-
10-08-2017, 05:28 PM
#13081
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
That's an interesting comment. Which of Act's policies make you think they have a 'survival of the fittest' philosophy or mentality?
They want to increase the eligibility age for Superannuation - without exception I believe. Tough luck for those who are manual labourers whose bodies physically wear out earlier than others.
ACT I believe do not want to change GST but they want to decrease income tax especially for high incomes. That will mean a more regressive tax system than as at present, hitting those on low incomes who spend all their money and cannot afford to make investments.
They say they want to reduce taxes overall without reducing public services by increasing spending efficiency and reducing "waste." Isn't that what they all say? Perhaps ACT would get blood from a stone....
-
10-08-2017, 05:37 PM
#13082
Originally Posted by Bjauck
They want to increase the eligibility age for Superannuation - without exception I believe. Tough luck for those who are manual labourers whose bodies physically wear out earlier than others.
ACT I believe do not want to change GST but they want to decrease income tax especially for high incomes. That will mean a more regressive tax system than as at present, hitting those on low incomes who spend all their money and cannot afford to make investments.
They say they want to reduce taxes overall without reducing public services by increasing spending efficiency and reducing "waste." Isn't that what they all say? Perhaps ACT would get blood from a stone....
That's a worthwhile goal, offering better superannuation, health, and education at a lower cost. Hard to see any objection to that. I for one don't enjoy paying more for less.
-
10-08-2017, 05:49 PM
#13083
Well lucky clever you! Labour lead the way in making NZ a better more inclusive place to live; to call Labour gamblers is plain stupid don't you remember Cullen being bagged for being too cautious?
Originally Posted by craic
John Key may have been a gambler but some of us are good at that sort of thing. Right now I'm sitting in a nice hotel in Singapore (here for their National Day Celebrations and to catch a cruise ship) and I can pay for this from my "gambling" on the market. Labour will try to gamble with my money to retain popularity and continue to live the good life off my pocket as all politicians do.
-
10-08-2017, 06:07 PM
#13084
Originally Posted by tim23
Well lucky clever you! Labour lead the way in making NZ a better more inclusive place to live
Agreed, but after a brilliant 6 years from 84 to 1990 they lost to National, who carried on with Labour's reforms, but at a pathetically slow pace. The only way for Labour to get back in was to oppose everything National was doing. Golden opportunity lost.
-
10-08-2017, 07:06 PM
#13085
Labour and NZF winning this race by miles
http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
-
10-08-2017, 07:21 PM
#13086
Originally Posted by winner69
Interesting. I knew they were doing well, but didn't expect them to be this far out in front.
-
10-08-2017, 07:52 PM
#13087
With Jacinda neck and neck with wood face Bill (of which a third of his own party don't trust him now) in who is the preferred leader; National must be stunned mullets. Pressure on bill to perform or will the printers have a third bonanza payday printing more hoardings (if the the greens can afford to replace theirs).
-
10-08-2017, 08:07 PM
#13088
Originally Posted by winner69
Of course that graph is a list of all projected cash costs for the next electoral term. Some of those costs are for capital works, so they are defrayed with interest and capital payments to be spread over the life of the assets. If Labour chooses to speed up light rail to save some of the billions of dollars of human time that is wasted in traffic jams in Auckland, they don't deserve to be pilloried in such a basic and crude graph - that is meaningless.
Where is the other side of the graph that shows cost savings in other areas, for example? Disbelievers just need to go back to Stats NZ to see that when Labour was last in office, they grew the economy, increased the tax base painlessly, had near-term record unemployment, and tidied up a lot of the mess left behind by Rogernomics, our giant neoliberal experiment foisted on us by Treasury boffins. A big chunk of old debt was repaid, the one action that saved this useless National Govt, who borrowed it all back, plus a lot more.
-
11-08-2017, 12:07 AM
#13089
Originally Posted by elZorro
Of course that graph is a list of all projected cash costs for the next electoral term. Some of those costs are for capital works, so they are defrayed with interest and capital payments to be spread over the life of the assets. If Labour chooses to speed up light rail to save some of the billions of dollars of human time that is wasted in traffic jams in Auckland, they don't deserve to be pilloried in such a basic and crude graph - that is meaningless.
Where is the other side of the graph that shows cost savings in other areas, for example? Disbelievers just need to go back to Stats NZ to see that when Labour was last in office, they grew the economy, increased the tax base painlessly, had near-term record unemployment, and tidied up a lot of the mess left behind by Rogernomics, our giant neoliberal experiment foisted on us by Treasury boffins. A big chunk of old debt was repaid, the one action that saved this useless National Govt, who borrowed it all back, plus a lot more.
Give up eZ. You've won. Winnie will choose your lot over National.
-
11-08-2017, 02:11 AM
#13090
Originally Posted by Bjauck
They want to increase the eligibility age for Superannuation - without exception I believe. Tough luck for those who are manual labourers whose bodies physically wear out earlier than others.
ACT I believe do not want to change GST but they want to decrease income tax especially for high incomes. That will mean a more regressive tax system than as at present, hitting those on low incomes who spend all their money and cannot afford to make investments.
They say they want to reduce taxes overall without reducing public services by increasing spending efficiency and reducing "waste." Isn't that what they all say? Perhaps ACT would get blood from a stone....
Explain how a lower tax rate could possibly hurt those who earn less...? |
|
Income Bracket |
Current |
ACT’s Proposal (from 1 April 2018) |
0-14,000 |
10.5% |
10% |
14,000-48,000 |
17.5% |
15% |
48,000-70,000 |
30% |
25% |
more than 70,000 |
33% |
25% |
Cut red tape and lower the cost barrier around developments in housing/business/agriculture.
Cut working for families and paid parental leave payments to upper income earners to better fund more effective, targeted programs for those truly in need of help.
Cut corporate welfare and put an end to Governments tendrils creeping into the free market...
Income management for beneficiaries, efficiently budgeting essential costs with allowances on the side, financially stabilising beneficiaries within their current programs.
ACT has many well thought out policies, they are not looking to throw our hard earned tax dollars at voters in hopes of elevating themselves into popularity...
Last edited by hardt; 11-08-2017 at 04:36 AM.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks