Saw this article and thought of Baa Baa when I read the ACTs tax policy. Obviously I assumed the media were providing an unbalanced view to increase views as it appears so idiotic (IMO)at first glance.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mon...-this-election
I came back to Baa Baa's link to ACTs policies and it turns out it is true except they did not include the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO), of $800.
https://www.act.org.nz/tax
By 2023/24, the tax burden on the average New Zealander will be $1,236 per year lower under ACT than Labour. We will have delivered a tax cut for every earner.
I highlight average because based on my rough calculations and this is admittedly an out of date income distribution from the NZ treasury of the working age population.
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/informa...ays-income-tax
ACTs tax policy starts to benefit people who earn over $52,000 and based on these treasury figures that is 35% of the working age population.
I guess the average must be worked out over the total tax savings as anyone earning less than $48,000 has to pay $180.00 extra in tax each year. Whereas someone earning $70,000 saves $1,770 or someone on $140,000 saves $5,270.00. Anyone on $1mill a year saves $48,270 in tax p.a. under ACTs tax policy.
Looking outside the working age population, National Superannuitants would also have to stump up an extra $180.00 and would only benefit if their investment income was over $30,750 p.a. assuming national super of roughly $21,250 a year.
So ACT is proposing that the 65% of the poorest NZers chip in $180 each so that the top 35% can get a tax cut with the cuts being more significant the more you earn.
Like I say the only thing dumber than David Seymour’s face is ACTs tax policy.
Baa Baa obviously aware of this after directing me to ACTs policy page would appear to me to be either an idiot or unreasonable and selfish. Not sure which as I do not know his level of income.
Not sure how else I could interpret the information at hand.