PDA

View Full Version : Labours Lies About Personal Tax



minimoke
21-09-2017, 07:53 AM
Hereís the truth about personal income taxes since Labour donít appear to be able to understand simple math.

Letís say today I earn $60,000 Ė numbers are illustrative. I lose $20,000 of my money to tax which leaves me $40,000 to spend as I see fit.

On 1 April 2018 I will earn $60,000 and I will lose $19,000 in tax which gives me an extra $1,000 to spend. In case the point was missed my tax will be $19,000.

Under National, Greens, Act, NZ First, Maori governments I will pay $19,000 tax on 1 April.

However under Labour my personal tax will increase 5.2% to $20,000.

That is $1,000 more that I would otherwise be paying on 1 April. That is an increase.

And just so you know, that $1,000 was going to buy me:


$200 for some shoes for my kids so they donít have to walk barefoot in the snow to school.
$200 for a few more fresh seasonal fruit and vegetables
$200 for extra heating in my rental hovel for the hard 3 months of winter.
$200 for some extra fuel for my car so I can commute to that better job a bit further down the road
$200 towards a bit better house to live in


Under Labour I can kiss that all good bye. And thatís the truth of the matter!

winner69
21-09-2017, 08:02 AM
Hereís the truth about personal income taxes since Labour donít appear to be able to understand simple math.

Letís say today I earn $60,000 Ė numbers are illustrative. I lose $20,000 of my money to tax which leaves me $40,000 to spend as I see fit.

On 1 April 2018 I will earn $60,000 and I will lose $19,000 in tax which gives me an extra $1,000 to spend. In case the point was missed my tax will be $19,000.

Under National, Greens, Act, NZ First, Maori governments I will pay $19,000 tax on 1 April.

However under Labour my personal tax will increase 5.2% to $20,000.

That is $1,000 more that I would otherwise be paying on 1 April. That is an increase.

And just so you know, that $1,000 was going to buy me:


$200 for some shoes for my kids so they donít have to walk barefoot in the snow to school.
$200 for a few more fresh seasonal fruit and vegetables
$200 for extra heating in my rental hovel for the hard 3 months of winter.
$200 for some extra fuel for my car so I can commute to that better job a bit further down the road
$200 towards a bit better house to live in


Under Labour I can kiss that all good bye. And thatís the truth of the matter!

What about the other $200

Doesn't 6 times 200 under Labour equal 1000

King1212
21-09-2017, 08:04 AM
More taxes under labour and inexperience leader of the red...keep borrowing and giving....

minimoke
21-09-2017, 08:35 AM
What about the other $200

Doesn't 6 times 200 under Labour equal 1000
Dont worry about such detail, be positive - the Tax Committee of Experts will sort it.

Aaron
21-09-2017, 09:02 AM
Here’s the truth about personal income taxes since Labour don’t appear to be able to understand simple math.

Let’s say today I earn $60,000 – numbers are illustrative. I lose $20,000 of my money to tax which leaves me $40,000 to spend as I see fit.

On 1 April 2018 I will earn $60,000 and I will lose $19,000 in tax which gives me an extra $1,000 to spend. In case the point was missed my tax will be $19,000.

Under National, Greens, Act, NZ First, Maori governments I will pay $19,000 tax on 1 April.

However under Labour my personal tax will increase 5.2% to $20,000.

That is $1,000 more that I would otherwise be paying on 1 April. That is an increase.

And just so you know, that $1,000 was going to buy me:


$200 for some shoes for my kids so they don’t have to walk barefoot in the snow to school.
$200 for a few more fresh seasonal fruit and vegetables
$200 for extra heating in my rental hovel for the hard 3 months of winter.
$200 for some extra fuel for my car so I can commute to that better job a bit further down the road
$200 towards a bit better house to live in


Under Labour I can kiss that all good bye. And that’s the truth of the matter!

Maybe I am missing the point minimoke is trying to make. I am assuming Labour has said that no one will be paying any more tax if Labour gets in. This would be true at this stage as they are not proposing any changes to income tax rates or thresholds. I would suggest Minimoke is confused between tax rates now and paying less tax under National in the future.
No lies being told just a bit of confusion regarding tax rates remaining the same or dropping if National get in.

Maybe we could start a give-a-little page for Minimoke's shoes.

westerly
21-09-2017, 09:05 AM
Hereís the truth about personal income taxes since Labour donít appear to be able to understand simple math.

Letís say today I earn $60,000 Ė numbers are illustrative. I lose $20,000 of my money to tax which leaves me $40,000 to spend as I see fit.

On 1 April 2018 I will earn $60,000 and I will lose $19,000 in tax which gives me an extra $1,000 to spend. In case the point was missed my tax will be $19,000.

Under National, Greens, Act, NZ First, Maori governments I will pay $19,000 tax on 1 April.

However under Labour my personal tax will increase 5.2% to $20,000.

That is $1,000 more that I would otherwise be paying on 1 April. That is an increase.

And just so you know, that $1,000 was going to buy me:


$200 for some shoes for my kids so they donít have to walk barefoot in the snow to school.
$200 for a few more fresh seasonal fruit and vegetables
$200 for extra heating in my rental hovel for the hard 3 months of winter.
$200 for some extra fuel for my car so I can commute to that better job a bit further down the road
$200 towards a bit better house to live in


Under Labour I can kiss that all good bye. And thatís the truth of the matter!

What a load of rubbish. the tax on $60,000 income is about $i0,000 and if you have kids it would probably be less. Hard to imagine your kids walking barefoot in the snow.

westerly

huxley
21-09-2017, 09:05 AM
Looks like Fake News.

Aaron
21-09-2017, 09:31 AM
Looks like Fake News.

smells like it too.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 09:37 AM
Maybe I am missing the point minimoke is trying to make. I am assuming Labour has said that no one will be paying any more tax if Labour gets in. This would be true at this stage as they are not proposing any changes to income tax rates or thresholds. I would suggest Minimoke is confused between tax rates now and paying less tax under National in the future.
No lies being told just a bit of confusion regarding tax rates remaining the same or dropping if National get in.

Maybe we could start a give-a-little page for Minimoke's shoes.
on 1 April tax rates change so a person earning, say $52,000 will pay $20 a week les tax. For those on $22,000 its about $11 a week less tax. It was in the Budget, the law has been passed the new tax thresholds take place 1 april where people get to keep more of their own money. That is surely not a hard concept to grasp. It shouldn't be for the approx 1.3m families who will be around $26 a week better off.

Labour is proposing legislation that will see the tax thresholds changed so that those 1.3m families will pay about $26 a week more.

Just to be clear tax rates don't drop if national get in. Tax rates will increase if Labour gets in.

Joshuatree
21-09-2017, 09:51 AM
Post truth politics. Fake news, trump down under.

huxley
21-09-2017, 09:52 AM
on 1 April tax rates change so a person earning, say $52,000 will pay $20 a week les tax. For those on $22,000 its about $11 a week less tax. It was in the Budget, the law has been passed the new tax thresholds take place 1 april where people get to keep more of their own money. That is surely not a hard concept to grasp. It shouldn't be for the approx 1.3m families who will be around $26 a week better off.

Labour is proposing legislation that will see the tax thresholds changed so that those 1.3m families will pay about $26 a week more.

Just to be clear tax rates don't drop if national get in. Tax rates will increase if Labour gets in.



Yeah, yeah we all know the argument... Clearly National have structured their tax policy implementation dates to enable them to use it as scare tactics before New Zealand votes this weekend. :mellow:


It's pretty boring actually..

minimoke
21-09-2017, 09:52 AM
I am assuming Labour has said that no one will be paying any more tax if Labour gets in. This would be true at this stage as they are not proposing any changes to income tax rates or thresholds.
It may be old news but its not fake news. on 1 April tax thresholds change
10.5% on the first $14,000 earned (rising to $22,000 from April 1, 2018)
17.5%: $14,001 ($22,001 from April 1, 2018) to $48,000 ($52,000 from April 1, 2018)
30%: $48,001 ($52,001 from April 1, 2018) to $70,000
33% from $70,001.

Labour will pass a law that will see the thresholds changed so that more personal tax due as shown above is paid.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 09:55 AM
It's pretty boring actually..

Probably not to those in poverty who wouldn't mind a few extra dollars in their wallet

Joshuatree
21-09-2017, 09:56 AM
Whoops you've forgotten what Labour are giving out instead; can you post that thanks;)

huxley
21-09-2017, 09:58 AM
I understand Steven Joyce has the following tattooed on his left butt cheek:

"People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

:mellow:

minimoke
21-09-2017, 10:07 AM
Whoops you've forgotten what Labour are giving out instead; can you post that thanks;)
Yeah - they are keeping beneficiaries and those on super warmer, (without knowing if they have the means or not to pay for their heating) to the tune of $750 for three months.

I'm in Christchurch a bit of a chilly place and my power bill doesn't go up $250 a month in winter. So obviously Labour have to increase the tax take to pay for this free giveaway

Aaron
21-09-2017, 10:33 AM
It may be old news but its not fake news. on 1 April tax thresholds change
10.5% on the first $14,000 earned (rising to $22,000 from April 1, 2018)
17.5%: $14,001 ($22,001 from April 1, 2018) to $48,000 ($52,000 from April 1, 2018)
30%: $48,001 ($52,001 from April 1, 2018) to $70,000
33% from $70,001.

Labour will pass a law that will see the thresholds changed so that more personal tax due as shown above is paid.

I stand corrected. So if Labour gets in we will be paying exactly the same amount of tax that we are paying currently. The thing about the tax cuts is that everyone gets them. Even if you are making $1mill a year. It is not designed to help the poor. In fact the savings for Minimoke on $60,000 are $1,060 and for someone on minimum wage it would be $560.

You can't argue people will have more money in their pocket after tax if National gets in. I guess you might then have to argue whether the ideology that says lower tax and smaller government creates better societies is correct or not.
John Key and Bill English have been pushing us slowly in that direction but I remain unconvinced.

I would rather see money put aside in a superannuation fund to ensure we are able to look after our elderly as the boomer bulge starts to put more pressure on the welfare and health system at the same time.

Aaron
21-09-2017, 10:39 AM
This was interesting, as we are talking about tax.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/335299/nz-shamefully-poor-on-tax-policies-oxfam

It is just an opinion piece though.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 10:43 AM
What a load of rubbish. the tax on $60,000 income is about $i0,000 and if you have kids it would probably be less. Hard to imagine your kids walking barefoot in the snow.

westerly
You missed it when I said the numbers are "illustrative" - meaning they are not mean to be precise.

But if you are telling me my tax is $10,000 then JacInda is going to increase my personal tax 11.8% on 1 April. Worse than I thought!

minimoke
21-09-2017, 10:50 AM
In fact the savings for Minimoke on $60,000 are $1,060 and for someone on minimum wage it would be $560.
This grievious inequality would be easily sorted with a flat tax rate - say 15% payable by everyone on all earnings.

huxley
21-09-2017, 10:55 AM
This was interesting, as we are talking about tax.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/335299/nz-shamefully-poor-on-tax-policies-oxfam

It is just an opinion piece though.


Interesting piece. TBH I'm pretty indifferent as to which of the major parties wins the most votes this weekend (I haven't voted for either). At the end of the day, neither party represents any meaningful change - they're equally skilled to keep the lights burning though.

Still, it's funny (and enlightening) listening to the views of all the dyed in the wool Labour/Nats voters, they're so ideologically locked in they're not really open to new ideas.

couta1
21-09-2017, 10:56 AM
This grievious inequality would be easily sorted with a flat tax rate - say 15% payable by everyone on all earnings. Yep, flat tax rate has always been the best option all around, would significantly reduce the 10 Billion dollar black economy in NZ.

Aaron
21-09-2017, 10:59 AM
This grievious inequality would be easily sorted with a flat tax rate - say 15% payable by everyone on all earnings.

I see you don't like the idea of a progressive tax system whereby those better able to contribute are asked to contribute more relative to their earnings. Even the ACT party is not proposing this and they can't get off 1%.
You probably also think GST is a great tax because its regressive.

westerly
21-09-2017, 10:59 AM
You missed it when I said the numbers are "illustrative" - meaning they are not mean to be precise.

But if you are telling me my tax is $10,000 then JacInda is going to increase my personal tax 11.8% on 1 April. Worse than I thought!

More rubbish. If your tax stays the same It has neither gone up or down. Are you Steven Joyce?

westerly

minimoke
21-09-2017, 11:07 AM
More rubbish. If your tax stays the same It has neither gone up or down. Are you Steven Joyce?

westerlyPlease read post #1. Under a labour government on 1 April a new law will come in which will raise my tax by $1,060. If my tax stays the same there is no need for a law change by Labour.

jmsnz
21-09-2017, 11:08 AM
Interesting piece. TBH I'm pretty indifferent as to which of the major parties wins the most votes this weekend (I haven't voted for either). At the end of the day, neither party represents any meaningful change - they're equally skilled to keep the lights burning though.
And that at the end of the day is the problem. Neither of the main parties will take NZ to a meaningfully better place than we are now it is a shame that as a country we can't do better than that.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 11:09 AM
I see you don't like the idea of a progressive tax system whereby those better able to contribute are asked to contribute more relative to their earnings. I'm happy to keep a progressive tax system if it means I get to keep more of my money on 1 April than a person on minimum wage.

fungus pudding
21-09-2017, 11:17 AM
I see you don't like the idea of a progressive tax system whereby those better able to contribute are asked to contribute more relative to their earnings. Even the ACT party is not proposing this and they can't get off 1%.
You probably also think GST is a great tax because its regressive.

A flat tax system taxes those 'better able to contribute' (your words) a higher amount, and is certainly a fairer system.

blackcap
21-09-2017, 11:23 AM
A flat tax system taxes those 'better able to contribute' (your words) a higher amount, and is certainly a fairer system.

Well said FP. A flat tax system means those that earn more pay more tax. I cannot see anything unfair about that at all. Sounds pretty progressive to me.

Aaron
21-09-2017, 11:52 AM
Well said FP. A flat tax system means those that earn more pay more tax. I cannot see anything unfair about that at all. Sounds pretty progressive to me.

Funny that most successful countries have opted for a progressive tax rate rather than a proportional one. At face value a proportional (flat) tax sounds fair maybe in reality it isn't. Or maybe progressive tax isn't fairer it is just better.
Anyway no point debating it,you won't change your view and I won't either and FP's way of thinking is set in stone.(he can't even understand that GST is a regressive tax (or was that minimoke) I can't remember it was so long ago).

Anyway Minimoke's argument regarding labour lies could be argued I guess but it seems a little bit deceitful.
For the record I will be voting for the Opportunities party even though 5% seems unlikely and they will get no electorates as far as I understand. TOP is real change Labour-lite maybe not so much but at least they will be moving us away from policies that will make NZ even more unequal.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 12:05 PM
they're equally skilled to keep the lights burning though.

That is debateable. One party can fall back on 9 years of practice.

The other has a history of making poor leadership decisions; has a new leader with no leadership experience and not even held a ministerial portfolio. Nor has #2 Kelvin Davis (who scraped in on the List due to PornGate), nor has Andrew Little - who cant even win his own seat. At least #4 Grant Robertson can win a seat (after loosing loads of votes to the National Candidate) and at #5 is Phil Twyford spokesperson for Housing and Auckland issues - so theres a measure of his impact just there. Unsurprisingly they couldn't cobble together a decent tax policy between themselves. And you reckon they can keep the lights burning. Probably until the last leader leaves the room.

Anyway, back to tax. Where is a specialist tax committee when labour needs one!

minimoke
21-09-2017, 12:16 PM
Anyway Minimoke's argument regarding labour lies could be argued I guess but it seems a little bit deceitful. Hopefully, through this thread people understand the deceit is JacIndas - she is going to have to pass a law that raises taxes. End of story.


For the record I will be voting for the Opportunities party even though 5% seems unlikely and they will get no electorates as far as I understand. TOP is real change Labour-lite maybe not so much but at least they will be moving us away from policies that will make NZ even more unequal. At the risk of straying off topic, if I had two party ticks I'd be tempted to put one against TOP. There is a risk it will end up a one man crusade who has combatted boredom for the past couple of years and will move onto the next motorcycle trip for excitement. Its a bit of a shame they wont win an electoral seat - that would shake parliament up - assuming they could win two seats.Morgan could soak up a fe NZ first votes - but for his cat comments. So wil they be around next election, And will Winston be around after this. Time for a new thread!

fungus pudding
21-09-2017, 12:21 PM
Hopefully, through this thread people understand the deceit is JacIndas - she is going to have to pass a law that raises taxes. End of story.

At the risk of straying off topic, if I had two party ticks I'd be tempted to put one against TOP. There is a risk it will end up a one man crusade who has combatted boredom for the past couple of years and will move onto the next motorcycle trip for excitement. Its a bit of a shame they wont win an electoral seat - that would shake parliament up - assuming they could win two seats.Morgan could soak up a fe NZ first votes - but for his cat comments. So wil they be around next election, And will Winston be around after this. Time for a new thread!

No and no.

Aaron
21-09-2017, 12:31 PM
I really should get on with some work.

This is just an opinion piece. Is this where Minimoke's thread idea came from.

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/comment-burr-labour-calls-out-the-lies-too-late/ar-AAshipa?li=AAaeXZz&ocid=spartanntp

Listen to Paula what a weasel.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 12:52 PM
I really should get on with some work.

This is just an opinion piece. Is this where Minimoke's thread idea came from.

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/comment-burr-labour-calls-out-the-lies-too-late/ar-AAshipa?li=AAaeXZz&ocid=spartanntp

Listen to Paula what a weasel.
Lets just focus on the facts and not opinion pieces. To summarise, as at today:
Fact one: On 1 April 2018 I will pay $9000 in tax (using the scenario shown above)
Fact two. If National are in government on 1 April 2018 I will pay $9,000 tax.
Fact three. If Labour are in government I will pay $10,000 tax.
Fact four If labour is in government personal tax will rise from $9,000 to $10,000.

"It begs the question - why didn't Jacinda Ardern nip it in the bud from the start and call it out? "Simple answer is she can't. She has no grasp of tax, bungled the capital gains tax, wants to tax farmers and is going to rely on a tax committee to give her ideas.

huxley
21-09-2017, 12:52 PM
[QUOTE=minimoke;685295]That is debateable. One party can fall back on 9 years of practice.

This sounds suspiciously like an Animal Spirit (in the Shiller/Akerlof sense) to me..

Aaron
21-09-2017, 01:09 PM
Lets just focus on the facts and not opinion pieces. To summarise, as at today:
Fact one: On 1 April 2018 I will pay $9000 in tax (using the scenario shown above)
Fact two. If National are in government on 1 April 2018 I will pay $9,000 tax.
Fact three. If Labour are in government I will pay $10,000 tax.
Fact four If labour is in government personal tax will rise from $9,000 to $10,000.

"It begs the question - why didn't Jacinda Ardern nip it in the bud from the start and call it out? "Simple answer is she can't. She has no grasp of tax, bungled the capital gains tax, wants to tax farmers and is going to rely on a tax committee to give her ideas.

Can't help myself,
Fact One: THIS IS NOT A FACT AT BEST IT IS A SPECULATION THAT NATIONAL WILL WIN THE ELECTION. STOP TRYING TO DEFEND LIARS YOU ARE STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A FOOL.

Also many people don't have a good grasp of tax. Case in point your illustrative example.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 01:15 PM
Can't help myself,
Fact One: THIS IS NOT A FACT AT BEST IT IS A SPECULATION THAT NATIONAL WILL WIN THE ELECTION. STOP TRYING TO DEFEND LIARS YOU ARE STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A FOOL.

Also many people don't have a good grasp of tax. Case in point your illustrative example.
Please read line one - part of which I will repeat: "as at today".

It is not speculation because the law on the tax rates effective 1 April has already been passed. The only way to change my tax due on 1 April is for a Party to lodge a Bill and get Parliament to pass it. National isnt going to do this. Labour is. So who is increasing the tax. It really isn't that difficult!

iceman
21-09-2017, 01:16 PM
Aaron it is a fact that if Labour gets into Government after the weekend, they need to get legislation through Parliament to decrease the already legislated for higher tax brackets from 1 April that current law has in place. They will need some other parties to support that law change, The Greens or NZF. Both of them voted for National's bracket increases (aka income tax reductions) !!

Aaron
21-09-2017, 01:42 PM
Aaron it is a fact that if Labour gets into Government after the weekend, they need to get legislation through Parliament to decrease the already legislated for higher tax brackets from 1 April that current law has in place. They will need some other parties to support that law change, The Greens or NZF. Both of them voted for National's bracket increases (aka income tax reductions) !!

That is a fact yes but I am not arguing that.
I am arguing that something in the future that may or may not happen depending on the results of this weekends election isn't a fact. How can taxes go up if they haven't yet gone down and might never do so.

blackcap
21-09-2017, 01:53 PM
That is a fact yes but I am not arguing that.
I am arguing that something in the future that may or may not happen depending on the results of this weekends election isn't a fact. How can taxes go up if they haven't yet gone down and might never do so.

Because I guess they are currently legislated to go down (the taxes that is). So they are down already, its up to Labour to change the law to make them go up. If Labour do not change the law then the taxes stay down. That is how I understand it anyway.

Adam H
21-09-2017, 01:53 PM
If Labour gets into government income taxes will be the SAME as they are now. If National gets in they will be lowed. Scraping a planned tax deduction is not the same thing as raising taxes, i really don't think this is even remotely arguable.

If you are promised $20 in the future and then don't get paid, you don't say "hey you stole my $20" you say "hey you didn't give me $20". There are plenty of native English speakers in the National party, they know the difference.

The main problem with saying Labour are raising taxes is that it implies they are raising taxes to higher levels than today (plenty of people wont be aware of Nationals planned tax cuts). Which is obviously false. Hence National are heavily implying something which is a lie.

But hey if it gets a few votes i guess it is justified.

disc: Not voting for either of the big two

huxley
21-09-2017, 02:05 PM
If Labour gets into government income taxes will be the SAME as they are now. If National gets in they will be lowed. Scraping a planned tax deduction is not the same thing as raising taxes, i really don't think this is even remotely arguable.

If you are promised $20 in the future and then don't get paid, you don't say "hey you stole my $20" you say "hey you didn't give me $20". There are plenty of native English speakers in the National party, they know the difference.

The main problem with saying Labour are raising taxes is that it implies they are raising taxes to higher levels than today (plenty of people wont be aware of Nationals planned tax cuts). Which is obviously false. Hence National are heavily implying something which is a lie.

But hey if it gets a few votes i guess it is justified.

disc: Not voting for either of the big two

You'll notice the pro-national crew are not willing to address the point I made earlier:
"Yeah, yeah we all know the argument... Clearly National have structured their tax policy implementation dates to enable them to use it as scare tactics before New Zealand votes this weekend. "

This is just political strategy.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 02:05 PM
If Labour gets into government income taxes will be the SAME as they are now. If National gets in they will be lowed.
This is where people are mistaken and the reason for this thread.

The tax rates set for 1 April 2018 do not require any particular government be in. They simply are what they are. We could have Damian Light leading the government next week and I will still be paying $9,000 tax on 1 April. If labour get in (and cobble together majority support to pass a Bill) then I wil pay $10,000.

My $9,000 is not a promise. It is not dependant on anything. It is set in law.

National arent planning tax cuts. They have already implemented them and the cuts are already set in law.

I see why JacInda isn't fronting this issue. Its impossible to defend the indefensible.

Aaron
21-09-2017, 02:06 PM
Because I guess they are currently legislated to go down (the taxes that is). So they are down already, its up to Labour to change the law to make them go up. If Labour do not change the law then the taxes stay down. That is how I understand it anyway.

I think you will find you will pay tax on your income at current rates right up till the 31/3/2018. At that point in time they may or may not go down depending on the election result.
Now you guys are just being silly.
We can all work out that National was lying to scare up a few more votes why can't you admit it was a lie. You can still vote National even though they are a bunch of liars.
I was at first drawn in to this thread by Minimokes outrageous claim that Labour was lying about personal tax rates. A specious argument at best.....

.... Just ran out of steam on a pointless argument. You win through your persistence I am unsure if you are stupid or dishonest or possibly both.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 02:10 PM
This is just political strategy.
Of course its political strategy. Who would think it is anything but. You dont get to be in political power for 9 years without having a few cliues

The challenge is for JacInda to rebutt it. Saying they are not increasing taxes doesn't cut the mustard because that is an argument easily seen through - at least i thought it was easy. Obviously not. (might help explain why Labour have been in opposition for 9 years)

huxley
21-09-2017, 02:15 PM
"Of course its political strategy."

I rest my case. Have a great afternoon gents!

minimoke
21-09-2017, 02:18 PM
I think you will find you will pay tax on your income at current rates right up till the 31/3/2018. Aaron - you really are making hard work of this. Of course I will pay tax at my current rates until 31/3/2018. After that the law says they go down.


At that point in time they may or may not go down depending on the election result.. Really - it is not hard. Honestly. Just take a breath.

The tax I pay from 1/4/2018 is not dependent on the election result. If any party (and I'll even include Labour here) gets into government I will pay $9000 tax from 1 April. The only possible way I wont is for Labour to get enough votes in Parliament to pass a Bill changing the rates. The effect of that Bill passing into law will be to raise my tax from $9,000 to $10,000

minimoke
21-09-2017, 02:32 PM
"Of course its political strategy."

I rest my case. Have a great afternoon gents!
Seriously - is that the best you can do. $750 free money for heating for beneficiaries and seniors from Labour. Free tertiary education from United Future and NZ First, Free bus tickets from Greens, free GP and dental for under 18s from Maori party. I'm not sure what ACT is giving away for free. They are all political strategies.

The free education one is a goodie - it presupposes students in the first instance have enrolled and in the second aren't too hung over to get out and vote. So potentially wasted strategies there.

Aaron
21-09-2017, 02:44 PM
The free education one is a goodie - it presupposes students in the first instance have enrolled and in the second aren't too hung over to get out and vote. So potentially wasted strategies there.

Maybe they are coming up with policy they genuinely believe is good for the nation rather than buying votes. You will notice National policy or lack of policy is for the benefit of the already well off (who to their credit get out and vote).

In some respects young people deserve to get screwed over by boomers if they are too stupid or lazy to vote.

huxley
21-09-2017, 02:47 PM
Seriously - is that the best you can do. $750 free money for heating for beneficiaries and seniors from Labour. Free tertiary education from United Future and NZ First, Free bus tickets from Greens, free GP and dental for under 18s from Maori party. I'm not sure what ACT is giving away for free. They are all political strategies.

The free education one is a goodie - it presupposes students in the first instance have enrolled and in the second aren't too hung over to get out and vote. So potentially wasted strategies there.


You have literally created a thread tiled "Labour Lies About Personal Tax" and have presented your argument by echoing the National party line that " this is the law of the land". Yet you're also willing to concede that the timing of the proposed tax cuts - to be implemented post the election - is set primarily for the political expediency it gives the National Party.

You can't have it both ways.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 02:55 PM
Maybe they are coming up with policy they genuinely believe is good for the nation rather than buying votes. .And maybe that is what National was doing in its last budget. Afterall something that benefits all earners to a greater or lesser extent has to be good for the nation - doesnt it?

minimoke
21-09-2017, 03:00 PM
You have literally created a thread tiled "Labour Lies About Personal Tax" and have presented your argument by echoing the National party line that " this is the law of the land". Yet you're also willing to concede that the timing of the proposed tax cuts - to be implemented post the election - is set primarily for the political expediency it gives the National Party.

You can't have it both ways.
The discussion isn't about political expediency - if you would like one on that how about starting a thread.

This thread is about Labours personal tax lies. And it is a lie if they are saying they are not going to put up personal tax rates.

huxley
21-09-2017, 03:10 PM
The discussion isn't about political expediency - if you would like one on that how about starting a thread.

This thread is about Labours personal tax lies. And it is a lie if they are saying they are not going to put up personal tax rates.


Well sure, but this debate is just semantics then. It's not objectively true to accept either position and frankly, if we're not looking at the political expediency*, who cares.

*on that note, I think this has been an effective counter to "jacinda mania" and Labour looks weak.

Adam H
21-09-2017, 03:27 PM
Afterall something that benefits all earners to a greater or lesser extent has to be good for the nation - doesnt it?

This is obviously false. You are assuming that paying less tax is better for each individual and therefore better for the nation. If this is true then no tax is the best "more money in the back pocket". Except then you have beggars on the streets, people dieing of easily cured diseases and no education system (they require taxes too). I think most would agree that that would not be best for the nation.

The question is then how much tax is best for the nation. Considering how complicated this question is it is surprising how many people can be so confident that "less" is always the answer when eventually the above scenario would occur if "less" was always applied.

Tax is good for everyone. Even the top 1%, because they wouldn't have their wealth without a functioning society.

tim23
21-09-2017, 05:19 PM
Whatever way you spin it - its not a tax increase.
Aaron - you really are making hard work of this. Of course I will pay tax at my current rates until 31/3/2018. After that the law says they go down.

Really - it is not hard. Honestly. Just take a breath.

The tax I pay from 1/4/2018 is not dependent on the election result. If any party (and I'll even include Labour here) gets into government I will pay $9000 tax from 1 April. The only possible way I wont is for Labour to get enough votes in Parliament to pass a Bill changing the rates. The effect of that Bill passing into law will be to raise my tax from $9,000 to $10,000

artemis
21-09-2017, 05:55 PM
As was said by Samuel Johnson (maybe) when he saw two women shouting at each other across the street - they will never agree, they're arguing from different premises.

And that is what's happening here. One party compares 1 April 2018 with right now if enacted legislation remains in place. The other party compares 1 April 2018 with right now if legislation is repealed.

minimoke
21-09-2017, 06:15 PM
Whatever way you spin it - its not a tax increase.This what Labour will do: Lower the 10.5% tax threshold to $14,000 earned from the $22,000 threshold set for 1 April 2018. That means any one earning over $14,000 will be paying more tax. Take away the clouds of an election or government or date and no matter how you dress it up, its an increase

minimoke
21-09-2017, 06:20 PM
This is obviously false. You are assuming that paying less tax is better for each individual and therefore better for the nation. If this is true then no tax is the best "more money in the back pocket". Except then you have beggars on the streets, people dieing of easily cured diseases and no education system (they require taxes too). I think most would agree that that would not be best for the nation.

.
We could end up going down a whole libertarian rabbit hole here where I might argue the best decision maker on a persons money is the person who earnt it - and that is good fro the overall nation; or how if I have more money in my pocket I have more choice on which beggars I prop up, or I can go where ever I like for my medicine as I have the money to do so, or will be able to afford to send my child to the school that suits their learning best. But I shan't.

I am not advocating for a moment the payment of no tax. I am just saying I shall miss the extra $1,000 that is going to be taken off me on 1 April if Labour get in. If tax is so good, surely you wouldn't begrudge me getting that extra $1,000? since I'm stil paying $9,000

t.rexjr
21-09-2017, 08:08 PM
National is technically correct, Labour is emotionally correct.

The facts are quite technical and therefore correct, but the fact the inevitable technically has taken place even though it hasn't happened does mean I'm not emotionally involved with the technicality of the factual outcome. It does not alter my present state so emotionally does not affect me, though technically it will effect me...

hardt
26-09-2017, 04:05 AM
This is obviously false. You are assuming that paying less tax is better for each individual and therefore better for the nation. If this is true then no tax is the best "more money in the back pocket". Except then you have beggars on the streets, people dieing of easily cured diseases and no education system (they require taxes too). I think most would agree that that would not be best for the nation.

The question is then how much tax is best for the nation. Considering how complicated this question is it is surprising how many people can be so confident that "less" is always the answer when eventually the above scenario would occur if "less" was always applied.

Tax is good for everyone. Even the top 1%, because they wouldn't have their wealth without a functioning society.

By the functions of politics and how power is obtained, taxes are entirely at the whim of a demagogues promises to regurgitate a tax dollar into a penny of public services.

Taxes are not and never will be spent by an altruist, nor will it ever be spent as efficiently as a business with shareholders to answer to.

Simply claiming many of those who want "less tax" actually want "no tax" is doing a rather terrible job of a straw man... but I agree tax is not inherently a bad thing.

9194

Adam H
26-09-2017, 07:30 AM
I was replying to a post that claimed less tax was better for everyone (as they benefited individually from having more cash) , and therefore better for the nation.

The point of my post was to question how people could be so confident that less tax was better. Many of the arguments for less tax were based on i can spend it better, etc... Not less tax would be better because of sound economic reasoning. No tax is the end result of always assuming less is better. And despite the complications of setting the 'correct' tax levels, tax increases are almost always viewed as bad and tax decrease as good. The exception is of course taxes which target people other than yourself.

Also although taxes may not be spent by an complete altruist i think it would be hard to argue that they would not be spent more altruistically than an individual who considered the money to be theirs.

I am not sure what your graph is trying to show? That is just a breakdown of how taxes are collected in NZ compared to the OECD, nothing to do with how much tax is collected. Did you mean to post something more like this? http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/sites/default/files/images/publications/2011-other-bim/figure2.png (*data is from 2008)
This shows NZ is below average compared to other OECD countries in term of total tax revenue when considered as a percentage of GDP.

hardt
26-09-2017, 10:24 PM
I was replying to a post that claimed less tax was better for everyone (as they benefited individually from having more cash) , and therefore better for the nation.

The point of my post was to question how people could be so confident that less tax was better. Many of the arguments for less tax were based on i can spend it better, etc... Not less tax would be better because of sound economic reasoning. No tax is the end result of always assuming less is better. And despite the complications of setting the 'correct' tax levels, tax increases are almost always viewed as bad and tax decrease as good. The exception is of course taxes which target people other than yourself.

Also although taxes may not be spent by an complete altruist i think it would be hard to argue that they would not be spent more altruistically than an individual who considered the money to be theirs.

I am not sure what your graph is trying to show? That is just a breakdown of how taxes are collected in NZ compared to the OECD, nothing to do with how much tax is collected. Did you mean to post something more like this? http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/sites/default/files/images/publications/2011-other-bim/figure2.png (*data is from 2008)
This shows NZ is below average compared to other OECD countries in term of total tax revenue when considered as a percentage of GDP.

Forgot to upload the remaining images, couldn't be bothered writing about shifting the tax burdens, without reducing the overall tax revenues but that was going off topic.

9209
9208

t.rexjr
27-09-2017, 08:02 AM
The tax take on the spend is higher than on the earn $ for $. A cut in income tax will net the government a higher tax income due to the spend having both GST and income tax components.

fungus pudding
27-09-2017, 08:21 AM
The tax take on the spend is higher than on the earn $ for $. A cut in income tax will net the government a higher tax income due to the spend having both GST and income tax components.

It also leads to greater incentives in the economy. Higher taxes can stop things happening.

winner69
27-09-2017, 08:24 AM
My worst nightmare would be if you guys were coopted to formulate a new tax policy for the country .....a working group it wouldn't be.

Just saying ..no personal insults

fungus pudding
27-09-2017, 08:42 AM
My worst nightmare would be if you guys were coopted to formulate a new tax policy for the country .....a working group it wouldn't be.

Just saying ..no personal insults

We'd make sleeping pills free to the user which would see you through the nightmares. :D

Adam H
27-09-2017, 10:28 AM
The tax take on the spend is higher than on the earn $ for $. A cut in income tax will net the government a higher tax income due to the spend having both GST and income tax components.

Unlikely. I am almost certain that the amount that the average dollar earned as income is taxed higher than the GST rate. I would guess the average tax on a dollar earned as income would be around 20%.

I don't see how your second sentence makes sense? If you are going to tax a dollar twice, you will not get more by lowering either one of the taxes unless you assume you will increase spending habits. This is an effect which occurs but the increase in spending applies more to lower income people, not to the people on the higher tax brackets.

t.rexjr
27-09-2017, 11:14 AM
Unlikely. I am almost certain that the amount that the average dollar earned as income is taxed higher than the GST rate. I would guess the average tax on a dollar earned as income would be around 20%.

I don't see how your second sentence makes sense? If you are going to tax a dollar twice, you will not get more by lowering either one of the taxes unless you assume you will increase spending habits. This is an effect which occurs but the increase in spending applies more to lower income people, not to the people on the higher tax brackets.

using your 20% average...

$20 taxed at income @ 20% = $4

$20 taxed at spend (business income) is 15% GST ($3) + assumed 30% margin on remaining $17 which would be taxable income @ 20% ($1.02) = $4.02

Very basic example flawed by margin and averaging income tax used not ideal so posssibly haven't highlighted my point that well. Yes it relies on spending. (something that we are surprisingly good at when given $20)

Tax take from lower income earners ends up increasing while giving them more spending money giving higher earners more income to spend all the while increasing the tax take

$20 taxed on spend when buying alcohol or cigarettes and we're doing quite well.

GST was raised for a reason.

We all just need to spend more...