National supports 47% tax rate for top income bracket *

Written By: - Date published: 7:21 am, July 5th, 2019 - 25 comments
Categories: australian politics, making shit up, national, same old national, Simon Bridges, spin, tax, uncategorized, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

I know the heading is a bit naughty.  National has not actually said that it wants a top tax rate of 47% for the most wealthy.  But it has praised changes to the Australian tax system where this is the result and implied that New Zealanders will emigrate because of this and maybe it should reflect on this before pumping out tax reduction good propaganda.

National put this post up with the headline “Australia enjoys the tax relief we should’ve had”.

Well yes a few would agree that a top tax rate of 47% for income over $200,000 (including Medicare levy) was a good thing.  It is just that I can’t understand why National would concur.

According to failed electorate candidate Paul Goldsmith:

New Zealanders will today be looking across the ditch where low and middle-income Australians are about to receive just over a thousand dollars a year in tax relief, National’s Finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.

“Australia’s Government made relief for hardworking taxpayers its first priority after the election. The legislation will pass through the Senate today. Our Government’s first priority was cancelling our tax relief package.

…

“The only exports this Government is directly increasing through its policies are New Zealanders to Australia. New Zealanders are over-taxed and underwhelmed by this Government.

I mean does he think we are that stupid? That we will accept news about a marginal shift in tax rates and not look at what is the underlying result?  That people will want to emigrate to another country where the top tax rate is, checks notes, significantly higher than our top tax rate?

And what is going on?  The Socialist Government of Aotearoa New Zealand has a top tax rate of 33% and the right wing uber capitalist Rupert Murdoch advance Australia unfair country to the west of us has a much higher tax rate?  Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Good old National.  Always pushing the greed button and not worrying that it may also be hitting the stupid button.

25 comments on “National supports 47% tax rate for top income bracket * ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    5 July 2019 at 7:37 am

    My first observation is we need to challenge the inherent bias of any journalist or commentator who uses the phrase "tax relief."

  2. tc 2
    5 July 2019 at 8:01 am

    Worth noting the flip flop oz labor performed on passing it through the lower house.

    The campaign they just lost had them opposing it. Goldsmith's first swing and miss, or has he had a few already.

    Wading ankle deep across the national talent pool with goldy boy. Not much to best there luxo.

  3. Gosman 3
    5 July 2019 at 8:23 am

    Ummm… except the Coalition in OZ is not RAISING taxes. It is cutting them for everyone but targeting lower and middle income people. That is the point National is making which I think you are well aware.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      5 July 2019 at 8:40 am

      Can you reconcile Australia having a much higher tax rate and (gasp) a capital gains tax with National’s claim people will be emigrating because New Zealand taxes them too much?

      • Gosman 3.1.1
        5 July 2019 at 8:51 am

        I can reconcile their claim that LOWERING taxes for the sort of incomes many NZers would likely get if they moved to Australia makes that country more attractive to potential migrants.

        • mickysavage 3.1.1.1
          5 July 2019 at 8:53 am

          So capital gains taxes will be of no concern?

          • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1
            5 July 2019 at 9:02 am

            Not for the average Kiwi migrant. Your argument is silly. It would be like trying to argue that Australians who move here or Kiwis who move back here are happier with a more comprehensive GST at a higher rate. What might influence them is if NZ cut GST even if it was still higher than the Australian rate. That changes the dynamic in relation to deciding which country offers a better option for someone.

            • Craig Glen Eden 3.1.1.1.1.1
              5 July 2019 at 9:04 pm

              Gosman you say MickeySavages points/arguments are silly you might want to read your own shit. Buggar me

        • Enough is Enough 3.1.1.2
          5 July 2019 at 9:35 am

          I think it is the new expansion in mining that will be attracting lots of young Kiwis across the Tasman. High paying jobs.

          I don't think many people look at the tax rates to be honest.

          • Muttonbird 3.1.1.2.1
            5 July 2019 at 10:35 am

            I agree. It's wrong-headed to believe GST rates and income tax bands are the diving force behind decisions on moving to Australia or back.

            Wage rates, jobs, living costs and lifestyle are the drivers and it shows a disconnect with working people for Gosman to suggest otherwise.

            • Gosman 3.1.1.2.1.1
              5 July 2019 at 2:39 pm

              Doesn't the rate of GST impact living costs?

            • Shadrach 3.1.1.2.1.2
              5 July 2019 at 8:09 pm

              Sounds like you’re assuming working people are too stupid to consider what their net income will be before making a decision to move across the ditch. They most certainly are not.

  4. patricia bremner 4
    5 July 2019 at 10:04 am

    Australian tax cuts are to stimulate their flagging economy, and the Aussies have cut interest rates to 1%. They are in a real dilemma, if this doesn't work.

    Alongside that Australian farmers are not allowed to use any water from the Murray river, and are close to walking off farms as costs of trucked water soar,

    The news over here is a million Australian children are living in poverty.

    Many Aussies are telling of hardship as the Governments since the GFC have not built Social Housing, and many people can't afford rents in the private sector, and the variation in their work hours means they can't get a loan to buy into their own home.

    Any worker with full time hours and a good contract is ok, but don't change jobs or you lose all the security.

    Our son lives here and is cat 3 waiting up to 12 months for gall bladder removal, while on two yearly checks for cancer because he has a precancerous bowel condition.
    So they too are overwhelmed by an aging population, and a competing private sector in health.

    Paradise is an illusion, Goldsmith is a canting fool.

  5. Muttonbird 5
    5 July 2019 at 10:39 am

    It shouldn't be forgotten this $1000/year tax relief also goes to the already wealthy and ultra wealthy (despite this latter group often showing no income at all).

    I'd argue that is extremely poorly targeted use of money and in effect only increases inequality because wealthier people have more opportunities to make that extra money work rather than having it swallowed up by inflationary increase in basic necessities.

    • indiana 5.1
      5 July 2019 at 11:25 am

      Argue all you want, but that's how a progressive tax system works.

      "because wealthier people have more opportunities to make that extra money work rather"

      I know many formerly low wage income earners that have mad their money work and now they are they very people that get vilified for getting rich.

      • greywarshark 5.1.1
        5 July 2019 at 4:39 pm

        Mad money indiana – it certainly does drive us that way. When the only ones who get plenty are the ones who have already achieved plenty – that does seem mad.

  6. Paul Campbell 6
    5 July 2019 at 11:56 am

    Don't forget the Aussie ~5% (different from state to state) state payroll tax …. it's pulled from your employer based on your gross income – it pays for schools, police etc – so if you're comparing apples and apples it's ~52% not 47%

  7. Fireblade 7
    5 July 2019 at 12:15 pm

    The replies to Simon's tweet are hilarious.

    https://www.twitter.com/ArrestJK/status/1146723975143149573

  9. Peter 9
    5 July 2019 at 2:55 pm

    The heading is a bit naughty? You mean it's a Kiwiblog style heading?

  10. SPC 10
    5 July 2019 at 3:02 pm

    The Chipmonks Simon, Theodore and Alvin/Alwyn.

  11. Exkiwiforces 11
    5 July 2019 at 3:50 pm

    The tax cuts are in Oz are bit of joke sadly, as those on the higher tax bracket will do better in the longer term when tranches 2 and 3 come in effect later on. Where as I’m on a service pension who after 40 wks has had my DVA pension cut by 75%, but ComSuper pension is still at the same rate and the wife is in the NTG public service which is facing cuts and possible pay freeze so we lose in the longer term.

    As I said the tax cuts are joke and given the state of the Oz economy overall which is very weak regardless of the iron ore prices atm which is keep Oz from being in red. These tax cuts should’ve been ploughed into federal infrastructure funding to kickstart the building and manufacturing sectors which starting to slow down. The State of NSW’s has been spending up large in infrastructure from roads to rail and other important infrastructure etc both within Sydney itself and regional NSW over the last decade. There are more trains running now in terms of pax and freight with further regional and intercity trains to come. As most of all of the states just seem to talk about infrastructure with possibly exception of Victoria if Dan Andrews can pull his finger out of digit.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if most of these tax cuts are spent on paying off loans and mortgages considering the awful low interest rates atm and just like Rudd’s splash for cash we use that money to pay down our two mortgages while we living in Melbourne in a Defence house. We are going to the same again and if clowns think we are going to spend on other things they going to be very sorry they didn’t fund infrastructure projects as the ARB Chairman want this instead of these tax cuts.

    • greywarshark 11.1
      5 July 2019 at 4:43 pm

      Oz voters might be sorry that they didn't vote Labour in. Then the Opposition could have revealed what they knew they should have been doing as they lambasted Labour for not doing it.

  12. SPC 12
    5 July 2019 at 3:55 pm

    Labour has three choices – given $70,000 is too low for a top tax rate

    1. increase the top rate threshold to $100,000 – and apply 33 cents from there. TAX REVENUE LOSS

    2. keep the 33 cent rate where it is and introduce a 35 cent top rate at 100,000 TAX REVENUE GAIN

    3. do both. increase the 30 cent rate to 100,000 and apply a top rate of above $100,000 of 35-40 cents to that afford the cost of that (what would make it tax revenue nuetral) . TAX REVENUE NUETRAL

  13. Infused 13
    5 July 2019 at 11:15 pm

    Most people would support another tax bracket if the others were lowered