ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Balance]

The quality of Chinese roads is awesome. I worked in Bejing for a period (admittedly a few years ago) and noted how quality the roads were.

NZ would be so fortunate to have the Chinese come here to build the sort of roads and high speed train network which criss-crosses China.

Only the ignoramus peasants grazing on benefits and BS here think NZ has good roads, so spun are they by this useless & clueless Labour government.

They view the world with their heads stuck deep in their backsides or Ardern’s backside?

[Blue Skies]

NZ would be so fortunate to have the Chinese come here to build the sort of roads and high speed train network which criss-crosses China.

Only the ignoramus peasants grazing on benefits and BS here think NZ has good roads, so spun are they by this useless & clueless Labour government.

The quality of the roads & train networks in China is totally irrelevant to our discussion.
It's mostly going into debt to the tune of many $billlions to the CCP which concerns us.

For every publication which says, nothing to see here, there's other reputable publications like the Wall Street Journal which tell a different story.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-g...rt-11674166180

[Daytr]

As far as I know they said they would give pay rises in line with inflation. Not pay rises in excess of 14%.
So you think teachers should have been getting huge pay rises at a time when inflation was out for the count and lying flat on the canvas? No-one in the private sector was. Your narratives fall apart under close scrutiny.

We are on track to become the next Greece: public sector pay rises going through the roof while out on the private sector unemployment is on the rise.

Its 14% over 18 months.
Teachers pay I think will have risen by over 30% since Labour has been in Government.
All because NACT underfunded education.

[mfd]

I was in Laos this year and after decades of being abandoned and ignored by the West (including Japan), it was actually uplifting to talk to the locals about how the last 5 years have seen the country boomed on the back of infrastructure funding by China - high speed rail link in the country all the way to China and soon, to Thailand and concrete (yes, concrete not tarred) roads opening up the country for development and progress.

The West prefers 3rd world countries & developing countries to continue to be backward so that they can be exploited to maintain the debt funded their living standards (especially US - 5% of the world's population using 20% of the world's goods and services).

I spent a few weeks over there this year too and got quite a different response to asking about China's investments. Lots of complaints over Chinese ownership of businesses to the exclusion of local business owners. Fear of losing independence. A feeling that the new train line was mostly built to extract Laotian resources and pump them north into China (mostly iron ore for now), while they are left with the bill. The related debt crisis causing inflation of 40% P.a. while their public salary is static.

Although on the plus side, the new train line is great and does seem to be widely used for transport. I understand the cargo trains operate overnight.

There was a lot of goodwill towards the Vietnamese, and apparently vice versa.

[Aaron]

Good grief, you have a lot to say about things you don't know or even be bothered to find out? https://www.act.org.nz/policies

Saw this article and thought of Baa Baa when I read the ACTs tax policy. Obviously I assumed the media were providing an unbalanced view to increase views as it appears so idiotic (IMO)at first glance.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mon...-this-election

I came back to Baa Baa's link to ACTs policies and it turns out it is true except they did not include the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO), of $800.

https://www.act.org.nz/tax

By 2023/24, the tax burden on the average New Zealander will be $1,236 per year lower under ACT than Labour. We will have delivered a tax cut for every earner.

I highlight average because based on my rough calculations and this is admittedly an out of date income distribution from the NZ treasury of the working age population.

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/informa...ays-income-tax

ACTs tax policy starts to benefit people who earn over $52,000 and based on these treasury figures that is 35% of the working age population.

I guess the average must be worked out over the total tax savings as anyone earning less than $48,000 has to pay $180.00 extra in tax each year. Whereas someone earning $70,000 saves $1,770 or someone on $140,000 saves $5,270.00. Anyone on $1mill a year saves $48,270 in tax p.a. under ACTs tax policy.

Looking outside the working age population, National Superannuitants would also have to stump up an extra $180.00 and would only benefit if their investment income was over $30,750 p.a. assuming national super of roughly $21,250 a year.

So ACT is proposing that the 65% of the poorest NZers chip in $180 each so that the top 35% can get a tax cut with the cuts being more significant the more you earn.

Like I say the only thing dumber than David Seymour’s face is ACTs tax policy.

Baa Baa obviously aware of this after directing me to ACTs policy page would appear to me to be either an idiot or unreasonable and selfish. Not sure which as I do not know his level of income.

Not sure how else I could interpret the information at hand.

[Aaron]

To provide balance to my previous post I would note that those 35% earning $50,000 or more are 80% of the income tax take. Which is David Seymour's biggest concern. He feels these people (myself included) have an unduly large burden and that the bottom feeders should be doing more to help.

Actually I think David is really only concerned for the 3% earning more than $150k a year contributing 24% of the tax take but I guess he needs to have broader appeal in a democracy.

Some people have suggested that the top 10% capture of the wealth and income in society is a problem whereas David and ACT sees it differently.

I appreciate "bottom feeders" is Chris Luxon's term but I am sure the sentiment is the same.

[Panda-NZ-]

Thanks for running the numbers.

Unfortunately those representing fiscal responsibility can't be bothered putting accurate numbers out there.

They should be made to put disclaimers in small text.

[Baa_Baa]

Saw this article and thought of Baa Baa when I read the ACTs tax policy. Obviously I assumed the media were providing an unbalanced view to increase views as it appears so idiotic (IMO)at first glance.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mon...-this-election

I came back to Baa Baa's link to ACTs policies and it turns out it is true except they did not include the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO), of $800.

https://www.act.org.nz/tax

By 2023/24, the tax burden on the average New Zealander will be $1,236 per year lower under ACT than Labour. We will have delivered a tax cut for every earner.

I highlight average because based on my rough calculations and this is admittedly an out of date income distribution from the NZ treasury of the working age population.

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/informa...ays-income-tax

ACTs tax policy starts to benefit people who earn over $52,000 and based on these treasury figures that is 35% of the working age population.

I guess the average must be worked out over the total tax savings as anyone earning less than $48,000 has to pay $180.00 extra in tax each year. Whereas someone earning $70,000 saves $1,770 or someone on $140,000 saves $5,270.00. Anyone on $1mill a year saves $48,270 in tax p.a. under ACTs tax policy.

Looking outside the working age population, National Superannuitants would also have to stump up an extra $180.00 and would only benefit if their investment income was over $30,750 p.a. assuming national super of roughly $21,250 a year.

So ACT is proposing that the 65% of the poorest NZers chip in $180 each so that the top 35% can get a tax cut with the cuts being more significant the more you earn.

Like I say the only thing dumber than David Seymour’s face is ACTs tax policy.

Baa Baa obviously aware of this after directing me to ACTs policy page would appear to me to be either an idiot or unreasonable and selfish. Not sure which as I do not know his level of income.

Not sure how else I could interpret the information at hand.

Good that you've read it, though conflating ACT's tax policy to my own personal circumstances, or whether I agree with it or not, is a long-bow as you are correct that you know nothing about me. Except maybe that I get under your skin when I point out that you appear keen to mouth off about things that you know nothing about, frequently.

[justakiwi]

Guess we "bottom feeders" are well and truly screwed then huh.

To provide balance to my previous post I would note that those 35% earning $50,000 or more are 80% of the income tax take. Which is David Seymour's biggest concern. He feels these people (myself included) have an unduly large burden and that the bottom feeders should be doing more to help.

Actually I think David is really only concerned for the 3% earning more than $150k a year contributing 24% of the tax take but I guess he needs to have broader appeal in a democracy.

Some people have suggested that the top 10% capture of the wealth and income in society is a problem whereas David and ACT sees it differently.

I appreciate "bottom feeders" is Chris Luxon's term but I am sure the sentiment is the same.

[Aaron]

Guess we "bottom feeders" are well and truly screwed then huh.

Only if you vote ACT, but as you are not their target demographic you can be grateful that so few people hold so much of the wealth they still only get one vote and not all wealthy people seem that selfish or unreasonable.

That is why I cannot understand where their support is coming from. I guess they get the biggest donations and advertising works, especially on weak minds.

Although this election it seems ACT's popularity has grown. Hey Baa Baa what % of votes have ACT traditionally garnered. I always found it funny that National give ACT the Epsom seat but they traditionally struggle to add more than one or two extras through the party vote. I wonder what has changed this election particularly in light of Roger Douglas leaving them as he thinks they are now a party for the wealthy only.