If National wins ...

[nextbigthing]

NBT, you are not being penalised. Only a small percentage of your income would be taxed at 39% in most cases. Only a small percentage of that extra amount would be paid to beneficiaries and for topups. The rest goes on roading (National's favourite expense) and hospitals, schools, infrastructure, etc. Labour have a policy to ensure that employers decrease their tendency to get the taxpayers to subsidise their cheaper workers. It's called increasing the minimum pay scale by law.

Musicians are taxed by pubs, and get the remainder of their fee in-hand after the gig.

It would be a dull NZ if, when you went into town of a Friday evening, there were no live bands anywhere, just discos and karaoke, or music channels on a TV screen. Part of the problem is that nightclubs get kickstarted from say 11pm onwards, with many patrons already boozed up on cheap supermarket alcohol. They need a lot of patrons buying $20 average a night, to cover their staff costs and weekly overheads, let alone a band. We should all be happy to pay a cover charge, and then everyone gets what they want.

el Z, If National want to build infrastructure and can do it for 33% tax instead of 39% then that sounds like a good deal. So the rest is Labour deciding 'what's fair' and the whole idea of them deciding what's fair isn't fair!!! If National spend the rest on hospitals and schools as you say, that's probably fine by 95% on Nzers.

I see what you're saying about minimum wage reducing taxpayer support - but it doesn't add up economically. I know DC pointed at some studies claiming it's not true, but almost every single economist argues it is true. And just apply some logic, do you think people would hire a worker for 5c an hour? Do you think they'd hire one for $1000 an hour? Of course the rate you pay someone affects job losses/creation. Minimum wage increase cannot be done by the stroke of a pen. An entry level economics paper at Uni will demostrate this. So that's unfortunately a myth. $18 would be great, don't get me wrong.

Regarding Musicians, yes NZ would be dull if you couldn't see live music at the weekend. But that's a hobby for people. Don't tax me 39% so people can enjoy their hobby. I like aviation. How would you like it if you were taxed 42% so that I could enjoy cheaper flying at the weekends subsidised by you? Sure it's not a hobby for the musicians, but once again, they have a choice!!! Don't tax me more so they can choose to be musicians!!!

Interesting you bring up cover charges at pubs. I completely agree that's a great way to do it. Musician gets paid more and people only pay if they want music. But that is very very interesting, because (please keep an open mind on this) - the solution you have just come up with is user pays! Freedom of choice and the individual. That is a fundamental point of the centre right - I hope from this you see that the National way of doing it isn't that bad! Tax only what we have to for schools, hospitals, those who can't help themselves etc and then let people decide what they want to do with their money and lives etc.

Yes there's a place for Government, but not for a Government telling us how to live. National provides the balance between protecting those who need help and providing services like hospitals, but not socially engineering. Labour tinkers with society, ACT probably doesn't have enough of a safety net. National is the happy medium.

[westerly]

That doesn't add much to the debate westerly. What are your credible thoughts on it?

Equality at its basic would mean a level playing field for all. Therefore I suggest everybody starts off with nothing. At eighteen after an education provided free of charge by the state everybody is turned loose into the world with nothing. That is true freedom to become whatever you want on your own efforts. Obviously ridiculous. The playing field is not level, which is why I disagree with libertarian and far right beliefs,
A tax rate of 39c on income over $140,000 is not unreasonable given the big earners in a country where the average wage is $50,000 have many opportunities to reduce there tax bill by legal means.
National s 2000 more doctors is somewhat suspect seeing only 165 graduated last year. Most have probably come from overseas. As for the 150,000 or so jobs created there is no mention of how many have been lost.
National have increased taxes by subterfuge. GST, petrol tax, {and another 3c next year plus gst} charging more for various services etc
A measly 3c increase is hardly going to send the wealthy to poor street. The possible introduction of CGT. has reduced the anti tax lobby to near tears given the reaction. Most will not be effected.
However the best reason to vote against National is the their methods to deal with opposition exposed over the last few weeks.

westerly

[fungus pudding]

el Z, If National want to build infrastructure and can do it for 33% tax instead of 39% then that sounds like a good deal. So the rest is Labour deciding 'what's fair' and the whole idea of them deciding what's fair isn't fair!!! If National spend the rest on hospitals and schools as you say, that's probably fine by 95% on Nzers.

I see what you're saying about minimum wage reducing taxpayer support - but it doesn't add up economically. I know DC pointed at some studies claiming it's not true, but almost every single economist argues it is true. And just apply some logic, do you think people would hire a worker for 5c an hour? Do you think they'd hire one for $1000 an hour? Of course the rate you pay someone affects job losses/creation. Minimum wage increase cannot be done by the stroke of a pen. An entry level economics paper at Uni will demostrate this. So that's unfortunately a myth. $18 would be great, don't get me wrong.

Regarding Musicians, yes NZ would be dull if you couldn't see live music at the weekend. But that's a hobby for people. Don't tax me 39% so people can enjoy their hobby. I like aviation. How would you like it if you were taxed 42% so that I could enjoy cheaper flying at the weekends subsidised by you? Sure it's not a hobby for the musicians, but once again, they have a choice!!! Don't tax me more so they can choose to be musicians!!!

Interesting you bring up cover charges at pubs. I completely agree that's a great way to do it. Musician gets paid more and people only pay if they want music. But that is very very interesting, because (please keep an open mind on this) - the solution you have just come up with is user pays! Freedom of choice and the individual. That is a fundamental point of the centre right - I hope from this you see that the National way of doing it isn't that bad! Tax only what we have to for schools, hospitals, those who can't help themselves etc and then let people decide what they want to do with their money and lives etc.

Yes there's a place for Government, but not for a Government telling us how to live. National provides the balance between protecting those who need help and providing services like hospitals, but not socially engineering. Labour tinkers with society, ACT probably doesn't have enough of a safety net. National is the happy medium.

Hard to disagree with any of that, but it's worth pointing out that 33% tax rate will probably produce more for the govt. coffers than 39%. Remember there are always two rates of tax that produce the same revenue.

[BlackPeter]

NBT, you are not being penalised. Only a small percentage of your income would be taxed at 39% in most cases. Only a small percentage of that extra amount would be paid to beneficiaries and for topups. The rest goes on roading (National's favourite expense) and hospitals, schools, infrastructure, etc. Labour have a policy to ensure that employers decrease their tendency to get the taxpayers to subsidise their cheaper workers. It's called increasing the minimum pay scale by law.

Musicians are taxed by pubs, and get the remainder of their fee in-hand after the gig.

It would be a dull NZ if, when you went into town of a Friday evening, there were no live bands anywhere, just discos and karaoke, or music channels on a TV screen. Part of the problem is that nightclubs get kickstarted from say 11pm onwards, with many patrons already boozed up on cheap supermarket alcohol. They need a lot of patrons buying $20 average a night, to cover their staff costs and weekly overheads, let alone a band. We should all be happy to pay a cover charge, and then everyone gets what they want.

EZ - just wondering - didn't you forget to declare your interest?

Sure, you might be oneof these underpaid musicians (I know, many are) or a Friday night pub goer (and nothing wrong with either), but there are lots of people who are neither musicians, nor do they enjoy to spend their nights in bars consuming (often too much) alcohol and listening to (so called) life music.

Why do you ask the others to pay for your hobby? Even if they are the so called Rich? You don't pay for theirs, either.

I appreciate that it is the Labour way to support groups who for whatever reason (some justified, some not) don't pay for their own maintenance, but taxing the Rich to subsidize the Friday evening booze entertainment goes a bit far, doesn't it?

Again - nothing wrong, if you like to go out on Friday nights (be it as musician or as drinker/listener), but I propose you pay your own way, if that's what you are after.

[slimwin]

My hobby is drinking beer. Any takers to subsidise my hobby with a cover charge at the door of a pub? I can be very entertaining

[nextbigthing]

That’s 3,289 more nurses, 1,589 more doctors and 1,000 fewer health managers and administrators since 2008. Source: National Party Health Policy.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/is..._-_health.html

You night not like the source of the information but, the content is important.

1589 more doctors under a system with less tax. Safety net in tact. Less Government forcing me to spend my money on groups it feels are important. Perfect. National is the happy medium.

[fungus pudding]

That’s 3,289 more nurses, 1,589 more doctors and 1,000 fewer health managers and administrators since 2008. Source: National Party Health Policy.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/is..._-_health.html

You night not like the source of the information but, the content is important.

1589 more doctors under a system with less tax. Safety net in tact. Less Government forcing me to spend my money on groups it feels are important. Perfect. National is the happy medium.

Well you'll be pleased with tonight's Roy Morgan poll. National on 46.5% could govern with 1 Act, 1 United future and 2 Maori party. No need for Winston to 'help'. My fingers are crossed for that result. Nowif Te Tai Tokorau could vote in Labour's Kelvin Davis, even though Labour don't want him to win, that would rid us of Kim Dotcom, Minto, Harre etc once and for all. That would be the perfect outcome.

[fungus pudding]

That’s 3,289 more nurses, 1,589 more doctors and 1,000 fewer health managers and administrators since 2008. Source: National Party Health Policy.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/is..._-_health.html

You night not like the source of the information but, the content is important.

1589 more doctors under a system with less tax. Safety net in tact. Less Government forcing me to spend my money on groups it feels are important. Perfect. National is the happy medium.

Well you'll be pleased with tonight's Roy Morgan poll. National on 46.5% could govern with 1 Act, 1 United future and 2 Maori party. No need for Winston to 'help'. My fingers are crossed for that result. Nowif Te Tai Tokorau could vote in Labour's Kelvin Davis, even though Labour don't want him to win, that would rid us of Kim Dotcom, Minto, Harre etc once and for all. That would be the perfect outcome.

[elZorro]

EZ - just wondering - didn't you forget to declare your interest?

Sure, you might be oneof these underpaid musicians (I know, many are) or a Friday night pub goer (and nothing wrong with either), but there are lots of people who are neither musicians, nor do they enjoy to spend their nights in bars consuming (often too much) alcohol and listening to (so called) life music.

Why do you ask the others to pay for your hobby? Even if they are the so called Rich? You don't pay for theirs, either.

I appreciate that it is the Labour way to support groups who for whatever reason (some justified, some not) don't pay for their own maintenance, but taxing the Rich to subsidize the Friday evening booze entertainment goes a bit far, doesn't it?

Again - nothing wrong, if you like to go out on Friday nights (be it as musician or as drinker/listener), but I propose you pay your own way, if that's what you are after.

BP, I was a hanger-on in a garage band years ago, but I have a relative who has kept going through the years part-time, and I've seen how hard it is. At the end of a working week, or at family events, there is little that beats a live band, if they are competent.

While some of you may make snide remarks that cover charges are user-pays in action, the fact is that pubs are too scared to charge a cover fee for a no-name band, in case they lose trade to others. There isn't enough cash flowing around in general.

For many other services that people might want in their lives, there is no fair way of making it user-pays, because some have more needs than others, at each moment in time. That's why we have insurance, but insurance won't pay for roading and bridges, hospitals, schools, that we on average, have a need for. So don't put those blinkers on too heavily, ACT policies are unworkable.

Can I just point out yet again, that one large group of business owners, who own large tracts of the country, generate much of our export goods, buy a lot of the new vehicles, and tend to become millionaires at retirement, pay only a tiny proportion of the annual income taxes, considering their annual turnover. CGT? No thanks, they say. And they're lobbying like mad.

Also destined to remain an issue while National is in power, manufacturing as a whole is on the skids, 42,000 jobs lost there since 2008, the sort of jobs that school leavers can walk into and earn an income. Our power consumption is dropping or holding, because the manufacturers have backed off. National's policy settings didn't help, in fact they pushed the process along.

[elZorro]

Following on from this band theme, is National's purchase of an Eminem-like track for use in a TV advert. The ad was something like this.

APRA are the usual agency for handling the use of songs by artists, and you often have to get the permission of the performers and the writer of the lyrics to use it in the particular way, and also pay a fee. This can take months to organise. The more widespread the use, the higher the fee.

If you even play a radio in a retail space, you are supposed to pay a fee to APRA.

In this case, and even after falling foul of the rules in previous campaigns, the National Party (who include Steven Joyce, ex radio stations owner) and their agents deliberately chose a backing track that was passing off Eminem's track, because they could save a lot of money and yet get the same effect, if they could just get away with it. Some muso in a studio had strummed out most of the same Eminem chords, put the track up for sale on a website, and was making cash out of it. Most of the cheaper tracks like this are more original, they'd have needed to look hard to find it. It turns out Eminem would never have given them permission for the real track.

Just like National to take the easy way out, and disregard musicians. As a govt, they don't mind doling out millions to big business, while SMEs are shut down.

Now it looks like that copied track has been deleted from available tracks on the achive, pending a lawsuit.

Here's an old music video that was penned when Robert Muldoon was in power.

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/ther...w-zealand-1981