TOP Party one to watch in this election

[justakiwi]

Yep, first $15,000 of income tax free but tax rate for anyone earning $15,000-$80,000 moves to 20%. Which, for those at the lower/middle of that income bracket, pretty much negates the "tax free" amount.

Not to mention the new Land Tax, which doesn't effect me obviously, but if it did, I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

A land value tax at 0.75% of the value of urban residential land, paid annually.

• Commercial, rural, conservation and Māori land would be excluded.
• Superannuants could opt to defer payment until there is a change in ownership of the property

Then there is Phase 2:

Universal Basic Income:

• Introduce a $16,500 annual tax-free income to all citizens and residents aged between 18 and 65 years, paid weekly. There won’t be any changes to superannuation.

A UBI will enable people to take time out to invest in themselves (e.g. study or retrain). And, it will free many Kiwis from the welfare trap where they are subject to an undignified, punitive and expensive welfare system. Those on welfare transfers larger than the UBI will be topped up to the original.
The introduction of a Universal Basic Income will grow New Zealand's economy, and it is estimated to be fiscally neutral (within 1% of GDP).

Alongside our plan to introduce a Universal Basic Income, we will also introduce several targeted reforms to create a highly progressive tax system:

• Remove tax loopholes and simplify the tax system with a single income tax rate of 35% (for personal, company and trust income).
• Increase the annual land value tax on residential land (established in Phase 1) to 1.25%.

You going to vote for this? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[clearasmud]

Yep, first $15,000 of income tax free but tax rate for anyone earning $15,000-$80,000 moves to 20%. Which, for those at the lower/middle of that income bracket, pretty much negates the "tax free" amount.

Not to mention the new Land Tax, which doesn't effect me obviously, but if it did, I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

A land value tax at 0.75% of the value of urban residential land, paid annually.

• Commercial, rural, conservation and Māori land would be excluded.
• Superannuants could opt to defer payment until there is a change in ownership of the property

Then there is Phase 2:

Universal Basic Income:

• Introduce a $16,500 annual tax-free income to all citizens and residents aged between 18 and 65 years, paid weekly. There won’t be any changes to superannuation.

A UBI will enable people to take time out to invest in themselves (e.g. study or retrain). And, it will free many Kiwis from the welfare trap where they are subject to an undignified, punitive and expensive welfare system. Those on welfare transfers larger than the UBI will be topped up to the original.
The introduction of a Universal Basic Income will grow New Zealand's economy, and it is estimated to be fiscally neutral (within 1% of GDP).

Alongside our plan to introduce a Universal Basic Income, we will also introduce several targeted reforms to create a highly progressive tax system:

• Remove tax loopholes and simplify the tax system with a single income tax rate of 35% (for personal, company and trust income).
• Increase the annual land value tax on residential land (established in Phase 1) to 1.25%.

You going to vote for this? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Yes I could.

[justakiwi]

Why? Serious question.

A single tax rate of 35%??????

Yes I could.

[clearasmud]

Why? Serious question.

A single tax rate of 35%??????

I thought you said 15k tax free then 20% to 80k plus a Universal income of 16.5k

[justakiwi]

Read the rest of what I posted under Phase 2 of their plan.

I thought you said 15k tax free then 20% to 80k plus a Universal income of 16.5k

[clearasmud]

Read the rest of what I posted under Phase 2 of their plan.

I'm quite keen and curious about a land tax.
I hate what high land and building costs have done to the standard of living.

[Aaron]

[SIZE=3][FONT=arial]Yep, first $15,000 of income tax free but tax rate for anyone earning $15,000-$80,000 moves to 20%. Which, for those at the lower/middle of that income bracket, pretty much negates the "tax free" amount.

You going to vote for this? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I am unsure how you did your sums to come up with this statement even at $44,000 with the Independent Earner Tax Credit you are paying $400.00 less under TOP's policy.

As far as the land tax goes it is simple and hard to avoid so I like it. The rate is quite high at .75% my council rates currently work out at around .04% on GV and I think the rates in my area are higher than most. An across the board capital gains tax would be preferable but that can come in time. Their original equity tax was also pretty radical.

.75% works out at $6,750 on an average house valued at $900,000. Ideally you would want stage two to be implemented sooner so your UBI could cover the tax.

Stage two the flat tax of 35% sounds radical. FP would like this if it were 20%. The 35% rate also means that most of our UBI would have to go into paying taxes if we also have a job so it is not the crazy handout that we first thought it was.

Haven't done the numbers but like the sound of "progressive tax rates"

Interesting that Justakiwi and Daytr have come out against such progressive and fair minded policies. Not so easy being a liberal when it comes out of your own pocket but in justakiwi's case if your financial situation is as you have mentioned on this site this is the party for you.

A "radical centrist party" sounds like a conflict in terms.

Gareth Morgan was too arrogant or not smart enough to realise TOP would have a better chance if they focused on an electoral win and dragged a couple of extra MPs in with the party vote.

Hey Baa Baa what was TOPs party vote when Gareth first formed it?

I don't know what Raj Manji's chances are in Ilam and if he does not win a TOP vote could be a wasted vote as they do not appear to be able to get the 5% threshold.

I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives and any party looking to invest in young people once again is worth a go. You have to start somewhere.

Note to boomers National Superannuation will not be touched.

[justakiwi]

Firstly, not everyone qualifies for IETC - if you are on any kind of income tested benefit, you do not qualify, even if you are also working (part time/casual or whatever). That is currently my situation as for health reasons I can only work up to 15 hours a week. I am currently doing casual caregiving shifts as available, which is taxed at secondary tax rates. And yes, I am receiving financial assistance from WINZ, so do not qualify for IETC. My total income will be well under $40,000 (more likely to be closer to $30,000).

Secondly, do you seriously think saving $400 a year is of any significance right now? That is $7.69/week - won't even buy you a dozen eggs.

As for the phase 2 flat tax rate of 35% - how the hell do you think that is going to benefit anyone on a low income?

I am sorry, but this is probably the last party that I would vote for, in terms of how it would/would not benefit me as an individual. Even if I was not receiving a benefit, and was still working 30 hours a week, I do not see how I would possibly be any better off than I would be right now. But feel free to explain it to me if you think I am wrong.

As for your last statement - this "I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives" is precisely the issue this time round. People are making voting decisions based solely on getting Labour out of government. In other words, they are "settling" for a party they do not actually want to vote for. Which makes a total farce of our political system as far as I am concerned. Voting for "the best out of a ****ty bunch" is not a good reason for voting for a party - regardless of which party it might be.

I am unsure how you did your sums to come up with this statement even at $44,000 with the Independent Earner Tax Credit you are paying $400.00 less under TOP's policy.

As far as the land tax goes it is simple and hard to avoid so I like it. The rate is quite high at .75% my council rates currently work out at around .04% on GV and I think the rates in my area are higher than most. An across the board capital gains tax would be preferable but that can come in time. Their original equity tax was also pretty radical.

.75% works out at $6,750 on an average house valued at $900,000. Ideally you would want stage two to be implemented sooner so your UBI could cover the tax.

Stage two the flat tax of 35% sounds radical. FP would like this if it were 20%. The 35% rate also means that most of our UBI would have to go into paying taxes if we also have a job so it is not the crazy handout that we first thought it was.

Haven't done the numbers but like the sound of "progressive tax rates"

Interesting that Justakiwi and Daytr have come out against such progressive and fair minded policies. Not so easy being a liberal when it comes out of your own pocket but in justakiwi's case if your financial situation is as you have mentioned on this site this is the party for you.

A "radical centrist party" sounds like a conflict in terms.

Gareth Morgan was too arrogant or not smart enough to realise TOP would have a better chance if they focused on an electoral win and dragged a couple of extra MPs in with the party vote.

Hey Baa Baa what was TOPs party vote when Gareth first formed it?

I don't know what Raj Manji's chances are in Ilam and if he does not win a TOP vote could be a wasted vote as they do not appear to be able to get the 5% threshold.

I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives and any party looking to invest in young people once again is worth a go. You have to start somewhere.

Note to boomers National Superannuation will not be touched.

[Aaron]

Firstly, not everyone qualifies for IETC - if you are on any kind of income tested benefit, you do not qualify, even if you are also working (part time/casual or whatever). That is currently my situation as for health reasons I can only work up to 15 hours a week. I am currently doing casual caregiving shifts as available, which is taxed at secondary tax rates. And yes, I am receiving financial assistance from WINZ, so do not qualify for IETC. My total income will be well under $40,000 (more likely to be closer to $30,000).

Secondly, do you seriously think saving $400 a year is of any significance right now? That is $7.69/week - won't even buy you a dozen eggs.

As for the phase 2 flat tax rate of 35% - how the hell do you think that is going to benefit anyone on a low income?

I am sorry, but this is probably the last party that I would vote for, in terms of how it would/would not benefit me as an individual. Even if I was not receiving a benefit, and was still working 30 hours a week, I do not see how I would possibly be any better off than I would be right now. But feel free to explain it to me if you think I am wrong.

As for your last statement - this "I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives" is precisely the issue this time round. People are making voting decisions based solely on getting Labour out of government. In other words, they are "settling" for a party they do not actually want to vote for. Which makes a total farce of our political system as far as I am concerned. Voting for "the best out of a ****ty bunch" is not a good reason for voting for a party - regardless of which party it might be.

At $30k you will be paying $4,270 no IETC under TOP $3,000 or $1,270.00 less, check my numbers if you like.

With the 35% flat tax although circular in nature the $16,500 UBI will more than cover it. Not sure how this works in with welfare, not my area of interest.

The question you are asking is the same as all the ACT voters "what is in it for me". Sadly the waste we see in govt overides the good things being done, so I guess it is reasonable to ask whats in it for me when you see the head of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples lavishing a $40,000 leaving party on himself. That is criminal yet no one will be held accountable.

$8billion losses brought on by an irresponsible RBNZ. No one accountable just "noise" says Adrian.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...PXNBXKV7QS7W4/

Personally rather than "what is in it for me" we should ask "what is best for NZ". There is no right answer but we can vote for the party we think has the best policy to answer question number two.

With everyone asking what's in it for me our politicians are pandering to selfish aholes and focus groups are setting policy. Not good in my opinion.

Obviously as I am a selfish ahole myself, if I were wealthier I suspect my political views might change.

[justakiwi]

Whatever. I have been transparent about my views of all the parties. I feel zero guilt for caring about my own well-being under any party. That does not mean I do not care about others (if you have read any of my posts here, you should know that is absolutely not the case). Nor does it mean I don't care about NZ as a whole. For your information, I am not a liberal. I sit pretty much in the middle.

So yeah, there most definitely is a consideration of "what's in it for me?" and I think it is a perfectly acceptable consideration.

Oh, and to answer your question "do you think people should just abstain?" - good question. The answer is no, as I have always voted, and will vote this time too. But unless something changes dramatically between now and the election, it will not be an easy or comfortable decision.

P.S. Their UBI plan has insufficient information currently - is it taxed? Does it apply to people on benefits or govt super? Does it automatically wipe out the advantage of the $15,000 non-taxable income? Too many unanswered questions, but as you said, its all a moot point anyway cause it 'aint gonna happen.

At $30k you will be paying $4,270 no IETC under TOP $3,000 or $1,270.00 less, check my numbers if you like.

With the 35% flat tax although circular in nature the $16,500 UBI will more than cover it. Not sure how this works in with welfare, not my area of interest.

The question you are asking is the same as all the ACT voters "what is in it for me". Sadly the waste we see in govt overides the good things being done, so I guess it is reasonable to ask whats in it for me when you see the head of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples lavishing a $40,000 leaving party on himself. That is criminal yet no one will be held accountable.

$8billion losses brought on by an irresponsible RBNZ. No one accountable just "noise" says Adrian.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...PXNBXKV7QS7W4/

Personally rather than "what is in it for me" we should ask "what is best for NZ". There is no right answer but we can vote for the party we think has the best policy to answer question number two.

With everyone asking what's in it for me our politicians are pandering to selfish aholes and focus groups are setting policy. Not good in my opinion.

Obviously as I am a selfish ahole myself, if I were wealthier I suspect my political views might change.