If National wins ...

[dobby41]

Doing the best thing is completely subjective. Keeping your policies secret from voters is dishonest.

So we agree that National was dishonest.

[winner69]

Labours 'budget' Seems to proposed spending numbers that would be smaller as a share of GDP than at any time over the last 40 odd years except for two years in the last Labour government that proved to be unsustainable (with big increases in spending over the following few years)


No wonder some economic commentators are calling Jacinda the next Ruth Richardson

Different philosophies (though not quite sure what Jacinda really stands for) but Ruth remembered for her 'mother of all budgets'

[xafalcon]

taxiceman. The honesty and integrity is doing the right thing and getting the best advice from the best skilled experts with whats best for New Zealanders; she is very transparent about that.You are suspicious, well remember Labour has ethics and morals under her,national don't under bill , thats a fact too and transparent as you you can see by national's appalling win at any cost behaviour; for all to see.

Any policy as important as far reaching tax change needs to be put to the people, period. This is the basis of democracy.

If the majority of people agree, there is no problem.

The decision not to go to the people with a proposal smacks of authoritarianism, and clearly indicates a belief that the majority will not agree with the proposal. This is not democracy, is not honest, is not integrity, is not transparent and is simply not the right thing to do.

The tax changes made by National circa 2011 are a red herring. Increasing GST and a corresponding reduction in PAYE. Tax neutral, give or take a few pennies

Life is not fair. There will be those who win, those who loose, those who become wealthy, those who do not, those who are smart, those who are not, those who are male, those who are female. Social equalization does not fix these things, it only shifts the problem/resentment from one group to another.

FYI I support neither of the big parties

[fungus pudding]

Labours 'budget' Seems to proposed spending numbers that would be smaller as a share of GDP than at any time over the last 40 odd years except for two years in the last Labour government that proved to be unsustainable (with big increases in spending over the following few years)


No wonder some economic commentators are calling Jacinda the next Ruth Richardson

Different philosophies (though not quite sure what Jacinda really stands for) but Ruth remembered for her 'mother of all budgets'

Or Arnold Nordmeyer, remembered for the black budget back in my schooldays.

[Bjauck]

Any policy as important as far reaching tax change needs to be put to the people, period. This is the basis of democracy.

If the majority of people agree, there is no problem.

I agree. Good for Labour for suggesting a tax review, although they do seem to be limiting its scope. However, they should be thorough and take their time in the next three years. Any suggestions for reform should be detailed and put to the people prior to the following election.

Life is not fair. There will be those who win, those who loose, those who become wealthy, those who do not, those who are smart, those who are not, those who are male, those who are female. Social equalization does not fix these things, it only shifts the problem/resentment from one group to another.

FYI I support neither of the big parties

I guess we can only hope that the government of the day tries to make things fairer (although what is "fair" is constantly evolving.) There will always be those with a vested interest in the status quo remaining who will oppose change, whether the change may improve "general well being", effectiveness and efficiency or not.

[winner69]

Or Arnold Nordmeyer, remembered for the black budget back in my schooldays.

Nordmeyer was awesome - and real Labour

Jacinda going to be more famous than Michael Savage and Nordmeyer and maybe even our Helen


So we can look forward to Jacinda's first budget - Black? Mother of all? Or another term

[fungus pudding]

I guess we can only hope that the government of the day tries to make things fairer (although what is "fair" is constantly evolving.)

No it's not. It's simply subjective. A regressive tax may be considered fair by some who could logically argue that once you've paid a certain amount you should receive a discounted rate; i.e. the way the world works with most things, and it certainly encourages producers and entrepeneurs. . Many consider our progressive taxes to be fair, while some see it as punishing acheivers, which is a logical argument. A flat tax, where every dollar earned is taxed at the same rate is considered fair by some.
So take your pick but it has everything to do with your own ideals and beliefs, and nothing to do with the definition of fair evolving.

[Bjauck]

No it's not. It's simply subjective. A regressive tax may be considered fair by some who could logically argue that once you've paid a certain amount you should receive a discounted rate; i.e. the way the world works with most things, and it certainly encourages producers and entrepeneurs. . Many consider our progressive taxes to be fair, while some see it as punishing acheivers, which is a logical argument. A flat tax, where every dollar earned is taxed at the same rate is considered fair by some.
So take your pick but it has everything to do with your own ideals and beliefs, and nothing to do with the definition of fair evolving.

It is both subjective and evolving. Most people have a concept of fairness which has evolved during their own lifetime.

Some people consider that it is fair if "capital profits" should not be subject to tax unlike "income" or purchasing goods and services. Others think that to be fair capital profits should also be subject to tax. Opinions about this and towards many issues change. In times past, many wondered where is the fairness in a tax levied when somebody provided a service for somebody else.

[Sgt Pepper]

[QUOTE=fungus pudding;682730]No it's not. It's simply subjective. A regressive tax may be considered fair by some who could logically argue that once you've paid a certain amount you should receive a discounted rate; i.e. the way the world works with most things, and it certainly encourages producers and entrepeneurs. .T Many consider our progressive taxes to be fair, while some see it as punishing acheivers, which is a logical argument. A flat tax, where every dollar earned is taxed at the same rate is considered fair by some.
So take your pick but it has everything to do with your own ideals and beliefs, and nothing to do with the definition of fair evolving.[/QUOTEThcuroi

The curious thing about the proposal for a flat tax regime is that over the years, governments lead by people you would assume would be in favour, never implemented them. Both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had substantial majorities in their respective legislatures yet never progressed any flat tax initiative. Why do you think that was?

[iceman]

Good question SgtP. Estonia has been doing very well under their simple flat rate tax system https://taxfoundation.org/estonia-ha...x-system-oecd/