Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
I'm going to agree with FP on this one - I dont really see GST as being Regressive. Sure I understand the argument that a regressive tax takes more of a poor persons income that it does a rich person income. And to some extent that can be true - but not in New zealand.

The reasons being is that here the first $14,000 of everyone's income gets taxed at 10.5%. People earning this level pay 15% GST equally. If you are earning $14,000 chances are you will be "poor". Doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you are still paying the same amount of tax out of this income as a rich person.

Income from $14,001 - $48,000 gets taxed at 17.5% and GST stays at 15%. People are now moving out of "poor" to "average" earnings and above the so called "living wage". Again doesn't matter if you are rich or poor or average you are still all paying the same amount of tax.

If you are earning above average wage from $48,000 to $70,000 and no longer poor you will pay 30% of your income in tax. At this point you are no longer paying for the necessities in life like rent or mortgage. you are moving now into more discretionary spending which the poor dont spend. Since they don't spend here their income is no longer disproportionate to their tax. its at this point the average to well off start paying more tax than the poor.

As for those earning over $70,000 they are paying 33% for things the poor will never buy. Paying way more tax than the poor. GST isnt regressive because its not impacting on the poor at this level.
Your example is using income tax. A progressive income tax. No arguments from me in that regard.
Post #72 on this thread if your still unsure.
Blackcap may have a point especially if you add in bank fees and interest on pay day loans. But these specific examples apply in specific cases it doesn't change the fact that GST is regressive. Why have most other countries exempted basic foodstuffs. We will never agree. Re-read post #72 and if you still don't get it too bad.