Take it out of my ‘tax cut’

30 comments on “Take it out of my ‘tax cut’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bright Red 1

   9 April 2010 at 9:54 am

   So, wait, if you’re getting working for families you’re going to be spending more on GST and probably on rent but get no offsetting income tax cut?

   and bloody john key gives how many thousand a week tax cuts for himself and his rich mates?

   god dammit.
   • burt 1.1

     10 April 2010 at 1:41 pm

     So wait, if you are possibly paying no tax at all (on WFF) then you might not get a big tax cut to cover the increase in GST. Well F##k me!
2. Tigger 2

   9 April 2010 at 10:26 am

   Notice how public discontent has become verboten. We’re not allowed to think differently or rock the system or, god forbid, do something about it. No, we are all supposed to shut up and take our medicine and be thankful for it. And when someone does, and here they got away with it, they are meant to be ‘punished’ with a law suit.

   These guys are legends to me. It’s been a bright spot in a very bleak year so far.
   • Nick C 2.1

     11 April 2010 at 7:24 pm

     So if i dont agree with the government purchase of Kiwirail can i go around and start blowing up trains? Or do i just have to ‘shut up and take my medicine’?
3. ianmac 3

   9 April 2010 at 10:27 am

   Relax you lot! John Key assured us that it would be fiscally neutral. The rise in GST will be offset by taxcuts so don’t you worry your pretty little heads. John will take care of you all. He promised.
4. Lanthanide 4

   9 April 2010 at 10:32 am

   Sorry, I don’t want to give anything to those hippies. They’re incredibly lucky they’re not in jail, as any competent jury would’ve sent them to.
   • Olwyn 4.1

     9 April 2010 at 11:51 am

     Rather, the corrections system is incredibly lucky not to have them, scrutinising prison practices with a critical eye.
5. Bill 5

   9 April 2010 at 10:36 am

   McLibel anyone?
6. Graeme Edgeler 6

   9 April 2010 at 10:57 am

   There is no way this costs a couple of hundred throusand in legal fees. If a Crown Solicitor can’t do it for less than $10k (and probably a fair bit under that), then they’re being ripped off.
   • Bright Red 6.1

     9 April 2010 at 11:02 am

     you should put in a tender Graeme
7. pseudopanax 7

   9 April 2010 at 11:06 am

   Well, shit. That’s just bullying. Mind passing us a link though, Zetetic?
   • snoozer 7.1

     9 April 2010 at 11:57 am

     all over the news http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10637222
8. B 8

   9 April 2010 at 11:58 am

   thet doesnt sound right about wff – isnt that paid out weekly kind of like a benefit? ie a family pays say 19% tax at the moment but gets a weekly payment which offsets that. So if their tax rate is cut their weekly payments wont go down – if that makes sense?
   • Rob 8.1

     9 April 2010 at 12:14 pm

     Yes, there is confusion here. WFF is a benefit , not a rebate off tax paid. So if the overall tax rate is decreased all WFF pay less tax.
     • Bright Red 8.1.1

       9 April 2010 at 12:49 pm

       yeah, that’s right WFF is a tax credit, not a rebate.

       You can have a negative tax bill with WFF. If you couldn’t then families wouldn’t get a tax cut if they’re already on zero net tax. I assume that’s the confusion.

       To be fair to Marty, I think Key has made similiar comments about not being able to cut taxes for people paying zero net tax.
     • Pascal's bookie 8.1.2

       9 April 2010 at 12:57 pm

       “WFF is a benefit , not a rebate off tax paid”

       Is it counted as income for income tax purposes?

       If not, and it’s income that someone is currently spending; then cutting their income tax to compensate for a GST rise becomes that much more complicated.
       • Bright Red 8.1.2.1

         9 April 2010 at 2:12 pm

         nah, it’s not a benefit like the dole. It’s a tax credit so doesn’t form part of your taxable income.
9. nzfp 9

   9 April 2010 at 1:23 pm

   Who needs a tax laugh? Ever heard of the “Robin Hood Tax“? Watch “Bill Nighy” (The Boat That Rocked, 2009) ham it up (as he does soo well) as a self obsessed over paid English Banker.

   Watch the three and a half minute video “HERE”

   The Robin Hood Tax (UK)
   A tax on banks not you or I – that has the power to raise hundreds of billions every year. It could give a vital boost to the NHS, our schools, and the fight against child poverty in the UK as well as tackling poverty and climate change around the world.
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     9 April 2010 at 2:07 pm

     Any tax you place on banks will be passed on to the consumers, obviously.
     • nzfp 9.1.1

       9 April 2010 at 3:20 pm

       “Any tax you place on banks will be passed on to the consumers, obviously.”

       Says who? What is your evidence? That’s a pretty bold assertion. Care to back it up?
       • Lanthanide 9.1.1.1

         9 April 2010 at 5:24 pm

         Show me an industry where a *new* tax was levied on the industry that didn’t pass it on, at least in part, to the consumers.

         Also note that I haven’t followed your link because at work I can’t view videos. If you are in fact talking about a financial transaction tax, that is not the same as “bank tax”, because it is the people doing the transaction that pay the tax, not the bank itself. Taxing a bank is essentially taking money out of their profits, a FTT is more like GST where it is the end-user that pays the tax directly, not the bank itself.

         Essentially a FTT is *already* passing the tax onto the consumer anyway, because it is the consumer that is paying the tax. Basically it’s a general rule about increased costs on anything: it is ultimately the end user that pays, not the middle-men. Sometimes the magnitude of the cost differs from what is put in place to what the end-users end up paying: sometimes they pay more, sometimes they pay less, sometimes they don’t pay in straight $ terms but pay in other ways instead (smaller products, less availability, products of lesser quality, etc).
         • nzfp 9.1.1.1.1

           10 April 2010 at 10:00 pm

           Hey Lanthanide

           “Show me an industry where a *new* tax was levied on the industry that didn’t pass it on, at least in part, to the consumers.”

           Land
           Specifically David Ricardo’s theory of rent as described in his writings “The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation”[1].

           David Ricardo developed the concept of “Economic Rent” where he asserted that a tax on land value will not be passed to the public in the form of increased rent as the market dictates the price of the land value and land taxes are paid out of rent – they’re not added onto rent.

           The government could create a revenue neutral tax by lowering income tax on wages proportionally to the increase in property tax, this shifts the tax burden from wages to property which has the result of holding down real estate prices and cooling housing bubbles and most importantly it leaves less revenue avilable to be captialised by the banks into interest. A decrease in income tax proportional to the increase in property tax would hold down the real estate prices and lower the price of labour and industry by removing the tax burden on labour and industry which ultimately lowers the prices of products produced by labour and industry.

           If you’re not keen on reading David Ricardo, Adam Smith, Thomas Robert Malthus, John Stuart Mills or Karl Marx – and I wouldn’t blame you if you weren’t – you could listen to three minutes of a lecture “Historical & International Perspective of the Global Economic Collapse”[2] (1:02:34) by American Economist, Professor Michael Hudson, given in late 2009.

           “Also note that I haven’t followed your link because at work I can’t view videos.”

           You really should watch it, I think you’ll find it’s very funny. Also I think you’ll find that it’s essentially the same as the FTT. The description isn’t mine, it’s theirs. I agree, many aspects of the FTT will be passed onto the public, but that is the point, a FTT decreases speculation of the type used to short (naked short):
           * commodities, gold[3]
           * currencies Weimar Republic 1920’s – 1930’s[4]

           [1] “The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/%7Eecon/ugcm/3ll3/ricardo/prin/index.html
           [2] “Historical & International Perspective of the Global Economic Collapse” http://reformthemoney.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-hudson-historical-international.html
           [3] “What could be the largest fraud in history”: Whistleblower Exposes JP Morgan’s Silver Manipulation Scheme http://reformthemoney.blogspot.com/search/label/Adrian%20Douglas
           [4] “TIME TO GET OUT THE WHEELBARROWS? ANOTHER LOOK AT THE WEIMAR HYPERINFLATION” http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/hyperinflation.php
10. Daveosaurus 10

    9 April 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Over a million dollars for… a big plastic bag?

    Someone got done like a dog’s dinner when they agreed to that deal.
11. Tigger 11

    10 April 2010 at 10:43 am

    I’m happy to provide a white tarp to the spy guys. It cost $30 at a second hand shop but in the spirit of rampant consumerism this govt is engendering it’ll cost them $300,000.
    • Name 11.1

      10 April 2010 at 3:40 pm

      Domes like this are not mass-produced in Chinese factories. Or maybe you’d like to see Team New Zealand pop into The Warehouse for a plastic tarp next time they need a spinnaker.
12. Name 12

    10 April 2010 at 3:36 pm

    The Government needs to go after these ‘hippies’ for every cent they have to demonstrate that you can’t go around causing millions of dollars of damage to public or private property simply because you happen to believe you’re doing “god’s work”, or that your personal moral or ethical sense demands it. Sure if you believe it, do it. But be prepared for the consequences.

    Think how many lives and how much environmental damage I would prevent if I blew up the the Wiri Storage Terminal) and/or the Marsden Point Tanker Loading Facility so that no-one could use their car.

    I actually believe these three ‘hippies’ were disappointed at getting off, and they were quite prepared for and even hoping for martyrdom in an attempt to manipulate the public consciousness.
    • Daveosaurus 12.1

      10 April 2010 at 7:00 pm

      “The Government needs to go after these ‘hippies’ for every cent they have”

      If they’re going to take that path, they’d be better off going for the politicians who gutted the building regulations back in the early 1990s which caused this whole leaky buildings mess. These vandals have caused untold millions of dollars of damage – and to real New Zealanders, unlike those affected by the plastic bag slashers up at Waihopai.
13. Brett Dale 13

    10 April 2010 at 9:11 pm

    These guys have caused a million dollars worth of damage, without any actual REAL PROOF.

    No use suing them for money for the damage they have caused, they shoul;d be made to work it off to pay back their debt to society.
    • Name 13.1

      10 April 2010 at 10:18 pm

      How about suing the ‘Directors’ of Hanover, Bridgecorp et al for the millions of other people’s money they lost – and if they can’t pay it, make them work at real jobs to pay back their debt.
14. Armchair Critic 14

    10 April 2010 at 9:21 pm

    “they shoul;d be made to work it off to pay back their debt to society”
    The government should enslave them, Brett? Just temporarily, or permanently?
    I’m quite keen on Daveosaurus’s suggestion at 7:00pm, about holding National’s MPs responsible for the leaky homes disaster. $11b and counting, last time I heard.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS