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

Written By: - Date published: 3:07 pm, September 30th, 2008 - 15 comments
Categories: education, national, tax, workers' rights - Tags:

Bill English has put out a press release whingeing about Helen Clark’s promise to lift wages for low-paid school support staff, and fearmongering that it might mean Michael Cullen will cancel his tax cuts.

Presumably, English’s statement means National would cancel the planned pay increase to help fund its tax cuts for the rich.

These are people who do things like deal with truancy, handle schools’ information technology and provide teacher aide support for disabled children, and they are paid as little as $12.69 an hour.

Kind of makes a mockery out of all that talk from National about using tax cuts to raise incomes, don’t you think?

15 comments on “Nats: Pay cuts for you, tax cuts for the rich ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Steve Pierson 1
    30 September 2008 at 4:18 pm

    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.

  2. vidiot 2
    30 September 2008 at 4:29 pm

    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.

  3. randal 3
    30 September 2008 at 4:34 pm

    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.

  4. Dom 4
    30 September 2008 at 4:37 pm

    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.

  5. Steve Pierson 5
    30 September 2008 at 4:38 pm

    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.

  6. burt 6
    30 September 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Also, $8m for this ‘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.

  7. coge 7
    30 September 2008 at 5:05 pm

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

    Thanks.

  8. randal 8
    30 September 2008 at 5:06 pm

    burt none of that made any sense…try again

  9. sean 9
    30 September 2008 at 9:09 pm

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

  10. Tane 10
    30 September 2008 at 9:12 pm

    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?

  11. Stack 11
    30 September 2008 at 9:31 pm

    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”.

  12. QoT 12
    30 September 2008 at 10:35 pm

    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.

  13. coge 13
    1 October 2008 at 9:16 am

    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.

  14. Ben R 14
    1 October 2008 at 9:48 am

    “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.

  15. TomS 15
    1 October 2008 at 1:35 pm

    “…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.