor because they spend a lot more in dollar terms even if they spend less of their income in percentage terms than the poor. Since the wealthy will pay a lot more in additional GST it is only fair that they are compensated in tax cuts.

    Macro: “And no! you haven’t shown anything of the sort.”

    I did show that a person on 20k only needs approx 2% in tax cuts to compensate them. So, I don’t agree with you at all on this point.
    • Ari 17.1

      2 March 2010 at 11:18 pm

      Actually, the wealthy tend to spend far less of their income as a proportion than the working class. They are far less impacted by GST than people on lower incomes- and far more impacted by taxes on investments, savings, property, etc…
18. sdm 18

    2 March 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Again my Maths shows that a family earning a moderate income wont be worse off by GST. Cut the slogan BS, show me where my maths is wrong
    • Marty G 18.1

      2 March 2010 at 10:12 pm

      You make one important assumption and one mistake:

      1) you assume that there will be tax cuts across all the brackets. Remember, that’s what the left is demanding and that’s what Key has indicated won’t happen. He has indicated, however that he will spend a quarter of the GST money on tax cuts for the 12% who earn over $70K

      2) you’ve not factored in working for families, which gives your family a higher disposable (and GST carrying) income than you calculate.

      At the end of the day you can’t have everyone put into a pot of money, give a quarter of that pot to 12% of the people and have everyone else come out even or better.

      Don’t forget too that your family is going to have their rent go up because of the property law changes, you’ll need compensation for that too.
      • Lanthanide 18.1.1

        3 March 2010 at 10:04 am

        “1) you assume that there will be tax cuts across all the brackets. Remember, that’s what the left is demanding and that’s what Key has indicated won’t happen. He has indicated, however that he will spend a quarter of the GST money on tax cuts for the 12% who earn over $70K”

        Seriously Marty, please provide evidence for this. The ONLY thing I have heard Key say in this regard is that there will be “tax cuts across the board”.
    • The Voice of Reason 18.2

      2 March 2010 at 10:13 pm

      I suspect your maths maybe wrong in the bit about the 2% tax cut. Because that bit isn’t happening.
    • Armchair Critic 18.3

      2 March 2010 at 10:33 pm

      Well, it’s wrong because you didn’t apply GST to debt servicing or savings.
      You need to include debt servicing because unless the debt servicing was to buy a GST exempt item, the debt included GST. For example, a household appliance on HP had GST included in the sale price and thus GST is part of the repayment.
      Savings are spent at some stage, and again, unless the spending is on a GST-exempt item the spending attracts GST. Your assumption relies on a false premise around the timing of the spending.
      Oh, and then there is the rent. There are some circumstances under which GST is payable on rent. Yes, they are unusual, but they do occur.
      There are other errors in your assumptions about the distribution of the spending, too, but they are minor in comparison to your other obfuscations. And apart from that – yeah, your maths is great.
      • Herodotus 18.3.1

        2 March 2010 at 10:57 pm

        GSt will not effect the debt levels on housing as there will not be a correction in the market by all housing to increase by 2.2%., the market sets the price it is not a cost + basis. Debt for GST incl items will increase by about $nil, as the interest cost on an addition 2.2% of purchase price = the positive side of nil.
        More importantly the greatest destruction of wealth for NZ of $23b will increase by about $500m.,
19. sdm 19

    2 March 2010 at 10:20 pm

    But arent you jumping to conclusions – fact is, we dont know what they will do.

    My point was this – if you cut tax across a persons entire income, whilst increasing tax on a proportion of that income, the person is better off. Only if the person spends 100% on GST rated items (unlikely) will that person not be better off.

    Rent prices may increase, but ultimately supply and demand dictates rent price not taxation.
    • The Voice of Reason 19.1

      2 March 2010 at 10:31 pm

      OK, so you are putting up a hypothetical case. The fact is, the Nats have no history of helping lower income families. The last time they were in power during a time of recession, their answer was to shift the burden of the crisis to the less well off and there are plenty of indications that is the path they are following now.

      My hypothetical case: GST 15%, most of us worse off.
20. pollywog 20

    2 March 2010 at 11:18 pm

    I’m one of those low to middle income earners that Key reckons SHOULDN’T be worse off, but the thing is, I know i’m not going to be better off either.

    So why bother messing with the program when it might be that i could be worse off ? And if it turns out i do become worse off, then what ? He’ll admit to being pretty relaxed about it and may have made a mistake ?…Well a fat load of bloody good that’ll do me.

    What he does know for sure, is that those on higher incomes will be better off and the more you make the better off you WILL be !…and a fat load of bloody good that’ll also do me .
21. SPC 21

    2 March 2010 at 11:31 pm

    Let us not forget, that

    1. National campaigned on the line that it could afford its tax cuts without cutting government spending
    2. Then National said the budget forecasts were worse than expected and so they would defer their tax cut programme AND began to cut government spending (the dealy in tax cuts supposed to legitimise breaking their promise on spending).
    3. Now they have a way to “step change taxation” where they continue with the government spending cuts because of the budget position but now go ahead with the tax cuts (by using GST to pay for most of it).

    Oh and they promised they would have no need to increase GST to fund their economic programme (see 1).
22. tsmithfield 22

    3 March 2010 at 4:04 am

    Pollywog: “So why bother messing with the program when it might be that i could be worse off ? And if it turns out i do become worse off, then what ? He’ll admit to being pretty relaxed about it and may have made a mistake ? Well a fat load of bloody good that’ll do me.”

    Lets assume that you are no worse off due to compensating tax cuts.

    You now have more choice about how much tax you pay. For instance, even if you are poor, you might be able to grow your own vegetables rather than by them from the supermarket, thus reducing the amount of GST and thus the amount of overall tax you pay. You might also feel more motivated to shop around for the best deal, or buy second-hand rather than new etc. Any such steps you can take will reduce the overall amount of tax you have to pay due to reducing the amount of GST you pay.
    • pollywog 22.1

      3 March 2010 at 12:33 pm

      Is that it tsmithfield ?..lets assume i’m no worse off ?

      Nah fuck that, lets assume i am worse off, while others who are already well off, are even better off. No, even better, lets not assume and take it as fact.

      Your answer is grow my own veges and shop around for a better deal at all the second hand stores ?…you’re fucking kidding right ? Thats my best choice option for avoiding paying more tax ? Scratch around in the dirt and compare prices at various dumps ?

      There is another option. How about i roll round your place with a few cuzzies and dispossess you of some of your luxury shit you’ll inevitably buy with your tax cut and flog it off to even out the non payment of GST on second hand items…i hope your insurance is up to date.

      of course i dont role like that but theres heaps of working and non working poor poly’s out ther who do and will.
23. greed is not good 23

    3 March 2010 at 9:10 am

    to tsmithfield and so many others who agree with his, and too many others, comments

    please explain to us, the ignorant under 20k pa workers who do many jobs you and your ilk would never lower yourselves to, how do we buy second hand power, second hand food, second hand phones services, second hand petrol.

    Hundreds of thousands of NZrs spend EVERY CENT they earn on g.s.t items. it is a simple fact and one that you must begin to understand. The G.S.T. increase is going to cause more hardship, more hunger, more illness, and obviously more crime.

    What does your 48K maths test say on these issues?
24. the pinkpostman 24

    3 March 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Our small Labour Party Branch in Tory Cambridge meet the bus and we had an hour canvassing the High St .The response was excellent .However what struck me was the number of people who said ‘well I didnt vote for them “(Nats) . The only conclusion I have come to is that there are a lot of people who are now ashamed they voted for a change. Phil Goff was also well recieved and I have no doubt the GST bus will prove to be most sucessfull.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS