Small change

Written By: - Date published: 1:32 am, October 9th, 2008 - 56 comments
Categories: election 2008, john key, kiwisaver, national, slippery - Tags:

That was going to be the title of my first post on National’s tax-cut plan but then it turned out National’s plan would actually make about 1 million taxpayers worse off compared to Labour’s cuts (all figures derived from the Budget and National’s tax policy). That 1 million comprises approx 650,000, including nearly all super-annuitants, on incomes between $14,000 and $24,000 and approx 350,000 on incomes between $24,000 and $44,000 who get Working for Families, Super, or a benefit. They would miss out on Labour’s threshold rises and National’s Independent Earner Rebate. Someone living on a trust or investment income does count as an Independent Earner for National.

Leaving aside, for now, the 1 million Kiwis and their families National would make poorer (and the 1.1 million on less than $14K who get the same amount from both parties), let’s look at what those who do get something get. If you are one of the 400,000 who earn between $24K and $50K and work or live off investment or trust income, and you remember to apply for the rebate, you would pay $7-$14 a week less tax by 2011 with National. Then there’s the 700,000 on high incomes, $50K to $100K. In this range, you’d pay $6-$14 less a week. After that, the sky is the limit: the 50,000 on $150K plus get at least $33 a week, at quarter of a million, you’re pocketing $72 a week. If you’re one of the thousand or fewer with an income over a million a year, you would get $360 and more a week from National.

It’s all small change at every level. The 1.1 million who would get an additional tax cut from National would see their after-tax incomes increase by 1-2% (the 600,000 on $14-24K would see theirs fall 1-3%). Nearly all of them would get $14 or less more than they would from Labour. About 300,000 of them would have to offset that against lost Kiwisaver contributions of $20 plus a week. 

Fewer than a quarter of taxpayers would get a net benefit from National’s cuts, with nearly all of the money going to the small number on more than $80K. Everyone else either gets nothing, gets less, or loses more in Kiwisaver contributions.

Key promised his tax cuts would lift the economy, close the wage gap, lower emigration, lift productivity, prevent doctors’ strikes… The idea that these cuts would lead to any of those promises being fulfilled is, of course, laughable. Key has had his big shot and he blew it. Now we know that, for all his hype, Key can only deliver small change.

56 comments on “Small change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tony Norriss 1
    9 October 2008 at 8:11 am

    Steve,

    Even people who eventually end up on the same level when Labour’s tax plan finally rolls out will still be considerably better off.

    For instance, people who end up $20 better off under both schemes will be better off under national because the money comes through a year earlier. This means they have a full year of getting the tax cut. So, at $20 per week, they will be $1000 better off under National, even if the rates end up the same. Then, take into account the NPV of money and it is better again. Plus, the fact that the money is feeding back into the economy for a full year right when the economy needs it.

    I think you are deliberately ignoring this fact.

    Also, analysis I have seen on TV shows that superannuitants will be better off under the National scheme than they are under Labour now, despite your claim to the contrary.

    I notice our great and noble leader has just blown 40 mil on nationalising some land that is of no benefit whatsoever other than to be walked through. This is from a government that is claiming responsibility with our money at a time when the accounts are bleeding terribly.

    How can you defend this?

    [One year with $7 more a week or whatever is nothing in the long-term, or in NPV terms. On-onw earning less than $120K a year gets $20 a week more under National. I don’t know how superannuitants can be better off – everyone between 14K and 24K would be worse off with National, you show me how they would be better off. SP]

  2. Janet 2
    9 October 2008 at 8:45 am

    Helen Clark mentioned the weekly losses people would get from not geting the 4% employer Kiwisaver contribution would be about $40 on the average wage.

    But as I earn way below the average wage I am more concerned about the country having good infrastructure such as public transport, schools, power lines etc (as well as good public services of course).

    Labour has done a huge amount in infrastructure – schools, roads, trains etc over the last 9 years. And National was theoretically promising to do even more. But I see from the Dom Post that National has now gone back on that promise, to pay for the tax cuts.

    So no new infrastructure, no R & D, attacks on Kiwisaver – no vision there. Why would anyone vote for this?

    (Captcha: limit back)

  3. tony norriss 3
    9 October 2008 at 8:56 am

    Janet said: “So no new infrastructure, no R & D, attacks on Kiwisaver – no vision there. Why would anyone vote for this?”

    Because Labour has gone and run the cupboard bare so there is no money for these things, Janet. Would you spend up large on modifying your house if you just found out you were about to be made redundant? Quite simple really.

    The Kiwi saver changes actually make it easier for people to join, which is a good thing. This does not stop people from contributing at their current rate if they want to. Also, probably 95% of businesses would not be interested in the R & D grant anyway. Go and ask your local shop keeper or panelbeater. Most of the few businesses that have been claiming it have been using it as a rort anyway. So, it is no great loss.

  4. Janet 4
    9 October 2008 at 9:00 am

    I see 08wire estimates someone like John Key will be about $3000 a week better off in tax cuts under this deal, and it will be making our top tax rate even lower internationally.

  5. RedLogix 5
    9 October 2008 at 9:00 am

    I notice our great and noble leader has just blown 40 mil on nationalising some land that is of no benefit whatsoever other than to be walked through.

    I suppose you could characterise almost ALL of our National Parks and conservation estate as “only good for walking through” … but you and I both know that would be a pretty dishonest spin to put on it. Our parks are in fact a hugely valuable asset; in every sense of the word.

    The opportunity to purchase this kind of magnificent high country land only happens rarely (the St James has been in the Stevenson family for 80 plus years) so the govt either acted now to retain this land in NZ ownership or perhaps miss out for another generation.

    St James is not just any old farm; FMC has been campaigning for the public ownership of this area for more than 30 years, which is an indication of how valuable and strategic this acquisition has been for all New Zealanders.

  6. the sprout 6
    9 October 2008 at 9:09 am

    Interesting how in what miniscule coverage of the National tax policy the Herald has, all criticism comes from National’s [nasty negative petty] opponents, while all of Key’s statements are presented in an overall positive tone.

  7. Pascal's bookie 7
    9 October 2008 at 9:13 am

    sprout, Ducan Garner was in fine editorialising form last night as well. Telling viewers that the package was difficult to criticise and not bothering to ask around and see if there were any people out there that had criticisms.

    But that would be journalsim I guess. Too hard.

  8. Gustavo Trellis 8
    9 October 2008 at 9:14 am

    Sprout, that’s not entirely correct. The Herald website yesterday led with the headline that lower income earners would be worse off under National, which is hardly a glowing endorsement.

  9. Bill 9
    9 October 2008 at 9:17 am

    Janet

    “Why would anyone vote for this?”

    They’d vote for ‘this’ by default. The ‘right’ are, in my opinion’ correct when they assert that people are fed up with Labour. I suspect many will vote for Nat out of protest unless it becomes apparent to them just how bad things will be for them under Nat. At the moment, it might be argued that the Nats are still successfully pulling the wool over the eyes of enough people.

    I think it’s unfortunate that voters persist with a FPP mentality under the MMP system. It’s taken as read that either Nat or Lab will be the mainstay of government…that their policies will dominate.

    Insofar as that is true, the choice would appear to be a right leaning Labour government; a more right leaning Nat government; or a Lab led government pushed left by coalition partners.

    But on the third choice, other parties are not getting enough coverage to be perceived as having more than a minor effect on a future government….a so-called ‘kingmaker’ role that decides who between Nat and Lab will govern.

    I’d love to see the profile of the so-called minor parties rise significantly to the extent that it became a commonly held view that a party vote for them would have a significant impact on future policies; to see the self fulfilling myth that since they are ‘minor’ they can only have a minor influence – and the subsequent relegating of them in peoples minds in terms of importance and voting – blown away.

    Until that happens, NZ is destined to have a government on the right of the political spectrum. Sadly.

  10. Akdnut 10
    9 October 2008 at 9:19 am

    Sprout :Interesting how in what miniscule coverage of the National tax policy the Herald has, all criticism comes from National’s [nasty negative petty] opponents, while all of Key’s statements are presented in an overall positive tone.

    You’ve just confirmed HCs claim that its a tory newsletter hahaha

  11. Tamaki Resident 11
    9 October 2008 at 9:22 am

    Key has done what the previous National Leader who he admired (Rob Muldoon) did – stuffed a good superannuation scheme!

    All he has tried to achieve with his tinkering is get a tax cut bigger than Labour’s – but why not try something more interesting, like indexing the tax bands to inflation. He has also managed to alienate more business people i.e. anyone doing R&D in NZ.

  12. Mello C. 12
    9 October 2008 at 9:23 am

    Janet’s right. I make very little money every year. I don’t care about tax cuts, I don’t notice what I do get taxed. I take what I get paid after tax at face value, and am happy to live in a decent country.

    Isn’t the aim of a government to improve a country? All I see National doing is taking things apart. John Key talks of improving the country:

    I truly believe we live in one of the best countries on Earth, and I believe we can be far greater still.

    …yet we pay a miniscule amount of tax compared the the actual best countries in the world (namely, most of Scandinavia), who benefit from free education, healthcare, and all the usual socialist trappings. They also have the lowest poverty rates in Europe.

    Who would want to move away from, rather than towards a system like that?

  13. the sprout 13
    9 October 2008 at 9:23 am

    hmm yes ‘difficult to criticise’ could well become Duncan’s new killer catchphrase…

    “Yes hillary it’s difficult to criticise National’s policy… because I don’t read good…”

    “Yes hillary it’s difficult to criticise National’s policy… because nobody will tell me what to say…”

    “Yes hillary it’s difficult to criticise National’s policy… because I can’t count numbers and stuff…”

    GT
    yes true in the interests of appearing even-handed there have been some Herald originated criticisms, but they’re downplayed and always carefully ‘balanced’ with other glowing reports… the final balance will come out net positive.

    and of course the angle that National’s One Major Policy Distinction has turned out to be a wet fart won’t even get a look in. Does anyone remember how National’s total popularity platform for the last three years, other than ‘we’re not Labour’, has been tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts?

  14. Janet 14
    9 October 2008 at 9:25 am

    I see Bernard Hickey thinks the economic crisis is going to get a lot worse yet. So I wouldn’t be surprised if this tax announcement got cut back. All we are sure about is that it was the policy for 8 October 2008, but who knows what the policy will be by 8 November 2008?

  15. the sprout 15
    9 October 2008 at 9:27 am

    Labour should repeal the tax cuts altogether. That’d shift the agenda a bit

  16. ThinkBig 16
    9 October 2008 at 9:36 am

    Who in their right mind would reduce R&D spending in order to fund tax cuts? Way to think short-term there, John.

    God damnit National, why won’t you let us love you?

  17. Dom 17
    9 October 2008 at 9:39 am

    Two people I work with who are both fence sitters are now lost to National – it was the mucking about with Kiwisaver that has done it for them. These aren’t people who follow the news closely or debate in blogs like this but ordinary voters who’ve looked at National’s plan and gone – no.

    Interested to see how right wing the polls on the Herald are again…maybe they have rooms of trained monkeys voting dozens of times…

  18. Akdnut 18
    9 October 2008 at 9:41 am

    sprout Labour should repeal the tax cuts altogether. That’d shift the agenda a bit

    It shouulod restart them the same day that the nats would start there first tax cut thereby negatating nation using 1 Oct 08 as part of there tax package. lol

  19. Akdnut 19
    9 October 2008 at 9:42 am

    nation = national

  20. higherstandard 20
    9 October 2008 at 9:45 am

    Sprout

    While I’m sure you have your tongue well and truly in your cheek it’s a shame that a recession hits hard during this part of the election cycle – I would have expected that we might have had a better response to the situation from all sides if there was no electioneering going on at present.

  21. the sprout 21
    9 October 2008 at 9:46 am

    dom
    i think it’s as much that the left now starting to understand why there’s no point participating in online polls – it just contributes to a veneer of validity. in many ways the best thing to do to counter their function of steering debate is to let them wind off into blatantly cuckoo rightwing imbalances in what they ‘reveal’.

    but now National’s Chewing Gum tax cuts have been revealed, to little surprise, let’s go back to the altogether more fruitful Pita and John Show: Who is Lying about the Maori seats.

    Someone is lying, I’d like to know who?

  22. higherstandard 22
    9 October 2008 at 9:55 am

    For those on low incomes with a family and claiming WFF – I was under the impression that they paid close to zero tax at present (I seem to remember Tane commenting on this a few times and it sounded correct) is that due to change under National ?

    Perhaps the most useful thing the mainstream media could do, or the unions or whomever would be to release non biased figures as to the effect of each of the two parties tax packages for different scenarios – I expect I’m living in a fantasy land however and we’ll get biased cak all round.

  23. the sprout 23
    9 October 2008 at 10:09 am

    true HS, we’ll have to rely on the more professional sources like the Standard for actual fact-based analsyes.
    all them numbers and stuff, you can’t expect people like Duncan Garner to bother themselves with that, it’s far too hard to work excel.

  24. Dom 24
    9 October 2008 at 10:12 am

    I think we’ll only get the analysis of the tax package in the debates – Key has to rely and that and their law and order policy to differentiate his party from Labour – and he will be soundly slammed on both fronts.

  25. Go The Right 25
    9 October 2008 at 10:14 am

    Don’t worry about Labours Tax Cuts or National Tax cuts the merritt or lack of merit of either.

    [deleted]

    [lprent: I’m tired of reading your badly written, badly spelt, and non-interactive propaganda. Leaving you in moderation doesn’t to have appeared to made you learn. Putting you in any alias on the permanent ban list. Face it you are just not up to the minimum standard and you just clog the comments section with no redeeming features.]

  26. higherstandard 26
    9 October 2008 at 10:15 am

    Sprout I think you misread my comment – I said non-biased.

    I don’t think SP would ever claim he was non-biased.

    If you read three or four blogs you’ll get different views dependent on the political flavour of the person posting…….. but I’m sure you know that.

  27. the sprout 27
    9 October 2008 at 10:19 am

    i hear you HS, but biased doesn’t necessarily imply inaccurate.

  28. higherstandard 28
    9 October 2008 at 10:20 am

    Dom

    “I think we’ll only get the analysis of the tax package in the debate”

    In that case we’ll get little to no analysis – I expect the debates between Clark and Key will consist of repeated messages, screeching at each other, an audience who are separated into blue and red seats and jeer and cheer their respective hero and villian and a mediator who’ll think the debate is all about them and their clever interjections.

    Feck how depressing.

  29. the sprout 29
    9 October 2008 at 10:31 am

    apparently the audience has been chosen to be non-partisan or ambivalent, and the jeering matches of last election’s farce debates is to be avoided this time around.

    but you’re right HS, we still won’t get bugger all analysis. and while it’ll ostensibly be about The Economy, it’ll really be about personality and plausibility. a fairly even match on the first count, less so on the second.

  30. higherstandard 30
    9 October 2008 at 10:38 am

    Perhaps they could introduce electric buzzers and when a large enough proportion of the audience get annoyed with the speakers they can give them a small electric shock.

    If the audience is truly non-partisan I’d expect most of them to become perturbed with both Clark and Key within a very shore time period and could show their displeasure by making them both twitch uncontrollably – even if the debates aren’t informative at least it would then be a bit entertaining 🙂

  31. the sprout 31
    9 October 2008 at 10:40 am

    admittedly that would be quite good, and it would showcase each contestant’s ability to handle shocks

  32. r0b 32
    9 October 2008 at 10:43 am

    I’ve no time to chat today, but the excellent Gordon Campbell’s piece on National’s “plans” should be required reading.

  33. Matthew Pilott 33
    9 October 2008 at 10:48 am

    What has irked me most about the reporting is that this was presented as Key’s economic transformation package, not just about tax cuts.

    The transformation bit seems to be transforming us into a low-savings, low-research economy, with the R & D and KS cuts.

    Yet the media has forgotten all about that bit, and focused by and large on tax cuts.

    Understandable they’ve forgotten about the underclass Key has just ignored, that speech was over a year ago – but ‘economic transformation package’ was three friggin’ days ago – will someone hold the man to his bleedin’ words?!

    Feck how depressing indeed.

    I won’t start with Watkins’ “They probably are good enough” – why not analyse it so we can decide ourselves instead of telling us! That was a pathetic piece if ever I saw one.

  34. Paul 34
    9 October 2008 at 10:49 am

    yeah the whole R&D thing is mystifying – all I can think of is that the farming wing of National is in ascendence again?

    I run a small company – heavily in the R&D phase at the moment – it’s left me seriously thinking about where I should be doing this, it’s warmer in Oz, closer to my customers in the US – there are lots of downsides to doing R&D in NZ (long supply chains are #1 – 3 days for components by fedex thru customs is just silly) – the main upside is that the overhead of running a small company is wonderfully simple and cheap in NZ (people bitch about ‘compliance costs’ they’ve just never tried to run a company somewhere else) – after the recent changes everyone had some form of R&D credit so it wasn’t an issue – now it’s a minus

    Whatever happens changes that happen this fast are really bad – one needs to be able to plan ahead – want to take away the R&D credit – go ahead – but give us 2 years warning so we can make plans

  35. illuminatedtiger 35
    9 October 2008 at 11:05 am

    No matter what you say the unescapable truth about all this is that it’s a cynical, short sighted ploy on National’s part for votes.

  36. higherstandard 36
    9 October 2008 at 11:12 am

    Tiger

    Yes welcome to NZ politics – parties are all about cynical, short sighted ploys for votes?

  37. randal 37
    9 October 2008 at 11:26 am

    Bill the people are not fed up with labour. the media and the journalists are fed up with labour because they are not right wing lickspittles. How can the people havea say when the meedia is busy making stuff up and ignoring the truth. this is a country of educated fools, co-dependent suckers and self made idiots led by a foreign owned meedia and a whole cadre of pinheads who’s only educational qualification was learning funny writing a j-school. They were shoulder tapped for their hair and teeth and voila we are being led by the nose by a pack of dancing fleas. the issues are never discussed except in hysterical tones bordering on irrational violence so that subtantively every discussion is effectively quashed before it begins. All the hardworking decent people I know are firmly behind Labour and will show their appreciation for their policies at the election on nov 8 without being spun on by espammer and dunnycan.

  38. Scribe 38
    9 October 2008 at 11:52 am

    I run a small company – heavily in the R&D phase at the moment – it’s left me seriously thinking about where I should be doing this, it’s warmer in Oz, closer to my customers in the US

    I hope your company doesn’t print atlases or produce GPS devices, Paul 😉

  39. Matthew Pilott 39
    9 October 2008 at 11:55 am

    Scribe – When I buy vinyl from the states, half of it seems to be shipped via Australia. It’s all hubs and spokes these days…

  40. Scribe 40
    9 October 2008 at 11:58 am

    MP,

    Just trying to lighten the mood a bit — all this financial talk is getting people riled up.

  41. Matthew Pilott 41
    9 October 2008 at 12:24 pm

    I know. Back when I were a lad we’d be lucky to talk finance. Had to pay half-pound for the privilege after walking five mile through snow in bare foot. Tell that to the youth of today and they won’t believe you…

    And given the last GPS I used, you’d think we’re closer to the US geographically too.

  42. TomS 42
    9 October 2008 at 12:49 pm

    From what I have heard around the watercooler, it seems to me that politically National have made a huge mistake by tinkering with Kiwisaver and, to a lesser extent, with the R&D fund. Why? Because National as a party has got form when it comes to scrapping super schemes. There are now 800,000 New Zealanders who just got told that National is going to make their super scheme a lot less attractive.

    The question a lot of them are now asking is can they now trust National to not get rid of Kiwisaver completely if they win office? National has handed a “trust” issue on which they are extremely vulnerable on their past record on a plate with cream and a cherry on top to Labour.

    Bill English doesn’t like Kiwisaver, and I think that his personal antipathy to the scheme may have led National to mis-judge the public mood and its fondness for the scheme. Time and again, people comment that kiwisaver is the first time we’ve saved for the future as a country and approve of the scheme. Thematically, that just plugs into the R&D fund being cut as well – mortgaging tomorrow to pay for today, a charge National are vulnerable to because it has all to often (tax cuts in the 90’s paid for by neglecting infrastructure investment is another example) been true.

    Linked to that and more subtle but also perhaps pertinent is that like kiwibank, it’s cunningly named, and that has meant that it has becomed linked in people minds with something vaguely patriotic, Kiwisaver equals a better, richer future for New Zealand and New Zealanders.

    Labour now has the opportunity to turn the election into a referendum on Kiwisaver, and that is a referendum that they should easily win.

  43. Paul 43
    9 October 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Scribe: I was wondering where would be the best place to base my company – at the moment I’m pretty flexible manufacturing will be in China anyway – once the initial R&D phase is over, we have something to show the money people and we have to staff up (next year) then I have to set down roots somewhere – I can easily live in NZ, Oz or the US so I have those as easy choices – in fact finding good staff in Oz of the US would probably be easier – but I’m a kiwi, I like living back home and would like to do it all here – but as I start to run my biz plan past VCs to fund all this those tax issues are right there on the spreadsheets staring them in their faces

    What happens next month will change what I’m presenting to the money guys early next year (and maybe whether I’m looking for money here of in the US).

    Despite the economy it’s actually a good time to be starting a tech company – do it right and you catch the rising edge of the next biz cycle

  44. gobsmacked 44
    9 October 2008 at 1:28 pm

    One simple fact, among many, ignored in the generally poor media coverage of Key’s announcement (especially TV):

    The Big Plan policies were those already announced by Key in his speech to National’s conference, several weeks ago. RMA, ETS, bureaucrats, blah blah.

    Therefore they are not a response to either the global financial crisis, or the PREFU. They predate the events to which National is supposed to be responding … so how can they be dressed up as the Big Plan?

    There is no Plan. There is only Spin. And fools falling for it.

  45. Dock 45
    9 October 2008 at 1:59 pm

    [lprent: Another in a long line of “I used to be labour followed by ‘I’m really from the right and I listen to talkback'”. Sigh, how many of these trolls are there. They’re slow, repetitive, and very blatant. This one doesn’t appear to be one of our usual suspects. So give it a little room to learn.

    Dock: I’d suggest that you read the Policy especially about trolls, flame starting, and engaging with other commentators. Lift your standard and find something original to say – that isn’t just a repeat of hundreds of other comments (where that stuff has been refuted many times).

    If you don’t – then read what I like doing to trolls. I think of it as “Evolution in Action” – helping improve the online community by terminally banning trolls and feeding their comments to the anti-spam bots.]

    Boy oh Boy I just love reading what left leaning people have to say about any given situation.

    I have to say that I ‘once was left but now I am found.’

    In my younger days I supported the Labour party as my Dad and his. Unfortunately no more, and even my dear old Dad states he can no longer recognise the party.

    The main change is the thrust away from the premise of ‘Power to the people’ to ‘Power at all costs’.

    I have watched with disbelief both Helen and Michael mishandle incident after incident, giving fuel to the opposition to throw back.

    I really think for the voter who has gotten sick of the mistakes and the PR spin surrounding
    Paintergate
    Doongate
    Speedingate
    I wont make criminals of parents but now I willgate.
    Childs lunchboxgate
    and now the unbelievable double standard shown regarding
    Winstongate

    has reached tipping point.

    Arguing over tax cuts and the ins and outs of Kiwisaver will not save Labour from possibly the biggest defeat in my considerable lifetime.

  46. Matthew Pilott 46
    9 October 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Dock, if such trifles are, in your mind, equal to ‘power at any cost’, they I’m flabbergasted you have the ability to use a keyboard.

    Take S59 for example – Labour did what they believed to be the right thing, in the face of widespread opposition. Tell me, how is that power at any cost?

    It’s the bloody opposite.

    With that reasoning, I’m pretty sure you’re lying about ever supporting Labour. If you supported them, it must have been incredibly weak support – to change it because Clark sugned a painting for charity, or was in a fast car…? If that’s representative of the depths of your political views then I guess it might not surprise me if you supported Labour for no reason other than your old man told you to vote that way and you never stopped to think otherwise.

    P.S child’s lunchboxgate? That is THE worst use of ‘gate’ I have ever seen. You managed to disgrace a disgrace.

  47. RedLogix 47
    9 October 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Dock,

    The moment you mention discredited and idiotic drivel like Paintergate, Speedergate and Doonegate…. you brand yourself a lying troll.

    You were never a ‘leftie’. You just make this shit up to graft onto your vain wafflings a fake emotive pastiche.

    PS Mathew and I have both spotted you for a liar independently of each other… before we saw each other’s post. Go figure.

  48. gobsmacked 48
    9 October 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Real world: a global crisis, affecting everybody.

    Dock’s world: a painting, affecting nobody.

    If you’ve really had a “considerable lifetime”, you haven’t learned much.

  49. Matthew Pilott 49
    9 October 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Red – that would be like me saying I voted National all my life, but won’t now because Key lied about his shares – it’s just not credible, however you look at it.

  50. Scribe 50
    9 October 2008 at 2:37 pm

    MP,

    that would be like me saying I voted National all my life, but won’t now because Key lied about his shares – it’s just not credible, however you look at it.

    I would consider myself centre-right politically (far right socially), though I have voted Labour in the electorate and my last three party votes have been for three different parties.

    If John Key pals around with Winston after this election, though, reneging on his pledge, National will never get my party vote with Key as leader.

    So it won’t be like I’ve been National all my life, but THAT decision would be enough to swing my vote.

  51. randal 51
    9 October 2008 at 2:50 pm

    everybody knows about double entry bookkeeping and the compound interest but not everybody is psychologically disposed to use mans inventions to ensnare and enslave others and ensure a captive cohort of snivelling grovelling creditors as a psychic payoff for being a shrivelled up mysogynistic misanthropic psychopathic manque. like brah for instance who numbered his corn beef slices or branson who insists on punching holes in the ozone so idiotes from nowhere can fulfill their destiny or whatever

  52. Ianmac 52
    9 October 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Scribe: Should National win the Election, they may well need the help of Winston. Then the MP’s who harbour much more rightest beliefs, will roll John Key and get stuck into the real agenda. I am sure that then you could cope with your own ambivalence.
    Remember that it was John Key who made tax-cuts the essence of all that was wrong with the Government, and that with significant tax-cuts all the problems will be solved. Pity that there is a huge flow of people moving to NZ from Australia, and that R&D has been stifled etc. All that is left for you is to shout the same meaningless slogans. Get Creative!

  53. Scribe 53
    9 October 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Ianmac,

    I am sure that then you could cope with your own ambivalence.

    You’re wrong. And it’d be much more negative than ambivalence.

  54. Draco T Bastard 54
    9 October 2008 at 3:41 pm

    National states that these personal tax cuts are to improve productivity. That by giving personal tax cuts people will be more willing to work hard. This is complete BS:

    You’ve got, very generally, 3 types of people:
    1.) The people who don’t think that $12/hour is worth getting up for. A tax cut isn’t going to make any difference here and these are the people that you want to get either in to the workforce or education.

    2.) The people already working. A tax cut will make no difference to productivity here as they’re already working as hard as they can.

    3.) Investors, the people who live on investment but don’t actually work. These people aren’t going to change their investment habits any so personal tax cuts are just a pay rise courtesy of an already overstretched government budget.

    The ways to grow the economy is through savings/investment and R & D both of which National have just cut back significantly with their economic package. The only thing personal tax cuts can do is help maintain prices in a minor deflationary period – we seem to be on the verge of a global depression.

  55. randal 55
    9 October 2008 at 3:51 pm

    well I never. People in this country work damm hard already and they dont get paid enough now so how is a tax cut going to improve productivity? thats just mumbo jumbo from the worst gang of cheeseparing chsisellers that ever wanted a GO at the treasury benches.

  56. Disengaged 56
    9 October 2008 at 7:10 pm

    And in comparison Labour’s tax cuts are designed to achieve what exactly randal?