So what’s the rabbit?

Written By: - Date published: 8:32 pm, May 19th, 2010 - 53 comments
Categories: class war - Tags:

Tax cuts for the rich must have seemed like such a good idea a month or two ago. I mean the public had already sucked up the ACC hikes, forgiven the tax-cuts that never came (except for the rich) and shrugged off the cuts to education. Hell they’d even let subsidies for private schools and no-rights periods for vulnerable workers slide.

Surely John’s team could sell a few more breaks for the rich and an increase in gst. In fact all their polling was saying the punters were ready to make sacrifices for the good of the country. What with a recession and all.

And it’s it’s not like the media didn’t give them a green light. This was supposed to be the year of action they said, the budget that would showKey had steel. Sit on his hands? Not this guy – he haz vision!

It should have been a spindoctor’s cakewalk.

But like they say, a week is a long time in politics. And whether it was the mining of conservation parks, the dodgy double-cross of Tuhoe (which has raised some eyebrows in business circles) or rising unemployment or maybe the gallery just got tired of the bullshit. Whatever. The mood has turned.

And now the nats are getting desperate. We saw that with the “don’t be jealous” line and they’re trying it again this evening. The problem is nobody’s buying it. They got over-confident.

So what do you do when you can’t spin your way out of a problem?

You reach for the cheque book.

That’s why we’ll see the Nat’s pull a rabbit out of the hat tomorrow. It might be dropping the 33% rate.

But that’s really, really, really expensive (like several Whanau Ora’s a year expensive).

It might be income-splitting.

But that’s going to make Peter Dunn a lot happier than anyone wants, doesn’t do much for National’s single white male core and is also very costly.

It might be an increase in the tax credit for WFF.

But they’ve already said they’re going to crack down on that sort of thing.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see. But one thing is for sure: whatever the rabbit is it’ll be coming out of our pockets one way or another because you can’t give the likes of Paul Reynolds and Rob Fyfe tax breaks of thousands of dollars a week, balance the books and not be taking the money from somewhere.

One way or another the government plans (to quote mc 900 foot jesus) to buy you a new car with your own damn money.

It’s the great tax switch.

53 comments on “So what’s the rabbit? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Fisiani 1
    19 May 2010 at 8:45 pm

    The Budget will give people back more of their money. Labour made 10% of people pay 74% of tax. Fair tax is flat tax. Bill English will improve the tax system but it will still be unfair for middle income people

    • Marty G 1.1
      19 May 2010 at 8:48 pm

      No. It’ll give the rich more our our money.

      Try to understand, Fizzy, the tax switch is revenue neutral. The government will not be spending less money, it will just be taking more from working Kiwis and less from the rich.

      • burt 1.1.1
        20 May 2010 at 10:00 am

        No. It’ll give the rich more our our money.

        Only some of the rich are paid with your money, most pay money to provide stuff for you. It is interesting that you see reducing the tax take as giving them money.

        I also have a question; If you support progressive taxation then why can’t you accept that when rates and thresholds are adjusted big tax payers get bigger tax reduction or increases? If you want to say the progressive tax model is broken because you can’t reduce rates and thresholds without disproportionately effecting the rich then I suspect the 10% paying 70% of the tax will agree with you, the other 90% possibly accept this as a natural consequence of the progressive taxation model.

        • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1
          20 May 2010 at 10:10 am

          It’s pretty clear he is saying that the system isn’t progressive enough, and that we should fix it by collecting more taxes from the top, and cutting them at the bottom.

    • gobsmacked 1.2
      19 May 2010 at 8:50 pm

      “Fair tax is flat tax”

      Is that National’s 2011 campaign slogan? Oh please, let it be so.

    • Daveosaurus 1.3
      19 May 2010 at 9:43 pm

      “Labour made 10% of people pay 74% of tax”

      This wouldn’t happen to be the 10% of people who sluice the vast majority of New Zealand’s earnings out of the economy and into their own hip pockets, would it, now?

    • r0b 1.4
      19 May 2010 at 9:49 pm

      The Budget will give people back more of their money.

      No one earns any money (or owns any thing) except as part of a society. The rich earn their money because of a complex society that enables, sustains and protects them. If they take more out of that society in terms of high income, then they are obliged to put more back in terms of high taxes.

      Labour made 10% of people pay 74% of tax.

      A dodgy argument based on who knows what statistical manipulation (see “if Working for Families and other benefits are taken into account”). The richest 10% in NZ pay 44 per cent of all personal income tax. They also own almost 50% of the wealth.

  2. Fisiani 2
    19 May 2010 at 8:50 pm

    More of THEIR money

    • mickysavage 2.1
      19 May 2010 at 9:19 pm

      The right think there are two political entities, the evil state and the good group of individuals.

      The left think that there is one society of which the State forms an important part. They want to make sure that the things the state does, like Education and Health, are done as well as possible.

      Fisi is part of the first group. I do not think that he will change.

      • Marco 2.1.1
        19 May 2010 at 10:02 pm

        The Right and Left ideologies are flawless….on paper.

        The fact is, if no one lied and gave their all for the good of society both models would work. Human nature intervenes and we need something down the middle. Getting the balance between the carrot and the stick is the hard part.

        A friend of mine cut back his hours at work. He now earns 43k a year, has a wife and child, gets Working for Families, has an investment property and pays $1k in tax a year when you factor these in. That means he pays most of his tax through GST. I don’t think the Nat plan is the answer but hey it’s a lot clearer and less complicated than the system we have now and that has to be a step in the right direction.

    • zonk 2.2
      19 May 2010 at 9:21 pm

      I do hope they are going to spend it on the infrastrucutre of our country they made use of in making their money…please tell me they are!

  3. Akldnut 3
    19 May 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Fuzzy “The Budget will give people back more of their money”

    The Budget will give rich people more of my money

    There… fixed it for you so it makes sense – that’s ok mate no need to thank me.

  4. Santi 4
    19 May 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Double Dipton English will only tinker with the system. Neither him, nor his boss Key, have the balls to reform the tax system.

    Labour ruined the country, the Nats continue to do the same.

    • Marty G 4.1
      19 May 2010 at 9:37 pm

      yeah, I remember those days of sub 4% unemployment, record wage rises, no net government debt, decreasing crime, improving equality, improving health, and improving education. It was awful.

      • Lew 4.1.1
        19 May 2010 at 10:00 pm

        But Marty, what about the lightbulbs???//

        L

        • Marty G 4.1.1.1
          19 May 2010 at 10:06 pm

          oh yeah. those f#ckers.

          • zonk 4.1.1.1.1
            20 May 2010 at 10:16 am

            From http://www.colinjames.co.nz/ODT/ODT_2010/ODT_10May18.htm

            “The third reason is commercial. If China can develop clean technology, it might score big in what is set to be a growing market whatever the future for climate change science and policy…….

            Early in its life the Key government dumped a number of Clark-government measures to force energy efficiency and emissions cuts. The budget centrepiece is tax reform, centred on a market-forces belief that beneficiaries of cuts will channel some of the loot into productive investment. ”

            Can’t wait to see if tax reform means all problems will be solved and opportunities grasped intuitively by our enlightened cashed up oligarchs of the market without bothering with any of this government business.

            National’s deregulation has worked so well in the past right leaky building owners? No justice there for anyone.

        • Lanthanide 4.1.1.2
          19 May 2010 at 10:08 pm

          Don’t forget the showerheads, and telling you what you could eat and what you could think.

          • HitchensFan 4.1.1.2.1
            20 May 2010 at 9:41 am

            gays getting married and fundies not being allowed to bash their kids

            god life was terrible

    • mickysavage 4.2
      19 May 2010 at 10:06 pm

      Things were so much worse two years ago. We were not allowed to (gasp) smash our kids about in the name of discipline …

  5. Croc 5
    19 May 2010 at 9:55 pm

    the dodgy double-cross of Tuhoe

    John Key has a history of dodgy double crossing to in order to push forward his own agenda. Like when he promised Bill English his vote on Don Brash’s leadership challenge and then switched at the last minute.

  6. Lanthanide 6
    19 May 2010 at 10:10 pm

    I’m a little confused by this post. Are you suggesting that National are going to change their budget as a result of opinion in the last few days? The budget will’ve been locked down at least a couple of weeks ago. Or are you saying that they would have put a sweetener in back then, antipating the backlash? Possible.

    Personally I’m expecting to see the $48k threshold move up to $50k (as Labour’s original tax plan would’ve done), but other than that the tax “switches” will be as previously advertised.

    • Marty G 6.1
      19 May 2010 at 10:16 pm

      No, they obviously aren’t changing the budget now. It’s about changing the spin. They will have something small up their sleeve and will spin it as something amazing.

      The rabbit isn’t extraordinary. Pulling it out unexpectedly makes it seem extraordinary.

      • Lanthanide 6.1.1
        19 May 2010 at 10:18 pm

        Ah, gotcha.

        captcha: consistencys – I don’t think that’s a word, at least, not spelled that way.

      • Armchair Critic 6.1.2
        19 May 2010 at 10:19 pm

        I thought the money for Kiwirail was unexpected.

        • DeepRed 6.1.2.1
          19 May 2010 at 10:34 pm

          Unexpected, if not half-hearted. Especially when compared against the funding for new vanity motorways.

          • Armchair Critic 6.1.2.1.1
            19 May 2010 at 10:40 pm

            Yeah, don’t get me started.
            Capcha – late, it’s getting that way and as a result I don’t have time to write a big comment.

            • zonk 6.1.2.1.1.1
              20 May 2010 at 10:20 am

              yes but compared to it being burned or hoicked off again- though they probably couldn’t with the state it’s in- it was a welcome suprise.

              A problem here is Joyce recently raised rail fairs I believe. Have to wait and see how elastic train travel is. It is certainly much more effecient than bus. Newmarket to Kingsland in 6 minutes. You just have to want to go from that point to point. Newmarket’s new station is a laugh. It’s like it thinks it is a real railway station with trains going on 10 lines every 5 minutes. Oh well.

  7. Fisiani 7
    19 May 2010 at 11:37 pm

    I mean the public had already sucked up the ACC hikes,
    (Actually massive reductions in the premiums that were likely due to the budget blowout by Labour)

    forgiven the tax-cuts that never came (except for the rich)
    (Actually tax cuts for the many)

    and shrugged off the cuts to education.

    (Actually spent more money on education and bringing in national standards to the delight of parents)

    Hell they’d even let subsidies for private schools

    (actually only partly restored the level of independent schools funding but still not to the level that fairness demands)

    and no-rights periods for vulnerable workers slide.

    (Actually gave greater employment opportunities to vulnerable workers now able to prove their worth)
    So, 5 glaring errors in two sentences.

    • Marty G 7.1
      19 May 2010 at 11:56 pm

      Fuzzy you would tell us up was down if it was necessary to make your hero Key look better than Labour.

      Do you dream about your hero at night? What happens in those dreams?

    • Craig Glen Eden 7.2
      20 May 2010 at 9:42 am

      Hold the line Fisaini can you hear the laughter, thats Rhys Darby pissing himself laughing oh no wait the laughter is the thousands of NZer’s standing behind him. Have you ever thought of going on stage Fisaini, cos you really are funny, deluded but funny.

  8. Irascible 8
    20 May 2010 at 12:41 am

    The rabbit is skinned, stuffed and baked and sitting on the roasting dish ready for Double Dipton and Dim-Bulb (Smile & Wave) to ask Rodney to carve up and serve up to their asset stripping mates. That’s where the rabbit is.

  9. kriswgtn 9
    20 May 2010 at 7:34 am

    Come on

    key has lots inside his hat

    Theres the maori party dunne hide and all the little asslickers who back them…

    Now will he by accident pull out Andrew Krieger hahahahhahahahahahahahhahaahaha

    Just be patient people,,2011 aint far away

    Lets get rid of them and then journos can finally have the balls to go hard on donkey and his farmyard of animals

  10. exbrethren 10
    20 May 2010 at 7:53 am

    It took years for Tony Bliars inane grin to slip. Captain Beaky has done it in such a short time. What a high achiever.

    This really seems to be a determined effort to become a one term government.

  11. Akldnut 11
    20 May 2010 at 8:50 am

    awwww that wascally wabbit always comes out wooking gwood and is always the peoples favowite

  12. Pete 12
    20 May 2010 at 8:58 am

    Peter, Peter, Peter,

    WTF does this even mean?

    “A lot of the rich dodge tax anyway so they will also pay more if they did with GST rise.”

    Grammar?

    If you want to start calling people idiots try not to make your next few statements this incoherent.

    Oh, and the “train set” thing – privatisation, Fay and Richwhite – look ’em up.

    I’ll let others pick apart the rest of what you squatted out above.

  13. freedom 13
    20 May 2010 at 8:58 am

    Ahhh Budget day, when logic is sidestepped and even the spin doctors usually end up dizzy.

    On the other hand it must be nice for all the Nat trolls to be out in the wild today, busily leaving nuggets of wisdom on blogs everywhere as they educate us in how the National Government is just better. No need to let facts get in the way.

  14. Craig Glen Eden 14
    20 May 2010 at 8:59 am

    So Peter I take it that you are not rich and yet you still voted National?

    You really are Dumb!

    Enjoy your Government Peter, take out your whip start hitting your self and keep saying this is good this good for me.

  15. graham 15
    20 May 2010 at 10:00 am

    Just a quick question?
    Is it okay for a leftie to be racist
    Why does Marty refer to fisiani as fuzzy(aka Fuzzywuzzies)
    does that mean that left wing people can be racists or sexist if the victim is a tory

    [lprent: It appears to be a comment on the evident timbre of Fisiani’s mind based on his comments. Much like your own mind, it clearly lacks the clarity and focus of thought required to maintain a coherent argument. More concisely, both of you appear to engage largely in fuzzy thinking. This could be as a result of a inherent intellectual defect, a lack of intellectual stimulation your brain was forming, over indulgence in mind altering chemicals, or simply because you both show strong diagnostic signs of lazy intellectual ossification whenever you comment.

    Does that clear it up, or should I elucidate some more? ]

    • zonk 15.1
      20 May 2010 at 10:25 am

      it’s just a nickname mate. whadareya? take your pathetic attempt to be victimised elsewhere. It’s as convincing as ‘tax cuts for all’- This is the caviar scramble and half-a-slice of cheese budget.

  16. freedom 16
    20 May 2010 at 10:17 am

    a bit of projection of self there graham?
    you can just as easily say the fuzzy statement was in regards to fisiani’s argument
    which is decidedly out of focus

  17. Graham 17
    20 May 2010 at 10:31 am

    Hmmm … another Graham (graham) here?

    Some people could get confused … even me …

    [lprent: They can tell with the gravatar/identicon – the icon left of your name (which are based on your hidden e-mail). If you want to keep the same pseudonym (usually not a good idea), then have a look at uploading a more distinctive gravatar. ]

    • Armchair Critic 17.1
      20 May 2010 at 10:39 am

      Just spell-check your comments and write coherently and most of the readers will know the difference.

  18. ianmac 18
    20 May 2010 at 10:37 am

    Though it could be interesting if the Nats found a way to collect tax off those who hide income inside Trusts and similar. It could even hit MPs 🙂 but I expect that the proof of any such move would be in evidence of increased tax take. And who would ever be able to tell? Smoke and mirrors I think but it will be good for a spin.

  19. Santi 19
    20 May 2010 at 10:41 am

    Labour had nine years of beautiful economic conditions and what did they do with it? Spend spend spend. Working for families (making beneficiaries of the middle class), free student loans (making beneficiaries of students), huge increase in the numbers and staffing of government departments (good for recruiting companies), and increase the top tax bracket (encouraging the wealthy to avoid tax).

    I don’t want to hear from Labour about any economic management issue. They had their chance — they were absolutely useless. What Labour is about is increasing the number of beneficiaries and therefore increasing the number of likely Labour voters.

    • r0b 19.1
      20 May 2010 at 10:55 am

      And the fact that the number of beneficiaries fell to an all time low under Labour is off course completely irrelevant to your world view. Nice one.

    • burt 19.2
      20 May 2010 at 1:10 pm

      The fact the social welfare budget didn’t fall in accordance with the apparent reduction in beneficiaries tells us that classifications changed more than actual numbers of state dependents.

      • Akldnut 19.2.1
        20 May 2010 at 1:59 pm

        The fact the social welfare budget spent didn’t fall….

        Budget – money to play with
        Spent – money used

        Fixed

  20. freedom 20
    20 May 2010 at 5:42 pm

    a rabbit?
    not so much
    more like an emaciated possum
    the dog the rabbit was being feed to though is still ok

Links to post