Positions on tax cuts: a summary

Written By: - Date published: 3:53 pm, February 13th, 2008 - 33 comments
Categories: tax - Tags:

taxcuts_h-726000.jpgBoth the Labour-led government and National have promised income tax cuts to follow the government’s family and business tax cuts. Neither has given any details except there will be multi-year programmes of cuts.

The point of difference is that Labour has four conditions that their cuts will satisfy while National rejects those conditions.

So in summary, their positons are this:

Government: Let’s cut taxes in a way that doesn’t increase inequality

National: Let’s not

Government: Let’s cut taxes in a way that doesn’t increase inflation

National: Let’s not

Government: Let’s cut taxes in a way that doesn’t mean public services have to be cut

National: Let’s not

Government: Let’s not borrow for tax cuts

National: Let’s

33 comments on “Positions on tax cuts: a summary ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Daveo 1
    13 February 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Good summary. I’d rather see the surplus go to something like buying back our assets or reversing the ’91 benefit cuts but if it’s gonna happen then it’s better for everyone that Cullen’s in charge. I’d hate to see what tax cuts would look like under Key. Probably a lot like this:
    http://news.google.co.nz/news/url?sa=t&ct=nz/1-0&fp=47b2bc6e5cb0bf70&ei=YV6yR82TCqiGqwOvh8CcDQ&url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10491740&cid=1131722858)

  2. The Double Standard 2
    13 February 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Gee Steve, you must have worked long and hard on that post. How about this take:

    Government: Let’s cut taxes in a way that shafts the rich pricks.

    National: Let’s not. After all they already pay most of the tax

    Government: Let’s cut taxes in a way that doesn’t increase inflation, after all, we have already cranked inflation up really high with massive increase in government spending.

    National: Lets look critically at govt spending, and let the reserve bank manage inflation (BTW, look what happened to interest rates in Aus after they elected Labor)

    Government: Let’s create fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the National bogeymen

    National: Let’s keep important services

    Government: Let’s not borrow for tax cuts, but instead use PPP’s that we publically ruled out a few months ago for infrastructure

    National: Let’s borrow where sensible to fund long lived assets.

  3. Daveo 3
    13 February 2008 at 4:06 pm

    TDS- we all know you’re a troll employed by the Nat research unit – all you do is run attack lines from your desk in Parliament. Try something new.

  4. The Double Standard 4
    13 February 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Daveo – yawn. Are you keeping Mr Porton company today? It just makes you look like his sycophant.

    Since you seem so certain perhaps you can post some proof?

  5. Robinsod 5
    13 February 2008 at 4:12 pm

    Hey TDS – I notice you’ve really stepped it up today bro. Um, when did parliament open again?

    Actually come to think of it you stopped commenting the whole time the unit was on holiday. What a sweet gig – d’ya reckon they’d pay me to comment on the standard too?

  6. Steve Pierson 6
    13 February 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Daveo. Agree with what you say. especailly on asset buyback. Would be great to see someone, maybe the Greens, make this a election policy.

    Double. I prefer my version. Punchier.

  7. Daveo 7
    13 February 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Hate to sound like sod’s sycohpant TDS, but I think he got you there. Sorry bro, back to making coffee for Kevin Taylor I guess. If you’re lucky he might even let you work in the archives for a bit.

    Tell me, do they still have John Ansell working out of a cupboard?

  8. The Double Standard 8
    13 February 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Its easy to be punchier when you are being economical with the truth.

  9. BeShakey 9
    13 February 2008 at 4:16 pm

    DS – In tresponse to

    Your first claim: how is ensuring that any tax cuts don’t increase inequality ‘shafting the rich pricks’? Unless of course they get their shits and giggles from laughing at poor people.

    Second claim: is National going to slash government spending and if so, where? Do booming local and international markets have any impact on inflation? Does low unemployment (and if so, what policies do you think should be introduced to force people out of their jobs?).

    Third claim: is this a denial that National has a history of cutting public services? Or is it simply that they won’t do it this time? And if that’s the case, exactly where are they getting the money for tax cuts from, when they’ve said it’s impossible to meet the four tests and give tax cuts?

    Last claim: How did tax cuts get defined as infrastructure, and a long term asset? More than a little disingenious to try to equate borrowing to fund consumption with borrowing to fund infrastructure development.

  10. Steve Pierson 10
    13 February 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Double. What are “imporant services”? What would you cut? Detail please not “we’ll get rid of waste” anyone can say that.

  11. mike 11
    13 February 2008 at 4:20 pm

    I’d say TDS’s response was fairly accurate. Steve’s post implies National would do the opposite to the conditions which is rubbish.
    The four “tests “are a con job to make it appear Cullen tax policy is considered.
    Its an election year bribe pure and simple and the NZ public are not as silly as believe otherwise.
    Also Steve WFF is wefare not tax relief.

  12. The Double Standard 12
    13 February 2008 at 4:28 pm

    More than a little disingenious to try to equate borrowing to fund consumption with borrowing to fund infrastructure development.

    Except when Cullen does it?

    Steve – I don’t know any more about the Nats policies than I read in the paper. However I do know double standards when I see them here. I see Helen is promising to tip half a billion or so into the economy. I’m wondering how that will affect inflation?

    BeShakey – define inequality as Cullen sees it then.

  13. Daveo 13
    13 February 2008 at 4:32 pm

    I don’t know any more about the Nats policies than I read in the paper.

    That’s crap – you work for the National party and they’ve got you on attack troll duty.

  14. Robinsod 14
    13 February 2008 at 4:33 pm

    I don’t know any more about the Nats policies than I read in the paper.

    Come on bro, you can do better than that.

  16. Daveo 16
    13 February 2008 at 4:35 pm

    Ha! Looks like Sod’s my sycohpant now. Hey TDS I’m off to Parliament soon for a meeting – care to catch up for a coffee?

  17. Daveo 17
    13 February 2008 at 4:36 pm

    Sod- we both said ‘Ha!’. This is getting creepy.

  18. Steve Pierson 18
    13 February 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Double. that may well be, but I want to know: If you support a party that would keep only “importnat services” what do you think should be cut?

  19. Benodic 19
    13 February 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Steve, Steve, don’t be silly. They’ve already answered you over at http://www.wastewatch.co.nz …

    Oh, that’s right, they haven’t.

  20. BeShakey 20
    13 February 2008 at 4:51 pm

    “Except when Cullen does it?”

    Is that the standard line now? How can we Key’s love in with Tame Iti when it was OK when Cullen did it? It’s actually kind of hard to respond to because it’s such a staggeringly stupid comment.

    “BeShakey – define inequality as Cullen sees it then.”

    Unlike you, I can’t just wander down the hallway to ask him. Why don’t you propose a PQ on it?

  21. outofbed 21
    13 February 2008 at 5:18 pm

    hey Rob do you remember when DPF used to post as Santa claws
    some of the words used and terminology was so similar to the bog posts it had to be the same person?
    Well then was change to TDS
    Gee it all makes perfect sense now It was the “unit’ the whole time

  22. outofbed 22
    13 February 2008 at 5:19 pm

    whoops “Well then was a change to TDS”

  23. The Double Standard 23
    13 February 2008 at 5:31 pm

    “importnat services’

    Freudian slip there Steve? After all, Cullen is so committed to tax cuts that Helen needs to keep back-stopping him in the media

    “But Miss Clark said today that Dr Cullen’s preconditions would not make cutting taxes impossible.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4396881a6160.html

    And Daveo, you and Michael performing a circle-j*** doesn’t constitute proof. Why don’t you admit you are just making stuff up as a lame attempt to divert attention from Cullen’s bankrupt ‘preconditions’.

  24. Robinsod 24
    13 February 2008 at 5:38 pm

    Bro, you’re not fooling anyone. Here’s the thread where you really gave yourself away:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=858

    I’m kinda flattered that a pro like yourself his the time to dally with little ol’ me though…

    Oh and you never answered Daveo – do they still keep John in that little cupboard of an office?

  25. Dean 25
    13 February 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Very well done spin job, but it just doesn’t stack up.

    Government: Let’s cut taxes because we’re behind in the polls and it’s election year.

    I mean, how else could you explain it, given Cullen having previously stated “We just don’t believe in tax cuts – it’s against our fundamental philosophy – after all we are socialists and proud of it”.

    Or Clark’s clanger – “Tax cuts are a path to inequality. They are the promises of a visionless and intellectually bankrupt people”.

    You can argue that these quotes are taken out of context and that conditions are more favourable now than then and more readily facilitate tax cuts, but you’d be dead wrong there, too. We’re facing an operating defecit.

    And I’d love to know how Labour’s proposed tax cuts won’t increase inflation, but then I suspect it’s hard to answer meaningfully when you ask people who’d call Working For Families a “tax credit” instead of what it really is – welfare. Either that’s how utterly confused Labour supporters are on this issue, or they swallow the spin so readily they can’t see the difference.

  26. Billy 26
    13 February 2008 at 9:28 pm

    Steve,

    Were I you, I’d step back a bit. You’re all breathless sychopancy and cheerleading wah-wah. Give Irishbill have more head. He’s got a nice healthy cynical take on things. You sound like you may very well be Clayton Cosgrove’s nephew, or something equally unimposing.

  27. Dean 27
    13 February 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Billy,

    Can you get banned, please?

    That’d be great.

  28. Robinsod 28
    13 February 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Yeah Billy, he could be a struggling rightie living out his fantasies of intellectual superiority by posting snide comments on a left-wing blog. Oh no, hold on. That’s you. Jeez I always get folk mixed up…

  29. The Prophet 29
    14 February 2008 at 7:55 am

    Yeah Billy!

    You’d never hear Sod posting snide comments.

    He’s got the moral high ground on this one.

    Dean, meanwhile, just wants everyone he disagrees with banned.

    The standard, at the Standard, is very sub standard since they brought out the banning stick.

    Power goes to some peoples heads.

  30. Billy 30
    14 February 2008 at 2:21 pm

    When you make a snide post, you should expect snide comments.

  31. Robinsod 31
    14 February 2008 at 2:37 pm

    Dull, Billy, very dull…

  32. Dean 32
    15 February 2008 at 8:30 pm

    “Dean, meanwhile, just wants everyone he disagrees with banned.”

    Not everyone, but I guess misrepresenting people is something you’d like to consider a forte. Just the trolls who like to wheel out the personal insults. But if you’d like to be included I won’t be losing any sleep.

Links to post