If National wins ...

[Sgt Pepper]

1. I dont think you can get rid of it completely but by doing some of your other changes, it can be reduced significantly
2. Agree completely. Interest free while studying (though limits 3y for Bachelors, up to say 7 years for PhD)
3. Yes but very expensive. It would also benefit everyone, including high income earns. Could reduce the cost by having reducing the top rate of 33 down to a lower threashold so that the benefit is reduced for higher earners. This also links into WFF above.
4. When combined with 3. to costly as noted but agree that brackets should increase with inflation (once reset to cater for new threasholds).

I would also like to see:
5. a signal that free (or highly subsidised - ie. nominal $5 cost) for children will be increase over time up to end of school age (18ish) as the budget allows.
6. signal the opening of a multi party discussion on superannuation with age, means testing, etc to be discussed. There may be no consensus but would be good to have the multi party (and economist, academic) discussion refreshed.

HS
Do you see a point in time when National Party supporters will no longer accept that "pragmatism" demands that effective tax reductions, that is tax reductions that Businesses and Wage and Salary earners notice, are only some vague aspirational goal given at best lip service to. As time goes on many may question that their support is being taken for granted, and that simply "we have got to keep Labour out" no matter what the cost will rapidly erode as a motivation to return National.

To be quite honest I don't think John Key gives a dam, as he is planning his post political career already.

[Cuzzie]

S.P as far as I'm aware National is looking to the future which includes John Key and also for students leaving school with their new Creative Industries Vocational Pathway that was announced yesterday by Employment Minister Steven Joyce. “Vocational Pathways helps students to better plan their studies and set themselves up for their future. They can use the pathways as a framework to help choose their subjects and also see how they relate to future job or career opportunities.”
Mr Joyce said employers need qualified, skilled and creative young talent.
The Vocational Pathways are part of the Youth Guarantee Scheme, which assists schools and tertiary providers to develop more relevant learning opportunities. Sounds great to me, meanwhile signs of optimism have emerged from employers. After a drop in positive hiring intentions over the past two consecutive quarters, intentions to hire are on the rise in New Zealand, up 4.5pp to 31.8% . Here is a link to that which contains graphs. Hudson
Looks like unemployment figures will be adjusted down thanks to the good work done by Joyce and National as a whole. Like I said, give somebody an opportunity to be successful in life and get them before a duck feeder turns up and they will prosper. Keep the Bleeding Heart Liberals at bay and our country will prosper too and we are now seeing the results of that very thing happening right now. Three more years and let the good times roll. That's why Labour need to win this election and that don't care how, because if National gets another three years, it could take Labour twenty years before they get another sniff. I like that thought right there.

[Cuzzie]

I wondered how that statement fitted in the asset sales (MEL, MRP, etc.) Could you explain that, Cuzzie, when you have a moment? Don't forget to factor in the various commentators who made it clear that the ROI was far greater than the cost of borrowed money and actually represented a very worthwhile, long term income stream.

It would fit in quite nicely for you if he actually said that in reference to asset sales - but he didn't did he. This was about tax, so that explains that. Please do stick to quotes accurately to prevent misguidance on you part belg.

[Cuzzie]

And where did the government get the money from in the first place? TAX?

And in the absence of the additional revenue stream provided by those assets where will the money come from? TAX?

belg, all money is related to tax somewhere down the line. That is an awfully big umbrella you are using to raine in a statement John Key has made directly at tax, but nothing to do with asset sales. His statement has nothing to do with asset sales and I can't possibly add anything more except to say once again, stick to what has been quoted and that subject line, then you will be fine.

[iceman]

1. Why would you abandon WFF? It is a sliding scale, targeted support scheme for families that encourages parents to work while ensuring a minimum income for families. Internationally it is recognised as being quite a bit better than a fairly okay scheme and far better than what it replaced. (And it has the added "benefit" of ensuring people get into the IRD systems.)

2. Agreed. BTW, as someone who had part time jobs during term and full time in holidays and was flatting while at Uni and left with more assets than I started with, I struggle to understand how some of these students rack up such huge amounts of debt.

3. Very expensive indeed. But, I'd be in favour of making income tax bit more "targeted" and far smoother as you earn more, i.e. based on gross income rather than bands. E.g. 0% to 14K, 1% when 15k, 2% when 16k, 2.5% when 17k, etc., etc. (ignore percentages as I've not tried to work them out.) Doing it that way ensures those earning less than 14k don't get taxed while those on 150k will still get taxed on the first 14k. Such an approach allows very targeted tax gathering and partially removes the artificial boundaries that exist around the current bands. Actually, this might be far simpler ... I.e. if you earn 156k, you look up the rate, say 25% and your tax is 156 * 0.25 = 39k. Simpler?

4. See 3 above.

Re WFF, the answer is because it is very costly middle class welfare-ism. Much simpler to have tax free thresholds like the one I suggested, where a family/partners can fully benefit whether one or both are working. I fully realise the tax free threshold I suggested is costly and the numbers would obviously need to be worked on. But abandoning WFF would save a lot of money towards it probably a lot more than people realise.

I don't agree with you on one point though Belg. I think ALL tax payers (yes high income earners too) should get a tax cut when the time allows and a tax free threshold at the bottom end is a fair way of doing it. This is common in the Nordic countries and has overall cross party support.

We could also stop Government contributions to Kiwisaver to save a bot more unnecessary expenditure !!!

Agree HS about a cross party consensus on super. It simply has to happen. The eligibility age needs and should go to 70 years. Something like going to 67 in 2020, 68 in 2023, 69 in 2026 and 70 in 2029.
This is the issue where I am the most disappointed with Key and National.

[Cuzzie]

Nice try, Cuz. But the inconsistencies are quite clear to those of us that aren't National party sycophants.

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave. #TeamKey

No nice try belg, just didn't play your little game. Give me an actual quote from John Key and you will get a straight answer, but if you want a hypothetical answer I suggest you hop on your playstation or something. I'm not in the habit of manufacturing an answer just for the sake of it.

BTW, I fixed your slogin for you.

PLEASE WORK HARDER! THERE ARE MILLIONS ON WELFARE COUNTING ON YOU. Labour & Co

[westerly]

Quote Originally Posted by westerly View Post
Definition of a liberterian somewhere right of Ghengis Khan -- Cussie

westerly
May I remind you what was said above!!!
Quote Originally Posted by STMOD View Post
People: Try and be reasonably civil in your debate here and avoid descending into name calling please.

STMOD
I think you will find my name is Cuzzie, but you carry on trying to be funny, because I'm having a good old laugh at you westerly.

Cuzzie, Apologies for the misspelt name. It was not name calling but a reference to your political philosophy, basically everyman for himself

The only thing John Key and myself have in common is we were both state house boys. There is where he has lost his roots, National have no housing policy apart from freeing up more land , reducing regulations, and leaving it to developers to provide the house. The result being 4 bedroom, houses with built in garages, fully fenced and landscaped. This way the developer maximizes his profits. My first house was built on a bare section, no garage, no fences.
It was paid for with a 5% loan from State Advances. You only got one loan from SA but it housed large numbers in well built homes. And builders built houses to qualify within the loan limits.
Now the present day first home buyer borrow massive amounts from an overseas owned bank, pays market interest rates, or rents and has no hope of his own home. Welcome to the world of National.

westerly

[Cuzzie]

Quote Originally Posted by westerly View Post
Definition of a liberterian somewhere right of Ghengis Khan -- Cussie

westerly
May I remind you what was said above!!!
Quote Originally Posted by STMOD View Post
People: Try and be reasonably civil in your debate here and avoid descending into name calling please.

STMOD
I think you will find my name is Cuzzie, but you carry on trying to be funny, because I'm having a good old laugh at you westerly.

Cuzzie, Apologies for the misspelt name. It was not name calling but a reference to your political philosophy, basically everyman for himself

The only thing John Key and myself have in common is we were both state house boys. There is where he has lost his roots, National have no housing policy apart from freeing up more land , reducing regulations, and leaving it to developers to provide the house. The result being 4 bedroom, houses with built in garages, fully fenced and landscaped. This way the developer maximizes his profits. My first house was built on a bare section, no garage, no fences.
It was paid for with a 5% loan from State Advances. You only got one loan from SA but it housed large numbers in well built homes. And builders built houses to qualify within the loan limits.
Now the present day first home buyer borrow massive amounts from an overseas owned bank, pays market interest rates, or rents and has no hope of his own home. Welcome to the world of National.

westerly

westerly, I do have the figures for Auckland dating back to 1999 when Helen Clark took over which were around the $350,000 median price and in 2008 when she got voted out the median price for Auckland was $600,000.

When John Key took office the price has risen from $600,000 to $713,709 for May 2014. Now in the last two years the house prices have shot up by at least 30% in Auckland, but back in 2012 prices were $25,000 cheaper than the Helen Clark days.


My information is withheld in the hope that you to do the research on this. I will post them later if you like. Shocked? I must admit I didn't think housing got so expensive under Clark. I, like you feel housing is far to expensive for young families trying to buy a house, but blaming National alone is totally incorrect. Under Clark the price increase was $250,000 and under Key it has increased about $114,000.

[Cuzzie]

Here is another stat: Hamilton City has risen 0.3% over the past three months, and 4.8% over the past year and values there are now only 0.7% above the 2007 peak.

This is quoted on June 6, 2014


Could carry on if you like.

[Harvey Specter]

HS
Do you see a point in time when National Party supporters will no longer accept that "pragmatism" demands that effective tax reductions, that is tax reductions that Businesses and Wage and Salary earners notice, are only some vague aspirational goal given at best lip service to. As time goes on many may question that their support is being taken for granted, and that simply "we have got to keep Labour out" no matter what the cost will rapidly erode as a motivation to return National.

On a much broader view, my disappointment where NZ has gone politically is that:

- ACT is a joke. We need a ultra right party. As such, National now caters to everything from the far right to the centre ground (and moving more to the left every election) such that they now dont really speak for anyone.
- Greens have become ultra left as opposed to sticking to environmental issues. (this is natural as they try to grow their base but there are right wing environmentalists)

Re WFF, the answer is because it is very costly middle class welfare-ism. Much simpler to have tax free thresholds like the one I suggested, where a family/partners can fully benefit whether one or both are working. I fully realise the tax free threshold I suggested is costly and the numbers would obviously need to be worked on. But abandoning WFF would save a lot of money towards it probably a lot more than people realise.

I don't agree with you on one point though Belg. I think ALL tax payers (yes high income earners too) should get a tax cut when the time allows and a tax free threshold at the bottom end is a fair way of doing it. This is common in the Nordic countries and has overall cross party support.

We could also stop Government contributions to Kiwisaver to save a bot more unnecessary expenditure !!!

Agree HS about a cross party consensus on super. It simply has to happen. The eligibility age needs and should go to 70 years. Something like going to 67 in 2020, 68 in 2023, 69 in 2026 and 70 in 2029.
This is the issue where I am the most disappointed with Key and National.

I think you still need WFF at the lower end but by doing the tax free threshold, you could have it reducing over a much shorter income range. (It goes to over $100k if you have enough kids!, it shouldn't go anywhere near close to that.)

While I suggested dropping the top rate threshold so top earners don't benefit as much for a tax free amount, this is to make the shift revenue neutral. you then have a secondary decision to raise or lower the tax free amount as tax revenue/govt spending requires such that all benefit from tax cuts.

Agree to stop the regular govt contributions to kiwisaver - why have them? Or maybe limit to a max of 5 years so your fund gets to a certain scale.

Stop the start up kiwisaver contribution, or at the least, only provide it to those who enroll when first entitled. If you decide to opt out at that stage, you lose the bonus should you join at a later date.

Retirement is a bit more difficult that that as some (manual labour etc) need to retire at 65. Maybe means test it upto 70, then universal. Use same look through for trusts/companies as WFF.