National baulked on their election promise

[Nita]

It seems clear that there will be no taxs cuts for the workers in the foreseeable future.

[777]

A responsible decision. Of course Labour will say the same as you yet if they went ahead with them then they would say they were irresponsible. A no win situation.

Anyhow perhaps this thread should me on "off market discussions" or "elections 2008".

[Yankiwi]

It seems clear that there will be no taxs cuts for the workers in the foreseeable future.

I believe we just had a PAYE tax cut as of 1 April. Naturally at the same time there was a ACC levy increase which ate most of it up. :rolleyes:

[shasta]

It seems clear that there will be no taxs cuts for the workers in the foreseeable future.

Um before the thread turns into the looney left drivel, lets remember the fact National has inherited a massive ACC liability from a secretive, corrupt Labour Govt, that wasted millions on there "pet projects" knowing they were on the way out.

In the Accounting world we call this "cooking the books" ah la Enron!

Given the global recession & Labours mismanagment/squandering of all the previous years surpluses during the boom (what would you expect with a stack of ex school teachers with there sticky paws on the petty cash!)

I think to "postpone" the future rounds of tax cuts is prudent & wise.

Phil "I can't believe no one else wanted the job" Goff, will rattle on that National are borrowing to fund them in the first place...:rolleyes:

On the plus side, John Key has been decisive & seemingly has Bill on a leash, & ACT & the Maori's towing the line...

[croesus]

With you Shasta........ Goff is a lightweight.....

[fungus pudding]

On the plus side, John Key has been decisive & seemingly has Bill on a leash, & ACT & the Maori's towing the line...


Any idea where their towing it to?

[shasta]

Any idea where their towing it to?

Hopefully thru to better times, if this mob can't then NZ is screwed :eek:

[wbosher]

With you Shasta........ Goff is a lightweight.....

Couldn't agree more.

[hiawatha]

Um before the thread turns into the looney left drivel, lets remember the fact National has inherited a massive ACC liability from a secretive, corrupt Labour Govt, that wasted millions on there "pet projects" knowing they were on the way out.

In the Accounting world we call this "cooking the books" ah la Enron!

Given the global recession & Labours mismanagment/squandering of all the previous years surpluses during the boom (what would you expect with a stack of ex school teachers with there sticky paws on the petty cash!)

I think to "postpone" the future rounds of tax cuts is prudent & wise.

Phil "I can't believe no one else wanted the job" Goff, will rattle on that National are borrowing to fund them in the first place...:rolleyes:

On the plus side, John Key has been decisive & seemingly has Bill on a leash, & ACT & the Maori's towing the line...

I think the "massive ACC liability inherited by National" had something to do with legacy entitlements rather than "pet projects", though it's a while ago now and I don't remember the details - perhaps someone less biassed than shasta could enlighten us. At any rate I don't think it was Labour's doing though there was a question of whether Michael Cullen should have advised National of the problem prior to the election. He apparently took Treasury's advice and chose not to. However the problem did not involve "cooking the books" and was a far cry from the Enron debacle.
National are not interested in tax cuts as such. What they are mainly interested in is getting the top rate down to 30%. In other words transferring the tax burden from high income earners to low income earners. But rather than borrow to fund tax cuts, they seem to have abandoned the idea, at least for the time being.
John Key certainly been been decisive , but then so was Adolph Hitler.
hiawatha

[shasta]

I think the "massive ACC liability inherited by National" had something to do with legacy entitlements rather than "pet projects", though it's a while ago now and I don't remember the details - perhaps someone less biassed than shasta could enlighten us. At any rate I don't think it was Labour's doing though there was a question of whether Michael Cullen should have advised National of the problem prior to the election. He apparently took Treasury's advice and chose not to. However the problem did not involve "cooking the books" and was a far cry from the Enron debacle.
National are not interested in tax cuts as such. What they are mainly interested in is getting the top rate down to 30%. In other words transferring the tax burden from high income earners to low income earners. But rather than borrow to fund tax cuts, they seem to have abandoned the idea, at least for the time being.
John Key certainly been been decisive , but then so was Adolph Hitler.
hiawatha

Actually Hiawatha the main driver to reduce the top tax rate is to ultimately align it with the company rate, & simplify things.

The reduction in company tax will ensure NZ remains competitive on the international stage.

I knew some looney lefty would say what that drone Goff would, "National are borrowing for tax cuts", they aren't simple as, National have already said they would borrow to fund "infrastructure projects", the tax cuts were costed & budgeted for, nice try but get your fact rights!

If you can honestly tell me Labour didn't deceive National over the ACC's true liability position, you'd have to be in on it!

With you as a bleeding heart socialist, i'd have thought tax cuts for ALL taxpayers was fair & equitable, no use quivelling over who benefits from it, just remember who pays it in the first place!

Finally, Labour caved in to populist opinion to give out tax cuts...

Did they "borrow" to fund those, or is it just National that "borrows" money.

Refer my earlier thread, about Labour losing the election & tryying to sabotage National, you'll see how right i actually was!

[hiawatha]

Actually Hiawatha the main driver to reduce the top tax rate is to ultimately align it with the company rate, & simplify things.

The reduction in company tax will ensure NZ remains competitive on the international stage.

I knew some looney lefty would say what that drone Goff would, "National are borrowing for tax cuts", they aren't simple as, National have already said they would borrow to fund "infrastructure projects", the tax cuts were costed & budgeted for, nice try but get your fact rights!

If you can honestly tell me Labour didn't deceive National over the ACC's true liability position, you'd have to be in on it!

With you as a bleeding heart socialist, i'd have thought tax cuts for ALL taxpayers was fair & equitable, no use quivelling over who benefits from it, just remember who pays it in the first place!

Finally, Labour caved in to populist opinion to give out tax cuts...

Did they "borrow" to fund those, or is it just National that "borrows" money.

Refer my earlier thread, about Labour losing the election & tryying to sabotage National, you'll see how right i actually was!

If you were to read my post more carefully you would see that I didn't actually accuse National of proposing to borrow to fund tax cuts. However borrowing to pay for infrastructure is the same as borrowing to cut taxes if the alternative was to leave taxes alone and pay for infrastructure out of revenue.
I'm not sure that there is any advantage in simplifying the the tax rate by making the top rate equal to the company tax. However, if I were the MoF, I would reduce company tax to zero and levy shareholders individually with the tax on their share of company profits, at their individual tax rates.
I agree Labour should probably have come clean over the ACC problem (if it makes you happy), but that's not the same as saying they caused it. It would only be "sabotage" if they caused the problem, and then only if they deliberately did so in order to cause problems for National.
As for Labour "caving in to give tax cuts"; well, maybe the did or maybe they didn't. Who knows, perhaps they gave tax cuts because they could see that a recession was on the way; or perhaps it was simply to "sabotage" National; to hoist National on its own petard so to speak. They certainly didn't borrow to fund tax cuts. After Michael Cullen's excellent management they didn't need to.
hiawatha