Phil Goff’s State of the Nation

Written By: - Date published: 3:22 pm, January 25th, 2011 - 203 comments
Categories: exports, jobs, labour, phil goff, tax - Tags:

Just a quick post, and I’m sure Marty or Eddie will write more later with more detail, but Phil Goff has just delivered an excellent speech to start a year of laying out Labour Policy.

They’d announced changes to fiscal policy and exchange rate aims last year, and some more of what was announced today was aimed at improving the support for high-tech (and especially clean-tech) companies and exporters.

But the headline must be the $100/week tax free income band.  Labour should (and will) aim for more, but then it’s important to make promises you can keep.  Because Labour won’t borrow for tax cuts – unlike National who are borrowing $120 million/week to fund their rich mates’ tax cut.  Phil Goff summed up National’s tax swindle brilliantly:

“With National’s tax cuts, never has so much been given to so few”

and

” the less you needed the more you got”

So Labour will pay for their tax cut for all working New Zealanders by a new top rate on those earning “comfortably into six-figures”, and cutting the tax loopholes that allow bludgers to restructure their affairs to not pay tax.  National’s own Tax Working Group showed half of New Zealand’s top earners weren’t paying the top rate, and National haven’t closed the loopholes they highlighted.  There are billions to be found there.

There was more, but the tax policy will be the focus.  Hopefully the media can keep interest long enough to see about the investment in R&D (where National’s first cuts were), skills training and Early Childhood Education (both targeted for National cuts) and how they will be good for the economy in the long term.  And hopefully they can see the aims to work with the productive sector of the economy to support and grow our hi-tech job providers; to restructure investment away from speculation to exporting business; to grow productive kiwi companies rather than sell off our assets overseas.  There are clear differences with National that will matter to New Zealanders who want more, better paying, jobs.

So it was a good speech, with passion and content, which I hope to see get good coverage tonight*.  With Ratana yesterday, and this policy-filled speech today – it’s been a good start to election year by Labour.

–

* Hopefully better than Ratana, which seemed to be relegated to half-way through the news as we’re apparently more interested in an Aussie military medal than the state of our own politics.

203 comments on “Phil Goff’s State of the Nation ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    25 January 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Goff announced this afternoon that the first $5,000 of annual income will be free, and there will be an increase in a new top tax rate over the $100k figure.

    Sounds very fair.

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      25 January 2011 at 2:53 pm

      OZ rates:
      0-6k: 0%
      6k-35k: 15%
      35-80k: 30%
      80-180k: 38%
      180k+: 45%

      Tax changes for the next year have the 30% threshold increasing to 37k, and the 38% rate dropping to 37%.

      Tax in NZ is presently less than in Oz.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      25 January 2011 at 3:01 pm

      I’d still prefer a Universal Income, dropping PAYE and running online bank integrated accounting software directly through IRD. That would allow us to bring everyone under the same rules which would make it a lot easier to close all the loopholes that are presently the biggest loss of income that the government has.

  2. Akldnut 2
    25 January 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Woohoo – just been to Goffs State of the Nation – watch out all you fat cats, lifes going to get a bit tougher and the wealth will be spread around a lot fairer.
    Going to catch all the millionaires trust tax dodges, $5,000 per annum tax free, going to make some of these people who have received the big tax cuts pay it back!

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      25 January 2011 at 3:13 pm

      I heard it was a good speech. Managed to get a copy to read, looks very good. Much of a crowd there?

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:08 pm

        Tried to watch the live stream but it kept cutting out. Will watch it all again later. What I saw was good though.

        • Jim Nald 2.1.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 11:24 pm

          Overseas at the mo and picked this up with the time diff.
          Will check out streaming from here to see.
          Catching up with the news. Sounds fair.
          With these policies, I might come back to NZ after all 😉

  3. BLiP 3
    25 January 2011 at 3:27 pm

    Some good stuff there. Don’t suppose he addressed the difference between “leveraging” state assets and “selling” state assets, did he?

    • Bunji 3.1
      25 January 2011 at 3:30 pm

      No, he just said that Labour wouldn’t sell assets and National would (what else does “we won’t sell assets this term mean?). He was fairly blunt on the point…

      • BLiP 3.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 3:51 pm

        That’s my concern. Labour may not be intending to “sell” state assets but appears to have plans to pump them full of debt. I can see where the money for the $5K tax threshold might come from, but what about these intentions to become more involved in the economy? At the moment all we have is wishy-washy R&D “clean technology” platitudes. If the government is going to get into business and develop technologies, where’s that money coming from if not via “leveraged assets”?

  4. big bruv 4
    25 January 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Anything about hitting the real bludgers?, the long term dole bludgers and DPB slappers?

    Nah…thought not, Labour would lose too many votes.

    This is a last, desperate throw of the dice by Goff, if this does not gain traction with the public then Labour are doomed.

    • Bunji 4.1
      25 January 2011 at 3:43 pm

      Yes, he talked about those who are “deliberately avoiding paying [their] fair share of tax but still
      expect everyone else to pay for [their] children to go to school and for [their] family to use our hospitals.”
      There’s thousands of them out there. And they cost a lot more than the small number of “long term dole bludgers” to which you like to refer. Or even the misogynistically referred to “DPB slappers” who receive their allowance for their children, so they grow up in less poverty (and with less inequality of opportunity) than they otherwise would. Oh the humanity that we charge you tax so that we don’t have children starving on the streets, it’s not fair.

      He also talked about how the tax system was set up to encourage speculation (instead of productive investment) so you could write off your tax as a bludger if you didn’t value society. So the bludge isn’t just unfair as ordinary kiwis like us pay for those tax-dodging bludgers, it’s bad for the economy.

      • big bruv 4.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 3:57 pm

        So how is it good for the economy to have the long term dole budgers and DPB slappers stealing from us every week?

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 3:58 pm

          Yeah you prefer to be stolen from by the rich, correct?

          • big bruv 4.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2011 at 4:48 pm

            Nope…I want everybody to pay their share, the so called “rich” already pay more than their share.

            Do away with WFF and tax everybody at a fair rate.

            While we are at it, introduce a poll tax as well, those of us who pay rates are sick of subsidising the parasites who rent or live in state houses.

            • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.1
              25 January 2011 at 4:52 pm

              Nope…I want everybody to pay their share, the so called “rich” already pay more than their share.

              Nope, the rich who can afford to pay more should pay more. Starting with those on 4x the median wage ($110K p.a.), and especially those on 20x the median wage ($550K p.a.)

              Don’t worry Big Bruv, you don’t have to cry for them they’ll still be able to afford their V6 and V8 BMWs and weekly bottles of Bollinger.

              • big bruv …
                25 January 2011 at 6:01 pm

                Well Viper, you might think they should pay more but thankfully that is not going to happen.

                Should a government ever be so dumb as to introduce what you suggest we would be bankrupt within two to three years as every cent of capital and wealth was removed from the country.

                And you wonder why communism failed so miserably.

            • orange whip? 4.1.1.1.1.2
              25 January 2011 at 7:12 pm

              “…the parasites who rent…”

              Oh, the ones who actually pay off the mortgages for the “owners”? Riiiight.

              “…as every cent of capital and wealth was removed from the country…”

              Oh I think we’ll manage ok without the bludgers extracting their rents and profits from everything we touch. Off you go (not you obviously big bruv, it’s very clear that you’re just a peasant like the rest of us. Your “mummy” issues are becoming more pronounced too btw. )

              • big bruv …
                25 January 2011 at 7:20 pm

                Renters do not pay rates orange (strange that I have to point that out), therefore renters are being subsidised by property owners.

                • orange whip? …
                  25 January 2011 at 7:35 pm

                  1) You’re dreaming if you think rents are set without taking rates into account.

                  2) “Renters” are the ones who pay off the mortgages for the “owners”. Who subsidises who exactly?

                  • infused …
                    25 January 2011 at 9:19 pm

                    Rent hardly *ever* covers a mortgage.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 January 2011 at 9:23 pm

                      Exactly. Banks should never be allowed to lend more on a property than that property can generate in rental income.

                      This step will also take the speculators out of the market.

                      Rent hardly *ever* covers a mortgage.

                      Should cover almost all of it.

                      Unless some silly person has gone and negatively geared to the hilt of course.

                    • orange whip? …
                      25 January 2011 at 10:57 pm

                      “Rent hardly *ever* covers a mortgage.”

                      Oh. My. God.

                      Please don’t tell me you’re going to have to chip in and pay for some of your house yourself ?

                      Say it isn’t so, infused. Say it isn’t so.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      26 January 2011 at 11:11 am

                      Where rent doesn’t cover the mortgage, I assume the investment relies on capital gain to make a return, no? I’m sure all of these instances are being taxed accordingly.

                  • Deadly_NZ …
                    25 January 2011 at 10:05 pm

                    Oh here we go again, More empty non thought through rants and raves and it’s always the same. So when I have finished don’t bother to reply, as I know what you will say it will be another “DPB Slapper Bene Bludgers yada yada yada”. However For years your rich mates have been ripping off the system, and now the pigeons are coming home to roost, and their illegal shenanigans will have to stop. Maybe there will be a few move overseas and those that go to AUS well they will have a shock coming ,they will pay MORE tax there, so go ahead Push off to Australia as you obviously are not happy here. And remember that when the NACTS get the arse, then the rip off bludgers will get their comeuppance. Maybe thats why he is crying so much, he’s gonna lose a fortune in hidden wealth. Naa his mummy is probably still holding the purse strings.

                • jcuknz …
                  26 January 2011 at 8:21 am

                  Really BB you have slipped there. Rates are an expense on the property and any sane owner takes them into consideratrion when detirmining a rent.

                  What gets me with this thread is the $100 a week … from what I heard on TV3 it is only about $10 week as the presumably working class lady scored as being nothing to really consider worth anything.

            • KJT 4.1.1.1.1.3
              26 January 2011 at 12:23 pm

              Really! The tax working group found half the highest earners did not pay tax.

              I am still waiting for a farmer to prove they pay taxes.

        • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1.2
          25 January 2011 at 3:59 pm

          Big words from a little man. When you pay your own debts, you’ll be in a much better position to comment on economics, Bludge.

        • Ari 4.1.1.3
          25 January 2011 at 4:13 pm

          I notice you don’t say anything about the commitment to help pay for this by closing loopholes so that speculators and rich bludgers can’t avoid paying their fair share.

          At least people on the DPB are raising kids which is far more productive than watching their interest tick into their bank account from all the scams they’ve run.

          • big bruv 4.1.1.3.1
            25 January 2011 at 4:45 pm

            yeah right!

            Feral DPB slappers sitting at home raising the next generation of feral slappers……and Labour voters.

            Hardly productive or good for the economy.

            • mcflock 4.1.1.3.1.1
              25 January 2011 at 5:15 pm

              I suppose that John Key could be thought of as being neither productive nor good for the economy, either now or previously as a money trader.

              But that one bad exception is hardly cause to malign most single-caregiver families who rely on modest government transfers for a short period.

            • M 4.1.1.3.1.2
              25 January 2011 at 7:23 pm

              Just when are you going to bite down on the lemon to avoid auto-erotic asphyxiation?

              Hell, with your view of females I bet you don’t get many offers, well, ones where no money changes hands.

      • arandar 4.1.2
        26 January 2011 at 10:53 am

        I’m a JP. I’m spending a bit of time right now witnessing documents for people who are enrolling their kids in private schools. Oh, and re-applying for their Community Services Cards. anti-spam ‘schemes’…

    • Aron Watson 4.2
      25 January 2011 at 4:02 pm

      Who you calling ‘DPB slapper’…..bitch

    • KJT 4.3
      26 January 2011 at 11:32 am

      Don’t you mean the bailouts to insider trading speculators, the tax payer subsidies to allow businesses to pay less than a living wage, those who steal public assets to make their individual profits etc etc. Those bludgers.

  5. big bruv 5
    25 January 2011 at 3:42 pm

    It seems that Goff is so desperate he did not even interrupt his speech when an elderly lady collapsed and had to be carried from the hall.

    A disgusting display from a desperate man leading a desperate party.

    • Irascible 5.1
      25 January 2011 at 4:04 pm

      I suppose that your responses are an indication of real analysis and thoughtful response to the speech rather than a demonstration of argumentium ad homenium posing as thought?

      • Bunji 5.2.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:29 pm

        I certainly did not know the elderly lady had collapsed in her chair until she was carried out, and I was closer than Phil Goff was. I don’t think the TV people can have known either (by their lack of help), and she was right in front of them.
        She was very efficiently cared for by good Labour people anyway.

        I imagine it was the heat. It was getting pretty hot in the hall what with it being so packed, people standing everywhere there wasn’t a chair or a camera crew etc

    • Colonial Viper 5.3
      25 January 2011 at 4:14 pm

      Even if Goff had known big bruv, what would you have had him do? A John Key swooping down in front of the Pike River cameras?

      The lady appears to have had plenty of assistance and as far as I know Goff is not a paramedic.

      • big bruv 5.3.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:30 pm

        He could and should have paused, he could and should have found out if she was OK.

        But no, Goff is more concerned about his own falling ratings and more concerned about grabbing back power.

        A shameless act from a shameless man.

        • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 4:33 pm

          Foreign concept to you, but Labour people help each another out and that woman had plenty of assistance. Goff is not a paramedic, he probably did not know there was any situation, and he did not need the photo op like Key.

          • big bruv 5.3.1.1.1
            25 January 2011 at 4:49 pm

            No Viper, Goff kept going because he did not want to miss his moment in the spotlight.

            Not the actions of a leader, he should resign immediately.

            • The Voice of Reason 5.3.1.1.1.1
              25 January 2011 at 4:58 pm

              He should resign based on your word, eh, Bludge? The word of a debt dodging misogynist saddo who wasn’t there, has no evidence that Goff was even aware of the incident at the back of a packed hall, and is shit scared that Labour will be leading the next Government.

              Keep dreaming, Bludge, it’s the only place where reality can’t make you look stupid.

            • Molly 5.3.1.1.1.2
              25 January 2011 at 5:18 pm

              Sorry Big Bruv, hate to break it to you but I can confirm Goff didn’t know about the elderly lady. I was one of the people who assisted her, and stayed with her right until she left after she had been checked over by the paramedics (who did a great job by the way). I was also there when after the speech, Phil came over and checked that she was ok, and said he hadn’t known until he was told afterwards.
              As happens with good and caring Labour people, she was quickly carried out of the hall and an ambulance was called. Luckily she was at the end of the aisle and it was easy to get her out of there safely. And before you say it, it wasn’t done quickly and quietly so as to not interrupt Phil’s moment in the spotlight, it was for her wellbeing to get her some fresh air.

              • big bruv …
                25 January 2011 at 6:09 pm

                So you are saying that the Labour people there quickly shoved her out of the hall lest her condition take the limelight off their desperate leader?

                And please, saying that Goff never knew is about as believable as Helen Clark saying she was the artist.

                Goff knew alright, he simply did not care.

                [You are setting off the troll detectors here BB. You’ve had plenty of loose rope to spew your offensive dreck… but from now you are on a warning…RL]

        • Scott 5.3.1.2
          25 January 2011 at 4:37 pm

          “A shameless act from a shameless man.”

          I take it you are referring to your disgraceful accusation that Goff should have stopped his speech to help someone he probably didn’t know needed help.

        • Jum 5.3.1.3
          25 January 2011 at 6:26 pm

          What is shameful is that media flunkey of JKeyll’s on TV3 not doing an objective report on the speech, just engineering misleading statements all geared to make Goff look bad while JKeyll who is stealing our country’s assets from us with his lying tactics gets held up as some sort of sage.

          That is a disgusting example of the media behaviour in this country and an even more shameful instance of the crosby textor takeover of our so-called objective media.

          But of course Big Bruv, you must be rubbing your hands with glee to know that NAct’s plan is working, eh. Media stooges in places of influence, a ring in from America to take away what’s left of our assets to give to people you adore, newspapers printing verbatim what the government tells them. Now that is shameful.

          • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.3.1
            25 January 2011 at 6:56 pm

            We haven’t had “objective media” here in NZ for close to 20 years. Ever since the neo-liberal revolution eviscerated it.

          • Vicky32 5.3.1.3.2
            25 January 2011 at 9:47 pm

            Yes, I take it you mean Fatty Garner, Jum? Starting with his sneer about Goff deliberately not supplying enough seating so that the hall would look fuller than it was..
            Disgusting!I would have commented at the time but I wasn’t able to..
            Deb

            • Jum 5.3.1.3.2.1
              25 January 2011 at 10:12 pm

              That’s the very slime-ball, Vicky32. I would have thought that even the rightwing people of New Zealand would be embarrassed by this low-brow blurb of a serious speech. Not only is Garner a disgrace to his ‘profession’ but so is the television company that encourages him to spit out his nonsense.

              How could anyone have a discussion on Goff’s speech when Garner didn’t even present a brief synopsis of it?

              The media in this country are dumbing down our whole democratic system of debate (ok, one or two are sticking to ethical debate but that’s about all and they’re not presenting their objective views on politics at a time when people are home and ready to relax and watch the news).

              Labour ignore this deliberate blocking of their conversations with New Zealanders at their peril. JKeyll is copying Sid Holland’s 1951 media blackout and a nasty little time in Germany’s history – the 1930s.

              Labour has to look at other ways to get their message to Kiwis, a message that has not been injected with poisonous misinformation by idiotologists like Garner and the last word always given to JKeyll as if he’s some sort of sage.

              Is this current state of political current events the best this media rabble can manage.

              They should be ashamed of th

            • Olwyn 5.3.1.3.2.2
              25 January 2011 at 10:42 pm

              Everything Garner said was disgracefully one-sided, I just looked at him from the computer. What’s with the hair-dye crap? Has anyone asked Key where he buys his suits – they sure as hell aren’t NZ made.

            • M 5.3.1.3.2.3
              25 January 2011 at 11:25 pm

              Yes Deb I had trouble believing what I was hearing and Garner looks to be like some sixth former crushing on a fellow classmate such are his sycophantic ramblings.

              Phil’s “improvements” are really none of the media’s business as there are many men who dye their hair now to look and feel young and remain attractive to employers or potential partners – for heaven’s sake the tone used was like he’d raided public funds as in the Awatere Huata scandal, it’s only hair dye after all.

              How do we know that Key isn’t wearing some kind of corset to slim himself down or is out getting himself lasered for whatever treatment du jour?

              Lay off Garner, you lummox, all of us have our little vanities be they hair dye, make-up, perfume, clothes or shoes.

    • Rosy 5.4
      25 January 2011 at 4:30 pm

      And you’re concerned, BB? A woman at a labour party conference? Are you sure she hasn’t been living off the taxpayer for years?

    • illuminatedtiger 5.5
      25 January 2011 at 7:54 pm

      Speaking of disgusting displays from desperate men have you read your posts today?

      • Fisiani 5.5.1
        25 January 2011 at 10:05 pm

        You cannot polish a turd and you cannot airbrush or hairdye Phil to make him younger.

        • Armchair Critic 5.5.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 10:20 pm

          Fucking hell, if the worst criticism you have is “Phil uses hairdye” it must have been a pretty good speech. Best I go and read it.
          I gotta say- the hairdye rebuttal is one of the lamest I’ve ever heard. Really – who cares whether he dyes his hair or not? Pathetic.

  6. Bryce Edwards 6
    25 January 2011 at 3:43 pm

    The change in tax policy seems pretty weak – I thought Labour might come up with something a bit more radical. $5k tax free is very mild when you compare it to other international examples. In fact the Act Party proposes something similar.

    There’s also some questions that need to be asked about Labour’s calculations to pay for this tax cut. Until Goff comes up with some credible/solid details – rather than just rhetoric – of where the money will come from, then many voters will assume that a Labour Government would have to either borrow more or slash expenditure.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      25 January 2011 at 4:03 pm

      It could definitely have been a stronger measure than $5K p.a. He did talk about a more progressive tax system and cracking down on aspects of property tax/LAQCs. Quite surprised there was no mention of a CGT though (was there?).

      • Akldnut 6.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:27 pm

        No mention of CGT but mentioned that Aussie does $6Kp.a. (on a bustling economy) – I think that $5K the way NZ is going is quite reasonable.

    • Blighty 6.2
      25 January 2011 at 4:56 pm

      Bryce. Please don’t tell me that the rumour is true and you’re replacing Trotter.

      On the one hand you’re condemning Goff for not offering enough. On the other you’re repeating Tory talking points about what he is offering being unaffordable.

      You’re just a Leftie hating Leftie.

      • mcflock 6.2.1
        25 January 2011 at 5:24 pm

        A couple of comments along the lines of “nice speech, but not revolutionary and not apparently funded sufficiently beyond a mild hope” and he’s betraying the left?

        At least Trotter needed to have a consistent period of “toe the line, be patient, and feminazi bulldykes ruined the left” (paraphrasing) articles to achieve that status. And he seems to have mellowed back to the left a bit lately (the toriness was probably an attack of piles, is my pet theory).

  7. Draco T Bastard 7
    25 January 2011 at 3:43 pm

    There are billions to be found there.

    Certainly a few billion according to a 1998 report and another couple of billion in the black/cash market.

  8. vto 8
    25 January 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Any support for the position outlined several months ago re putting the brakes on allowing people who do not live in New Zealand to own land in New Zealand?

    • The Voice of Reason 8.1
      25 January 2011 at 4:03 pm

      Are you having a crack at Hawaii John, VTO? Maybe looking to get Waikeykey’s Parnell holiday home in a firesale?

      • vto 8.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:17 pm

        no no, it is simply better that people who live in a certain place own that certain place.

        Applies right across the whole world, and probably even to other worlds out in outer space.

  9. Bryce Edwards 9
    25 January 2011 at 3:47 pm

    It seems that No Right Turn is saying something similar about Goff’s dodgy maths. See:
    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/01/good-policy-ruined-by-magical-thinking.html

    Excerpt: “The problem is that Goff’s numbers on how to do it don’t add up. According to Treasury’s 2010 tax model data, a $5,000 tax-free bracket would cost $1.58 billion (10.5% of all income in the zero – $5,000 range). Reintroducing a 39% top tax-bracket on “incomes comfortably into six figures” would claw back only $290 million if the threshold is $150,000, or $558 million if it is $100,000. Which means that 60 – 80% of the threshold will be paid for by reducing avoidance….. Which makes relying on them to fund over a billion dollars in low-income tax cuts an exercise in magical thinking, about as intellectually defensible as right-wing promises to fund tax-cuts for the rich by “cutting waste”. And when you’ve just promised that you “won’t make any promise that I can’t keep or that the country can’t afford” and to “be more fiscally responsible than National”, you’ve just handed them a stick to beat you with”

    • The Baron 9.1
      25 January 2011 at 3:55 pm

      Sigh. More lolly scramble politics, poorly costed and based more on hope than on sound fiscal fundamentals. Of course, National are just as bad for their latest round as well.

      A race to the bottom indeed. Its always easier and more electorally appealing to fiddle the taxside than chop out stuff on the spending side, I guess. But clearly, that digs us all into a hole.

      I sincerely doubt that these gaps can be plugged without some pretty draconian changes to trust law that would put off a hell of a lot of the middle class of floating voters. No surprise that it is those proposals that aren’t really fleshed out – along with what the new top tax rate would be and where it would kick in – not wanting to scare the horses yet. But I don’t get that aspect – why wouldn’t you announce it now, and hide the harder parts in your hubris under the “$100 tax free” message (which, IMO, is the strongest Labour has had in a while). This just means the bad parts get a news cycle all on their own.

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:07 pm

        Its a speech fellas, not the final spreadsheet.

        There will be some new taxes and some taxes are going up. Most of all we have got to get this economy moving and LAB intends to do that more actively than NAT, not wait for the ‘invisible hand’ to reach down from the heavens.

        Further NAT is borrowing almost $300M p.w. (why did Goff use a lesser figure???) Bill and John passed an outrageously poor, unfunded budget in 2010.

        • mickysavage 9.1.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 4:13 pm

          Yep

          Once a few loopholes are closed there will be a significant improvement in the tax take.

          CV Goff used a smaller figure presumably because it was right and took off debt repayment, ie it was a net rather than gross figure.

          • gingercrush 9.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2011 at 4:30 pm

            Not really because people find other ways to dodge paying tax and often there’s numerous unintended consequences.

            For instance, removing the ability to offset losses is in isolation a good policy. But its likely to push up rents meaning low income earners don’t actually get a tax cut and at the same time you ultimately hurt low and middle income earners who currently own rental properties because now they’ll struggle to pay down debt on those properties and will be forced to push up rents or will have to sell their homes at significant losses meaning their retirement plans etc are going to be wiped out.

            And a few loopholes were wiped out by this government in Budget 2010 and I didn’t see the tax take get bigger.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.1
              25 January 2011 at 4:36 pm

              and I didn’t see the tax take get bigger.

              Main reason is that the free market ideology NAT uses doesn’t work that well to grow the real economy, and with business activity crumbling, tax take also crumbles.

              For instance, removing the ability to offset losses is in isolation a good policy. But its likely to push up rents meaning low income earners don’t actually get a tax cut

              That’s where new state housing is good.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                25 January 2011 at 4:55 pm

                Yep, As I said over on RA I’d love to see a lot more government owned high-rise apartment buildings especially in places like Auckland to kill urban sprawl that are then rented for cost.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 January 2011 at 5:00 pm

                  Rented for cost + depreciation, to enable good maintenance and also replacement when the time comes 🙂

                • big bruv …
                  25 January 2011 at 6:12 pm

                  “I’d love to see a lot more government owned high-rise apartment buildings”

                  Oh yes…they worked very well in the UK didn’t they.

        • AndyB 9.1.1.2
          25 January 2011 at 4:22 pm

          “Further NAT is borrowing almost $300M p.w. (why did Goff use a lesser figure???)”

          Because Goff didn’t want to lie. National is not borrowing $300M a week to pay for tax cuts. They are borrowing $120M a week ‘net new loans’. $180M a week is the carry over loans from the last government.

          • Akldnut 9.1.1.2.1
            25 January 2011 at 4:43 pm

            Shit I would rather have a shot at Goffs theory (even if it’s a bit wayward) than wait for the trickle down that’s supposed to happen from the last 2 rounds of Tax cuts. iI’s been 2 years since these monkeys have been in and I’ve seen a net weekly gain of minus $15 in real terms.
            If we are forced to pay back $330M for tax cuts then why shouldn’t all the people who repay it be the ones who receive it – not just the few.

          • Blighty 9.1.1.2.2
            25 January 2011 at 5:03 pm

            Andy. Government net debt is set to increase by $15 billion this year. http://treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/hyefu2010/hyefu10.pdf page 14

            That’s $300m per week, net debt increase.

            pretty fucken simply old boy.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.2
      25 January 2011 at 4:15 pm

      I’ll point you 2 comments up. $3b in tax loopholes available if Labour manage to close them all. Seems like that would be able to cover the $1.58b

      • The Baron 9.2.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:21 pm

        Based on a now 13 year old report?

        • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 4:24 pm

          I haven’t seen all the tax dodges closed yet. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that a few more have opened up.

        • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.2
          25 January 2011 at 4:54 pm

          Yeah a 13 year old report. GDP is up since then, corporates are more skilled than ever at organising their affairs, so probably there is even more money than that falling between the cracks now.

    • Rich 9.3
      25 January 2011 at 5:35 pm

      If “reducing avoidance” is just an aspirational thing, it won’t bring in any money.

      But genuine action like removing trust protections, a wealth tax on global assets and a global turnover tax on multinational corporations *would* bring in $1.58 billion and more.

      Vodafone for instance, makes $100billion in turnover globally ($1.2bln in NZ) and contrives to pay stuff all tax in most of its operating markets. ($70mln here last year). They paid a $630 million dividend to the UK in 2007 – a $500 million tax bill for them alone would go a long way to paying for lower taxes for everybody).

    • Ari 9.4
      25 January 2011 at 5:40 pm

      The maths on NRT relies on restoring the previous top tax rate. As far as I can see, there has been neither an announcement of the intended cutoff point nor the tax rate on their proposed new bracket, so unless I missed something this is pure speculation. There’s plenty of room for a much higher personal top tax rate in New Zealand, especially given how open we are for business investment.

    • KJT 9.5
      26 January 2011 at 11:36 am

      Your math is even dodgier. Go back to stats NZ and add it up again. LOL.

  11. Craig Glen Eden 11
    25 January 2011 at 4:15 pm

    So Goff makes a speech, sets some direction and out come the right wingers getting all upset about specifics. Which is rather ironic given they support a PM who wants to build a cycle way to reduce unemployment with figures done on the back of a napkin. How many jobs again nut jobs? Fack all.

    • Bunji 11.1
      25 January 2011 at 4:20 pm

      200. (compared to 4000 promised, or 50,000 jobs lost since that promise)

    • Idiot/Savant 11.2
      25 January 2011 at 4:49 pm

      So Goff makes a speech, sets some direction and out come the right wingers getting all upset about specifics.

      I’m not a right-winger. And I’d prefer it if Labour didn’t so obviously shoot itself in the foot.

      • Blighty 11.2.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:59 pm

        I don’t think the funding gap is as big as you might imagine.

        you didn’t count ring-fencing of investment property losses, which Goff indicated.

        And you assume the top rate will only go to 39% – he might be looking at imitating Australia.

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 5:02 pm

          A truly progressive system needs 2-3 more tiers than we have now.

          Especially when we are starting to get a crop of execs on over $1M p.a. now. Something which was very rare 10-15 years ago.

          But I also agree that we cannot keep harping on those who work and pay PAYE, we need to look at how to tax assets/land.

      • Bunji 11.2.2
        25 January 2011 at 5:24 pm

        I think you’re too quick to charge “magic-money” without specifics.
        You may also be too literal in a “top + loopholes pays for bottom” concept. That may work (and it may be higher than 39c as Blighty says), what with the $260mill loophole that Goff covered in his speech just being his easy place to start.
        But, contrary to CV below, they may also decide that 6 tax bands are too many, and do a wholesale change, to cut a band or 2 and co-incidentally raise an extra $2-300mill off the upper-middle and close any remaining gap. And that’s before you consider a CGT (if you’re really serious about closing loopholes – why should unearned income not be taxed?).

        Basically: it’s do-able, if you want to try.

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.2.1
          25 January 2011 at 6:43 pm

          “Simplifying” the system by reducing the number of income bands is possible and has benefits, but systems should also not be made simpler and less progressive than they should be.

          My main point would be that those on 20x the median wage ($550K p.a. and up) should be paying in tax a much greater share of their top few dollars than those on 4x the median wage ($110K p.a. and up).

          Further, 10 years ago we had very few people on over $1M p.a. Apparently today we have 700. And probably a few thousand people on over $500K p.a.

          At the same time that ~2M NZ’ers make do with $27,500 p.a. or less.

      • Craig Glen Eden 11.2.3
        25 January 2011 at 8:27 pm

        open your other eye Idiot. Maybe just maybe he has changes in mind that was not explained in the speech. It was a general direction speech for heavens sake. Seems like you are limping to me mate.

      • Fisiani 11.2.4
        25 January 2011 at 8:59 pm

        Goff Dodgy maths. Who woulda thunk it. Unbelievable creative wishful thinking. Proposing a tax bribe plan that was said by Michael Cullen to be far too expensive.
        Every householder knows that when you have debt you need to restrain spending. Seems no one has told poor old Phil.
        It was not an excellent speech. It was a political suicide note.

  12. ianmac 12
    25 January 2011 at 4:19 pm

    I wonder if it will ever be known if most Income tax is actually paid. We keep hearing a litany of “we rich folk pay most of the tax so that the bludgers can suck…..”
    But how would we know how much tax Mr Key, Mr Goff, Mr Farmer or Mr Morgan actually pay? Trusts and tax right-offs and so on. TS Smithfield might know?

  13. gingercrush 13
    25 January 2011 at 4:24 pm

    I predicted tax free threshold two years ago.

    And its frankly bullshit to suggest National hasn’t done anything to close tax holes. Th problem is when National announced the removal of depreciation on property. Most of you screamed bloody murder about how this was going to push up rents on low income earners.

    Well guess what that 10 dollars tax cut Labour has announced will be wholly wiped out by anyone renting a property because if you remove the ability for property losses those who own rental properties will want to push up rents because otherwise they’ll lose money. And many middle income earners have their retirement wrapped up in property so congratulations Labour plans to fuck up thousands in their retirement.

    Not that I’m actually against such a policy. Just the sheer hypocrisy displayed both by Labour and the left-wing readers here. Its well pathetic. Because the argument I made above is exactly what you lot fucking did when National stopped the ability to depreciate buildings.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      25 January 2011 at 4:42 pm

      And its frankly bullshit to suggest National hasn’t done anything to close tax holes.(1) Th problem is when National announced the removal of depreciation on property. Most of you screamed bloody murder about how this was going to push up rents on low income earners (2).

      1) Yes, for instance, NAT reduced the top income tax rate so that people could get all the benefits of the tax loophole without expending the effort of actually using it. Great.

      2) Oh yeah? Links please or it never happened.

    • mcflock 13.2
      25 January 2011 at 4:42 pm

      “I predicted tax free threshold two years ago.”

      Well, it’s been in the works for years. The pattern seems to be that the Alliance and/or the Greens come up with a policy, then Labour picks up a light version of it.

      E.g. the Alliance has for several years had a policy for the first $10000 to be tax free.

      Credit where credit is due, though, I do think the implied alteration of the Reserve Bank Act to include unemployment as well as inflation targets is a good move.

    • Sanctuary 13.3
      25 January 2011 at 6:00 pm

      “…And many middle income earners have their retirement wrapped up in property…”

      And most New Zealanders own a bach, everyone takes an overseas holiday at least once every two years and the usual topic of conversation is how hard it is to find parking for the SUV outside the little darling’s school.

      Your comment is a concrete example of the pernicious myths around how much most New Zealanders actually earn, and your comment can stand as a kind of monument to the utter invisibility of a large majority of your fellow citizens in our political discourse.

  14. Policy Parrot 14
    25 January 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Great rhetoric from Phil about cracking down on tax dodgers. But there needs to be meat on the skeleton before the election, so that any plan has credibility. Tax and trust laws are highly complicated beasts – not being helped by the fact that for a long time the laws have been written by the malfeasant.

    A few suggestions to implement immediately.
    1. Have a high income earner tax set at 36% on incomes over $100k.
    2. Increase the trust settlor rate to 36%. Expand the range of familial proximity to prevent transfers to close family.
    3. Increase company tax to 36%, with a 8c in the dollar rebate claimable for certain company classes. Most except those considered either repugnant, or existing primarily to dodge personal tax, be approved on the advice of the Commissioner.
    4. Reinstate gift duty.
    5. Investigate legislative methods for trust-busting and piercing the corporate veil for repeated noncompliance.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      25 January 2011 at 4:38 pm

      Do you support an estate tax in any form, or over any threshold, PP?

      • Policy Parrot 14.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 4:45 pm

        I support it in principle, but because trusts are set up to protect assets, it is difficult to see an estate tax working in practice. It would simply be the principled or unadvised that would end up paying, not a basis on which I believe a tax should be imposed. And trusts do have a legitimate place in which to exist.

        Income however, is another matter, because it is not an asset. The trick for dodgers is turning income into an asset, so that it can be protected by the trust.

        • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 4:56 pm

          Thanks. In that case how does the UK and the US maintain an estate tax? Are their trust laws different in some respect?

          • Rich 14.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2011 at 5:37 pm

            In the UK the revenue will disregard most trusts and charge the individual inheritance tax as if the trust didn’t exist.

          • Policy Parrot 14.1.1.1.2
            25 January 2011 at 6:20 pm

            In the US, the estate tax, referred to derisively by the Republicans as the “death tax”, is currently not in existence. Congressional Republicans scrapped it in the Bush era, and was not brought back by Democrats in the last session.

            Now, Obama is bringing it back, with a $5 million exemption and 35% estate tax rate (for two years). This is part of the tax deal worked out with Republicans which extended the Bush era tax cuts (which were due to expire).

            With regard to avoidance, I’m not sure on US practice, it can vary from state to state (and US tax law is many volumes compared to New Zealand’s single volume 2500 page Income Tax Act 2007 brick), but I assume that they would have similar issues with avoidance considering there is an estimated $50bn of tax avoidance in the US every year.

            But being in denial about only the principled and unadvised paying, will still bring in more revenue than no estate tax at all, it just is manifestly unfair.

          • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1.3
            25 January 2011 at 6:47 pm

            Thanks team.

        • Ari 14.1.1.2
          25 January 2011 at 5:46 pm

          This is a reason why we need trusts to be vastly restricted compared to how they’re currently operated, not a reason to give up on estate taxes.

        • KJT 14.1.1.3
          26 January 2011 at 11:41 am

          Were do trusts set up for anything but a genuine charity have any use apart from tax avoidance or avoidance of legal liability. Time trusts were removed as a means of avoiding individual legal obligations.

    • mcflock 14.2
      25 January 2011 at 4:45 pm

      6. A Financial Transaction Tax of 2c/$100.

  15. Bruce 15
    25 January 2011 at 4:42 pm

    I see a lot of fear in the hysterical responses posted by right wing commentators on this speech. I think this suggests Goff is heading in a good direction.

  16. burt 16
    25 January 2011 at 5:21 pm

    After watching that I have concluded that Goff has the same “speaking coach” as Clark had. He has the same forced smile at the end and the same sort of “please agree” look in his eyes. A desperate man indeed.

    However putting aside the history of the last 3 terms of tyranny I think Labour are heading in the right direction. I just can’t help but laugh though – every time Labour are in opposition they promise a more fair tax system then when in power they just milk the middle class and buy votes from the bottom killing growth which results in a recession. Oh well, people who love self serving corruption still vote for them so I guess we are stuck with the status quo from Labour for a while yet.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      25 January 2011 at 5:24 pm

      We are not talking about the Martian Labour Party mate.

      Further, lets make it clear that being in Government is about changing society for the many for the better.

      It is not about tax system managerialism.

      LAB would do well to keep pushing its values and its principles into actual policy instead of following the right wing route of trying to fiscalise politics.

      • big bruv 16.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 7:01 pm

        Labours principles and values???

        What might they be….If in doubt steal it and then change the law to make that theft legal, If there is too much opposition to our government then we will legislate to make speaking out against the government illegal, need some more votes….let’s turn huge numbers of Kiwis into beneficiaries via WFF.

        Labour have shown that they do not have any values, they will do whatever it takes and break whatever laws they need to break if it means staying in power.

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 7:31 pm

          Labour have shown that they do not have any values, they will do whatever it takes and break whatever laws they need to break if it means staying in power.

          I do notice that Right Wingers continually project their own behaviour and mores (hmmm or lack of them) on to others.

  17. Darien Fenton 17
    25 January 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Ooh that’s got some of the righties a bit worried. As for the lady who fainted; Phil Goff sent me and others to check on her immediately, so weak try Big Bruv. There were hundreds of people there, with lots standing around the edges of the hall, but Phil did his best to look out for everyone. And I think he did so in his speech.

    • Ari 17.1
      25 January 2011 at 5:49 pm

      Glad to hear you guys were indeed looking out for your audience. 🙂

    • big bruv 17.2
      25 January 2011 at 6:17 pm

      Me worried!

      No chance Darien, Goff and Labour are not worth worrying about.

      As usual we heard a Labour leader devoid of vision, devoid of a plan to increase the lifestyle of every Kiwi, instead we got the same old loser politics of envy from Labour and it’s most vociferous parasites.

      As for Goff not knowing….yeah right, he knew all right.

      • orange whip? 17.2.1
        25 January 2011 at 7:29 pm

        “No chance Darien, Goff and Labour are not worth worrying about.”

        And yet here you are, as usual. Something must be bothering you.

        You’re not here to engage – you’re very clear that you have no time for lefties.

        It’s not as if you’re just here for a wind-up either, you’re not smart enough to make a good fist of that. Most seem to just yawn and ignore you.

        No, I think you’re bothered alright. I think lefties get right under your skin.

        • big bruv 17.2.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 8:23 pm

          Ginga

          Plenty bothers me, a gutless government who refuse to do something about our ballooning beneficiary problem, a gutless government that keeps borrowing so they do not upset swing voters.

          As for lefties, I have a lot of time for the traditional Labour lefty, one who genuinely cared about his fellow Kiwi, one who wanted to work hard and get ahead, one who knew that the state would be there for him if he needed help for a short time.

          The trouble is Ginga that the modern Labour party is devoid of these type of people, modern Labour is all about destroying the family unit, it is a party that has been taken over by anti family feminists and hard line lesbians, gone are the traditional working class men and women who made Labour a honourable political party.
          Today Labour are full of union hacks (Pillay, Beaumont and Fenton…come on, these three are just a sample of the useless bums that have forced their way into the house) failed teachers, rainbow MP’s and arrogant ‘academics’ who have never worked a real day in their life.

          Labour used to be an honest party, pity you cannot say that about them today.

          • McFlock 17.2.1.1.1
            25 January 2011 at 9:02 pm

            “ballooning beneficiary problem”?

            Agreed: far too many beneficiaries are crowding our airspace with hot air balloons. I blame the CAA.

          • orange whip? 17.2.1.1.2
            25 January 2011 at 9:08 pm

            It’s absurd to say you like traditional labour people but hate unionists big bruv.

            That’s like saying you like traditional national people but you hate farmers and businessmen.

            It shows you up as totally insincere in your writing (at best).

            p.s. why do you hate lesbians so much?

            • big bruv 17.2.1.1.2.1
              25 January 2011 at 9:44 pm

              “It’s absurd to say you like traditional labour people but hate unionists big bruv.”

              Rubbish, I have always hated parasites, unions are nothing but parasites, they take money from hard working Kiwis and spend it on flash meals at swanky restaurants and then threating the entire film industry in NZ.
              Union officials are never out of pocket when they call a strike, union officials are almost always scum who are prepared to use the livelihoods of their members to further their own ambitions.

              The traditional Labour person never had a choice about belonging to a union back then, freedom to choose was illegal.

              Oh..and Ginga, I do not have a lot of time for farmers.

    • Alwyn 17.3
      25 January 2011 at 10:35 pm

      Fascinating.
      Molly, at 5.18pm above says that Phil told her that he didn’t know about the woman collapsing until AFTER he had finished the speech.
      You now say that he told you to check on her IMMEDIATELY.
      Surely you can get some sort of consistent story going.

  18. Bill 18
    25 January 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Shamelessly paraphrasing and plagarisng here, but it seems to fit. So with apologies to Chris Hedges. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/where_liberals_go_to_feel_good_20110124/

    Is Phil Goff just another stock character in the cyclical political theater embraced by liberals?

    Act I is the burst of enthusiasm for a Labour candidate who appears finally to stand up for the interests of citizens rather than corporations.
    Act II is the flurry of euphoria and excitement.
    Act III begins with befuddled confusion and gnawing disappointment, humiliating appeals to the elected official to correct “mistakes,” and pleading with the Party to return to its true core values.
    Act IV is the thunder and lightning scene. Liberals strut across the stage in faux moral outrage, delivering empty threats of vengeance.
    And then there is Act V. This act is the most pathetic. It is as much farce as tragedy. Liberals—frightened back into submission by the propaganda of ‘our’ corporate media or the call to be practical—begin the drama all over again.

    Act I is about to commence, but having failed on the marketing front I’m picking the vegetables will be flying before Act II

  19. Graham 19
    25 January 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Big Bruv, you are either a confused moron or a greed worshiping sociopath.

    • The Voice of Reason 19.1
      25 January 2011 at 6:07 pm

      It’s not an either/or with Bruv, Graham, he’s all of the above and less.

    • big bruv 19.2
      25 January 2011 at 6:19 pm

      Confused as to how Goff plans to implement his stupid idea…confused as to how anybody apart from the most idle bludger could ever vote Labour but not confused about Goff and his callous approach to the poor ladies medical condition.

      • Colonial Viper 19.2.1
        25 January 2011 at 6:33 pm

        This credibly coming from a supporter of a NAT Govt dedicated to impoverishing the lower and working classes in order that the elite can step up from their new V6 BMWs to the 8 cylinder turbo version.

        Hey bruv, didn’t your Govt cut tens of thousands of hours of home help for the elderly up and down the country?

        • big bruv 19.2.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 6:50 pm

          Viper

          Your government (elected by the people) has prioritised the health budget, for the first time in ten long years we have money going to the front line instead of parasitic public servants.

          The same people who rejected Helen Clark will reject Goff, and those who were wavering will have seen Goff ignore the lady who collapsed and notice how he selfishly put his public appearance before her health and remember that Labour ran the public health service in NZ in such a shocking manner.

          • Draco T Bastard 19.2.1.1.1
            25 January 2011 at 7:09 pm

            Your government (elected by the people) has prioritised the health budget, for the first time in ten long years we have money going to the front line instead of parasitic public servants.

            Look at that, the psychopath is lying… again.

            Health budget was cut BB right across the board which is why the frontline services that CV mentioned are no longer operating.

            • Tanz 19.2.1.1.1.1
              25 January 2011 at 7:14 pm

              To whom do you refer? Psychopath? That’s a laugh. He’s far too nice for that.

            • big bruv 19.2.1.1.1.2
              25 January 2011 at 7:14 pm

              Now stop telling lies draco.

              More money was put into health than ever before, plus, your government decided to make sure that money went to the front line and not some back room paper pusher.

              • Colonial Viper …
                25 January 2011 at 7:25 pm

                More money was put into health than ever before

                Yeah, this must be why the elderly, frail and impaired (whom you seemed to care about so much this afternoon with your croc tears) had tens of thousands of home help cut from underneath them, so that Bill and John can have their tax cuts for the rich.

                your government

                Don’t insult us mate, I don’t believe that I am in the top 1% of earners in this country therefore this is certainly not MY government, just another Right Wing abomination to be thrown off the Treasury benches.

                • big bruv …
                  25 January 2011 at 8:11 pm

                  They are the government of New Zealand Viper, therefore, they are your government.

                  [Not needed….RL]

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    25 January 2011 at 8:14 pm

                    Mate next you’ll be saying that the National party is in power so they represent NZ on my behalf.

                    Frak off.

                    • big bruv …
                      25 January 2011 at 9:13 pm

                      “Mate next you’ll be saying that the National party is in power so they represent NZ on my behalf.”

                      Oh but they do Viper, the Nat’s are your government, John Key is your PM and he represents you.

                      Thought you might like that.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 January 2011 at 9:18 pm

                      Hey mate figure it out, I didn’t vote for YOU and therefore what you say means jack shit to me.

  20. Sanctuary 20
    25 January 2011 at 6:19 pm

    I see Guyon Espiner is saying $10 a week won’t convince the middle class to switch to Labour. But I think he is missing an important point. One group of big winners in this is going to be school kids with part time first-jobs in dairies, fish and chip shops, etc. These fourteen and fifteen year-olds eight hours a week on the minimum wage is now completely tax free, something that will resonate loudly with parents anxious to teach their off-spring good habits and to show them the rewards of work.

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      25 January 2011 at 6:36 pm

      Brilliant. LAB need to get this message out to the peeps who need to know.

      Also Young LAB need to push and push and push.

    • big bruv 20.2
      25 January 2011 at 6:57 pm

      What “rewards of work”?

      All this will teach our kids is that if you happen to work hard, save, take risks and make it in business there will come along (once every twenty years or so) a Labour government who will take it all away from you and had your money out to those who did not work hard, or save or take risks.

      There is an underlying tone coming through in this thread from most of you lefties, that tone shows that you really don’t give a toss about the poor, the idealogical battle for you lot is all in taking down the so called rich.
      Very few of you will ever be happy until you have seen those who have done well dragged back to the pack….I guess it makes you feel better and compensates for your own miserable uninspiring lives.

      • Colonial Viper 20.2.1
        25 January 2011 at 7:38 pm

        if you happen to work hard, save, take risks and make it in business there will come along (once every twenty years or so) a Labour government who will take it all away from you and had your money out to those who did not work hard, or save or take risks.

        big bruv this is not a worry to most as 80% of NZ’ers make less than $60K p.a., and only the wealthy few lottery winners you talk about ‘make it big’ to the top of the capitalist pyramid. 700 millionaire earners in NZ. For every millionaire earner there are 2500 people who earn less than $27500 p.a.

        Also re: working hard and saving – most NZ’ers aren’t paid enough to save meaningfully. The above numbers show why. Its simply a hand to mouth existence for too many people.

        LAB gets this, NAT are ignoring it.

        • Draco T Bastard 20.2.1.1
          26 January 2011 at 12:13 am

          NACT aren’t ignoring it – they’re doing all in their power to shove wages down so that hand to mouth existence is spread around even more.

      • clandestino 20.2.2
        25 January 2011 at 7:54 pm

        Wow this coming from the guy who seems to find time in his ‘inspiring’ life to post every couple of minutes odd…I suspect we might have an Oppositional Defiant Disorder sufferer in the building.

      • Adele 20.2.3
        26 January 2011 at 12:28 am

        Teenaa koe, Big Bruv
        –
        One aspect of my indigeneity requires me to always act with manaaki towards others. Manaakitanga is the virtue of elevating the ‘mana’ of others above personal ego and super-ego. I am an abject failure in this respect as my thoughts towards you are very ‘un-manaakitanga-ish.’

        I think you are an arse without the benefit of a hole.

        You argue under the pretence of being motivated by ‘care’ for others. Your words, however, speak otherwise. The capacity to care is not wrapped in judgement and spiteful derision. Fundamental attributes in the ‘care’ giver is empathy and compassion – you appear to lack both.

        Rather than spit barren and flaccid juice – be more pro-creative. That condom around your pudenda shaped head is restricting your ability to think constructively.

        • Colonial Viper 20.2.3.1
          26 January 2011 at 12:44 am

          I think you are an arse without the benefit of a hole.

          Golden post award please, mods.

          • lprent 20.2.3.1.1
            26 January 2011 at 7:15 am

            It was a good rebuke. Well rounded, clear, articulate, funny, and very very pointed. If we had a golden comment award I’d be voting for it.

  21. Tanz 21
    25 January 2011 at 7:01 pm

    Why was this not the lead story on the news tonight? Third story in on One, Key will get the top slot, as usual. Oh well, I guess that’s how the cookie crumbles.

  22. Uncle Helen 22
    25 January 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Progressive taxation is theft.

    Social Engineering through Wealth Redistribution is tyranny.

    • McFlock 22.1
      25 January 2011 at 9:09 pm

      Oh look I can do that, too:

      Speculation is piracy.

      Derivative trading is food hoarding.

      Capitalist power is the new fiefdom.

      Slogans make shit arguments that lack evidence.

    • Colonial Viper 22.2
      25 January 2011 at 9:22 pm

      Social Engineering through Wealth Redistribution is tyranny.

      Uh, Uncle Helen (oh the old Right Wing misogyny returns), you must think that we have tonnes of Social Engineering right here right now under NACT.

      All the (upwards) Wealth Redistribution which has been occurring under Bill and John. Tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare amounting to billions, sticking it to the poor.

      Yeah, NACT are Social Engineering NZ alright, and moving wealth from the Many to the Few.

  23. Bored 23
    25 January 2011 at 7:10 pm

    I was totally underwhelmed. Oh dear!

  24. Afewknowthetruth 24
    25 January 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Phil Goff is a prize idiot (or is it compulsive liar?), not worthy of even being in parliament, let alone leading a party.

    He and the other clowns in Labour have been repeatedly warned about Peak Oil and its effect on the NZ economy, the general collapse of worldwide economic arrangements, and the worldwide food crisis, all of which we are now witnessing … .. and chose to do nothing (other than to continue to prattle on about business as usual when business as usaul is no longer possible.).

  25. RedBaron 25
    25 January 2011 at 7:18 pm

    Personally I like the idea of a $5,000 free fire zone. A lot of it will provide the sort of up kick to the economy that tax cuts to low income earners generate and may mean that in future we can increase the amount.
    It will also help the uni students. As it stands, given the sort of hours most of them work, they are not usually eligible for the low income earner rebates.

  26. Chris73 26
    25 January 2011 at 7:45 pm

    I quite like the dye job on his hair, its so natural 🙂

  27. Bob Stanforth 27
    25 January 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Me, I love the huge call to arms that is “give us a strategy, a plan” from the dorks on here. And the flailing when supposedly Nat doesn’t.

    And Phul Un gives them dyed hair and a tax cut for the remaining people stupid enough to vote for them. Yeah, great strategy lol’z. Its called bribery.

    Oh god you really must be shaking your heads tonight. What a Fearless Leader!!

    We iz on fire, we will winz!!

    Oh. Hang on.

    70% of taxpayers pay less than 20c in the $. Oh geez.

    Hey, look at Philz hair dye, he is new, realz like!!

    Ah, thank you, I just wet myself laughing at you. Bye bye.

    • Colonial Viper 27.1
      25 January 2011 at 8:36 pm

      Not a tax cut bro, some taxes are going up under LAB 🙂

      • Bob Stanforth 27.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 8:38 pm

        Yes, I was shocked beyond belief – who would have thunk it? Great strategy BTW, winning. No, really. Persist. LMFAO.

        • Colonial Viper 27.1.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 8:51 pm

          So it wasn’t a bribe then? Just serious fiscal governance by LAB as opposed to NAT adding $120M net debt to the country per week?

      • Tanz 27.1.2
        25 January 2011 at 8:42 pm

        I thought you were pro-Labour. CV. Have you switched to National now? I missed the speech, myself. Never mind, Key’s next…always fun, election year has begun!

        • orange whip? 27.1.2.1
          25 January 2011 at 9:02 pm

          What makes you say that, Tanz? Why would you think Labour supporters wouldn’t want to tax the rich?

    • Craig Glen Eden 27.2
      25 January 2011 at 8:39 pm

      Bob are you sure you were laughing or ……

      • Bob Stanforth 27.2.1
        25 January 2011 at 8:51 pm

        No, laughing, and want to know why?

        Cos we is watching death throws. Labour is becoming irrelevant, as it trys to recapture the now missing centre. You’ve lost your mandate, you’ve lost your support and you are trying desperately via envy and bribe to recapture it, not knowing that aspirational viewpoints have taken hold. You hate JK and rail against him, little knowing that the majority have said, “know what, yes, we can” without him even saying that.

        We want to be driven and charged with making a difference again. Not be coddled and told what to do.

        But thanks. No, really.

        • Colonial Viper 27.2.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 8:59 pm

          We want to be driven and charged with making a difference again. Not be coddled and told what to do.

          Hey Bob maybe the 80% of NZ’ers who earn less than $60K p.a. is going to vote for the right wing National meatgrinder for another 3 years. Where ‘sink or swim’ is the kind of ‘civil’ society you have in mind.

          Bets are on Mr BS.

          not knowing that aspirational viewpoints have taken hold.

          Yeah, 5% of NZ’ers make over $90K p.a.

          The other 95% are suffering NAT led wage suppression.

          Wait until the Many figure out what the Few are doing.

  28. tsmithfield 28
    25 January 2011 at 9:03 pm

    Labour seems to be keen on lots of people being underwater with their mortgages, given the stated intent to cut back further the tax benefits on rental properties. National’s moderate tinkering in this respect had an impact on prices. If Labour wants to go further down this path their will be a lot of people pissed off with them.

    • marco 28.1
      25 January 2011 at 9:23 pm

      Yeah but it will recalibrate the housing market making it easier for first home buyers long term.

      Short term it’s likely to plunge us into a recession as it will strip equity out of the housing markets and put many people into negative equity as investors dump their portfolios.

      It’s short term pain but long term it should work out and encourage more people to invest in productive assets such as the stockmarket and increased savings.

      Question being, are New Zealand homeowners prepared to lose money on their investments.

      I have to say I do like the longterm view of his speech, but it’s going to be a tough sell once people get their heads around it.

      • tsmithfield 28.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 10:32 pm

        Macro: “Short term it’s likely to plunge us into a recession as it will strip equity out of the housing markets and put many people into negative equity as investors dump their portfolios.”

        Riiight. Someone better have a quiet word to Phil about not making this an election promise.

        Good grief. Haven’t we had enough of recession already. According to you Phil will put us into another one. Nice one.

    • Colonial Viper 28.2
      25 January 2011 at 9:26 pm

      Labour seems to be keen on lots of people being underwater with their mortgages

      That’s what happens when asset bubbles burst. *Shrug*

      Both political parties have been guilty of fueling the property asset bubble in an effort to make NZ’ers feel wealthier by leveraging more and more debt. People thinking they can make a buck by passing on a property that they paid over the odds for, to someone else who is prepared to pay even more over the odds.

      Unsustainable, all someone has to do is look at the inflated asking price and say “thanks but not thanks, that’s stupid “. And now the music has stopped playing not all these overleveraged speculators with their 100% mortgages will have chairs to sit down on.

  29. big bruv 29
    25 January 2011 at 9:04 pm

    OK…time for me to fess up.

    I have no doubt that Goff had no idea the old lady had collapsed, had he seen her I am sure he would have stopped or interrupted his speech, you see, I think Goff is a decent bloke, a bloke who has been handed a poisoned chalice and one who will ensure another three years free of a Labour government, but, a decent bloke he remains.

    I wanted to give some of you a dose of your own medicine, time after time I come here and read the most outrageous and frankly libellous (or at the least severely unhinged) comments about John Key, often they are anti semitic and they are always, totally wrong.

    I am no fan of Key as a politician, to me he is gutless and one who will not make the hard choices, however, he is not the evil child eater that some of your more insane commentators insist on making him out to be.
    John Key is a nice guy, a guy that many Kiwis would be keen to sit down and have a beer with irrespective of their own political leanings, it is a pity that so many here are so desperate to regain power that they insist on telling lies about the man.

    • Colonial Viper 29.1
      25 January 2011 at 9:29 pm

      😀

      John Key is a nice guy, good to have a beer with. Just don’t give him PoA over your retirement account.

      • Chris73 29.1.1
        25 January 2011 at 9:34 pm

        Sort of like Goff being your property manager? 😉

        • big bruv 29.1.1.1
          25 January 2011 at 9:38 pm

          Yep..or letting Cullen near your train set

          • Maynard J 29.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2011 at 10:54 pm

            Wouldn’t Cullen be the guy you want near your train set, after you’ve run it into the ground!

            • big bruv 29.1.1.1.1.1
              26 January 2011 at 8:17 am

              Lol….are you still trying to justify the price Cullen paid for Kiwi Rail?

              Better to forget about that one Maynard, we both know that was the act of a desperate and corrupt Clark government.

              BTW…..did you notice how dear ex corrupt leader has made a complete and utter mess of her job at the UN?

              • Bored …
                26 January 2011 at 8:25 am

                How good it is to see nothing changes, away for a month and back to see Big Bruvs fantasy land with Helen as wicked witch presiding over terminal corruption still exists. Keep taking the pills BB.

    • clandestino 29.2
      25 January 2011 at 9:41 pm

      I choked on my olive pit when I read this after following the thread and your concisely oppositional posts. Good on ya mate don’t often see it out here on the Wild Wild Web.

  30. RedLogix 30
    25 January 2011 at 9:34 pm

    Unfortunately Goff is making a dreadful error by targetting property investors using this kind of language:

    The cuts would be partly funded by a crackdown on tax avoidance, with Goff specifically referring to property speculators who minimised their tax bills by offsetting losses on their investments against their personal income.

    “Labour will target speculators who arrange their affairs so they can rip off the tax system and leave other taxpayers to carry the load. This kind of avoidance is bludging. It is wrong and it’s bad for the economy.”

    Put quite simply, if Goff proposes to ring-fence the tax loss on an investment property into the company itself (and prevent it from being used to offset tax liable on other income)… then the loss will remain in the company until such a time as it makes a profit sometime in the future. Normally this will occur when either a property is sold at a profit, or the mortage is paid off.

    At that point in time the tax loss is unwound on those profits being made by the company. Ringfencing does not mean the tax loss dissapears… it is simply postponed into the future.

    • Daveski 30.1
      25 January 2011 at 10:55 pm

      I’ve only scanned the discussion but I’m pleased and pleasantly surprised to see someone spot the elephant in the room. Arranging your tax affairs to minimise tax is legal which is what these people are doing. Tax avoidance is illegal and something quite different.

      Likewise, expect to see changes to people’s income with a more regressive tax. Accountants will find ways to ensure tax is minimised by reducing taxable income to just under the threshold.

      Underwhelming to say the least.

      • Bunji 30.1.1
        26 January 2011 at 9:29 am

        I would say that just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it is necessarily ethical.

        We all need to help pay for our schools, hospitals and police, and those who can afford to shouldn’t be dodging out of every last cent they can, even if it is “legal” (and a lot of tax loopholes are very grey, rather than black and white).

        Goff was specifically saying that it wasn’t illegal, just that it was wrong and that’s why the loophole needed closing.

  31. Gerry Brownspray 31
    26 January 2011 at 3:05 am

    The country will be a lot better when Key and his mates have leeched every last undeserving penny out of those lazy poor people. It will be awesome to have hungry, broken spirited kids and sick, homeless people living in the streets, because people like Big Bruv will at last enjoy their well earned privilege of spitting on them from their luxury cars and when the kids shit on your lawn they will be beaten by police and locked up. This will set a good example that being poor does not pay.
    Best of all, the high caliber people will all become fantastically rich!

  32. Tanz 32
    26 January 2011 at 9:11 am

    They need to stop painting property investors as wicked people etc. Property investment has always been around, the MPs themselves own plenty of property, quite often, so it’s hypocritical as well, Goff still owns his Wellington pad, does he not? Investing in property is just another way of looking after your money, it is safter than the share market or investement companies! and it is not an evil! If people didn’t buy property to invest in, there would be far less houses to let. Even now, the supply is drying up. Also, they should respond to emails from citizens, but nothing really suprises me! Labour will never get my vote again, that’s for sure. Phil may be a nice guy, but so is Key. One and the same really, different sides of the same coin. The hard stuff will never get done. with Nat/Lab, they just poke at the edges instead.

    Vote Winston, far more honest and fair!

  33. What an idiot! 33
    26 January 2011 at 9:24 am

    Hey Phil why don’t we just give all our income to the government?

  34. Fungo 34
    26 January 2011 at 9:13 pm

    “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

    -Winston Churchill

Links to post