ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[FTG]

28% Not high enough for you?
Ever thought of getting off your butt and making your own pile?
I suspect you've never given that any serious thought.
Much easier to hold your hand out for a share of everyone else's.

What the likes of BS are really saying: "Give serious thought & consideration to getting off my butt and taking responsibility for myself and being responsible for my OWN outcomes??? Yeah.....NAHHHH, no way Jose. Way too much work & effort!"

A couple points of clarification.

- NZ's top tax rate is now 39% - not 35% as incorrectly stated above.
- Pig Trough dwellers often cite the super high headline tax rates of the Scandi' countries as 'shining examples' of what we could and should do in NZ.
The reality is starkly different. There are so many & variously structured State sanctioned Rebates, Family Friendly Benefits, Supplements etc for the citizens, including for the "wealthy", that the average effective tax rate of this cohort is significantly lower than what the headline rates may make it appear. Basically making 'all & sundry' beneficiaries of the State.

NZ has been in that hideous place previously - in the early 80's for those who are too young to recall. A 66% top tax rate, but laced with various offsets.

[Balance]

What the likes of BS are really saying: "Give serious thought & consideration to getting off my butt and taking responsibility for myself and being responsible for my OWN outcomes??? Yeah.....NAHHHH, no way Jose. Way to much work & effort!"

A couple points of clarification.

- NZ's top tax rate is now 39% - not 35% as incorrectly stated above.
- Pig Trough dwellers often cite the super high headline tax rates of the Scandi' countries as 'shining examples' of what we could and should do in NZ.
The reality is starkly different. There are so many & variously structured State sanctioned Rebates, Family Friendly Benefits, Supplements etc for the citizens, including for the "wealthy", that the average effective tax rate of this cohort is significantly lower than what the headline rates may make it appear. Basically making 'all & sundry' beneficiaries of the State.

NZ has been in that hideous place previously - in the early 80's for those who are too young to recall. A 66% top tax rate, but laced with various offsets.

Thanks for the reminder, FTG about the 66% tax rate. Nobody paid that rate of course because as you wrote, there were offsets a plenty - tax avoidance schemes, subsidies, general wage orders (feeding inflation).

Re taxes, the leftists' catch cry of NZ being a low tax jurisdiction compared to other countries simply does not bear up to scrutiny.

The best measure to use is taxes as a %tage of GDP with comparative countries:

NZ 33.8%
Australia 28.5%
US 26.6%
Canada 33.2%
UK 33.5%
OECD average 34.1%

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/...s-brochure.pdf

All that Labour & their supporters can think of is ever more transfer-payment, non-productive & wasteful spending to be funded by ever higher taxes from the existing productive sector. Never a thought about effective and efficient spending which is what all countries must do to grow and progress towards that utopia of a happy country. Never a thought about how to grow the economy to benefit all NZers. It's always about more spending and more taxes.

Enough is enough - roll on October 2023.

[Aaron]

LOL. You didn't really look, did you. Don't be so lazy Aaron.

If you had bothered to read my earlier posts you could have seen some worked examples of ACTs tax policy. Your copying and pasting the limited information from the ACT website is not research, and it only highlights how little you understand.

Probably not much point explaining again how it works as you will have your opinions that you will stick to no matter how ignorant or stupid they are.

Just in case you have the capacity for understanding I will try one more time and you can point out where I am going wrong. In which case I will eat a big chunk of humble pie and apologies to you for all the mean things I just said.

The ACT income tax policy is a flatter system with a 17.5% rate to $70,000 and 28% over $70,000.

The Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO) which you so helpfully pasted in your post is an attempt to reduce the additional income tax burden ACT intends to impose on the unaspirational.

Anyone earning between $12,000 and $48,000 (includes pensioners and minimum wage workers) gets an $800.00 LMITO offset.

Under the current scheme they pay 10.5% on the first $14,000 that equals $1,470 tax to pay.

Under ACT the first $14,000 is at 17.5% or $2,450 but ACT will provide an LMITO of $800 to reduce the additional tax from $980.00 (2,450-1,470) to only $180.00 extra in tax.

So everyone earning between $12k to $48k will be paying $180.00 extra in income tax.

Read my earlier posts and get a better understanding of what you are talking about as it will help the discussion if you not talking a load of cr*p.

Perhaps you can also come back and explain how this is everyone paying less tax.

I would suggest you remain a quiet observer until you have something worthwhile to say.

[Aaron]

This Aaron, is where you lost your audience. You don't like Seymour's face, so you attempt to slag ACT's policies that you also confess you haven't read, and you are also a self confessed ignoramus (you do self denigration quite effectively, believable even).

Still, you dig the hole deeper that you are already in and expect other people to validate your claims. Preposterous, look in the mirror Aaron, look at what is staring back at you ... do you like what you see?

Credibility? None. Hostility no, respect no, reputation, no not that either. Check that mirror, only you can fix it.

The David Seymour's face quip was an attempt at humour, but I am sensing comedy is not your strong suit. You and FTG continue to call me lazy and ignorant (which I am) yet as far as I can tell I seem to have a better understanding of what we are discussing than both of you. Perhaps we are just talking past each other.

I have gone over my previous posts and I am guessing your anger and hostility is due to me suggesting you are an ACT voter which is much like saying you are a bit of a ****. For that I apologies as I don't know you from a bar of soap.

[nztx]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...BUWTBZNLSKBZI/

Election 2023: Seymour, Act will ‘stop work’ on wasteful projects, cut public service jobs

The Act Party wants to dramatically reduce the headcount of the public service if it is in government after the election, by ordering ministries to immediately stop work on projects it wants to axe.

Act leader David Seymour promised this morning to issue “stop work notices” to public sector chief executives on day one of a government.

He claims this will “save up to $1 billion on day one of the next government”.

Usually happens after Labour get flushed and the waste and excess gets nipped in the butt

Bound to be considerable greater savings after the past 5.5+ years of Labour / Greens incompetence ripe for pruning

[777]

Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law.

That is not the case as that was changed and finally abolished in 2011.

[Baa_Baa]

That is not the case as that was changed and finally abolished in 2011.

I think you mean Gift Duties, which were abolished in 2011. Death Duties were abolished in 1993.

Perhaps BS could explain his interpretation that "Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law."

[Panda-NZ-]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...BUWTBZNLSKBZI/

Election 2023: Seymour, Act will ‘stop work’ on wasteful projects, cut public service jobs

Nah it's going to cost more to return to DHB's and give back local water assets.

Billions of dollars in sunk costs.

Should put that in the Act alternative budget...

[Balance]

Nah it's going to cost more to return to DHB's and give back local water assets.

Billions of dollars in sunk costs.

Should put that in the Act alternative budget...

Garbage & BS as usual from panda-nz who wanted Ryman to go broke by loading up with more debt.

[Blue Skies]

I think you mean Gift Duties, which were abolished in 2011. Death Duties were abolished in 1993.

Perhaps BS could explain his interpretation that "Death Duties as they are commonly known, and worryingly we already do have them in legislation, its just that they are set at zero so would be very simple for any govt to change that figure. They wouldn't have to go through the process of establishing them in law."

As I understand it & confirmed here, & I've also remember hearing this from other sources, Estate duties or Death Duties as we used to call them were set to zero in 1993 while Gift Duty was abolished in 2011.
Now you or writers can say or argue setting the amount to zero is the same thing as abolishing them.
But the difference is a govt could decide to reset the figure without having to re-establish the legislation around Estate Duties, whereas there govt would need to re-write & pass the legislation to re-establish Gift Duties.

If you read they were 'abolished', check what the writer is really saying is set to zero so consequently Estate Duties don't exist in NZ (at the moment)

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.


https://theconversation.com/forget-a...-wealth-143604