ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Entrep]

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.

By your logic, the progressive tax system we have should only place more and more burden on high income earners, as any attempt to move the dial the other way would be detrimental to the bottom feeders (your words)?

FWIW I agree it sounds unfair to be making bottom feeders (again, your words) take less pay home in this economic environment .

[Aaron]

By your logic, the progressive tax system we have should only place more and more burden on high income earners, as any attempt to move the dial the other way would be detrimental to the bottom feeders (your words)?

FWIW I agree it sounds unfair to be making bottom feeders (again, your words) take less pay home.

Lets be clear "Bottom Feeders " is Chris Luxon's words, not mine. I find the term offensive but I think it provides an insight to Chris Luxon's way of thinking. Especially in light of the policy he has proposed so far.

I do not want to get too into the ideology regarding encouraging the aspirational and whether those on the bottom are there because they are lazy and/or dumb.

I also don’t want to talk about tax and “fairness” as some would argue any tax is unfair.

But as a simple practical but extreme example I would ask what seems more reasonable?

Take a single pensioner they get $30,090.84 national superannuation p.a. Lets say for whatever reason he did not put any money aside for retirement and is trying to live on NZ Super as I understand some people are in that boat for whatever reason and compare him to my good friend Adrian Orr on $800,000.00 at the RBNZ.

Is it unreasonable to ask Adrian to pay $735.96 extra in tax each week ($38,269.92 p.a) cutting his weekly budget to only just over $10k or perhaps you are like David Seymour and see this as a huge imposition on poor old Adrian so why not cut just $3.46 off 212 pensioners national superannuation (Adrian’s tax savings (254,920-216,650)/$180 extra tax per pensioner) to reduce the tax burden on poor old Adrian.

The pensioner still has $492.79 to splash around on rates or rent, food, transport, clothing, grandkids birthday presents etc. I might give boomers a hard time on here but only the wealthy ones, as a nation I still think first and foremost you look after yourself, work hard, save, pay your taxes and don't put your hand out like a bludger, but I would hope we could still have some compassion for the less well off.

Don’t forget that currently Adrian still only pays 10.5% on his first $14,000 same as the pensioner.

Also don’t forget John Key hit the bottom feeders with a GST increase to 15%. This is a regressive tax that hits the poorer harder (Despite Fungus Pudding disagreeing with this statement it is true). Also some commentators have suggested that inflation is also a regressive tax so over the last little while both top and bottom have been taking some hits.

I would agree with David Seymour that we have to look at spending as well as taxing. Just taxing without regard to how it is being spent is also stupid. Surprising that Labour are not touting their achievements while in power especially as they have had more money than most to work with thanks to Adrian buying NZ govt bonds.

I have put my calculations at the bottom as I cannot seem to format them. The first two columns are tax under the current system and the second two under ACTs policy but it is hard to tell. You can always do your own calculations.

Current ACT
Pensioner Adrian Pensioner Adrian

Gross 30,090.84 800,000.00 30,090.84 800,000.00

Tax 4,285.75 254,920.00 4,465.90 216,650.00

Net 25,805.09 545,080.00 25,624.94 583,350.00

Net Weekly 496.25 10,482.31 492.79 11,218.27

Difference in budget -3.46 735.96

[Baa_Baa]

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.

Who cares about tradition? ACT won 7.6% of the party vote and 10 seats in the 2020 election, its best result since its founding. And, it's on target to double that this time. 20 ACT seats + Nationals is a majority on current polling.

Quit it with the rhetorical questions, or ones that you could answer for yourself with some simple research. We're not here to spoon-feed the permanent newbie and self confessed ignorant.

[Aaron]

Who cares about tradition? ACT won 7.6% of the party vote and 10 seats in the 2020 election, its best result since its founding. And, it's on target to double that this time. 20 ACT seats + Nationals is a majority on current polling.

Quit it with the rhetorical questions, or ones that you could answer for yourself with some simple research. We're not here to spoon-feed the permanent newbie and self confessed ignorant.

Appreciate your help, it looks like your party will do well in these elections.

[Baa_Baa]

Appreciate your help, it looks like your party will do well in these elections.

Don't patronise me that you appreciate it. Just more egg to wipe from your face. And, another assumption about me that you know nothing about.

Just because I point out your self confessed ignorance and lazy attitude to informing yourself about the most basic of things, even those that are in the public domain, which you also display on a few other threads, verbosely, doesn't conflate to my or anyone else's intentions or behaviours.

You could do a lot better, though your posting history suggests you probably won't get around to it because you're too lazy, and will carry on posting rubbish that no one can take seriously. Fancy that, on the public internet that never forgets anything, you mostly make a fool of yourself. Think about that.

[Daytr]

Lets be clear "Bottom Feeders " is Chris Luxon's words, not mine. I find the term offensive but I think it provides an insight to Chris Luxon's way of thinking. Especially in light of the policy he has proposed so far.

I do not want to get too into the ideology regarding encouraging the aspirational and whether those on the bottom are there because they are lazy and/or dumb.

I also don’t want to talk about tax and “fairness” as some would argue any tax is unfair.

But as a simple practical but extreme example I would ask what seems more reasonable?

Take a single pensioner they get $30,090.84 national superannuation p.a. Lets say for whatever reason he did not put any money aside for retirement and is trying to live on NZ Super as I understand some people are in that boat for whatever reason and compare him to my good friend Adrian Orr on $800,000.00 at the RBNZ.

Is it unreasonable to ask Adrian to pay $735.96 extra in tax each week ($38,269.92 p.a) cutting his weekly budget to only just over $10k or perhaps you are like David Seymour and see this as a huge imposition on poor old Adrian so why not cut just $3.46 off 212 pensioners national superannuation (Adrian’s tax savings (254,920-216,650)/$180 extra tax per pensioner) to reduce the tax burden on poor old Adrian.

The pensioner still has $492.79 to splash around on rates or rent, food, transport, clothing, grandkids birthday presents etc. I might give boomers a hard time on here but only the wealthy ones, as a nation I still think first and foremost you look after yourself, work hard, save, pay your taxes and don't put your hand out like a bludger, but I would hope we could still have some compassion for the less well off.

Don’t forget that currently Adrian still only pays 10.5% on his first $14,000 same as the pensioner.

Also don’t forget John Key hit the bottom feeders with a GST increase to 15%. This is a regressive tax that hits the poorer harder (Despite Fungus Pudding disagreeing with this statement it is true). Also some commentators have suggested that inflation is also a regressive tax so over the last little while both top and bottom have been taking some hits.

I would agree with David Seymour that we have to look at spending as well as taxing. Just taxing without regard to how it is being spent is also stupid. Surprising that Labour are not touting their achievements while in power especially as they have had more money than most to work with thanks to Adrian buying NZ govt bonds.

I have put my calculations at the bottom as I cannot seem to format them. The first two columns are tax under the current system and the second two under ACTs policy but it is hard to tell. You can always do your own calculations.

Current ACT
Pensioner Adrian Pensioner Adrian

Gross 30,090.84 800,000.00 30,090.84 800,000.00

Tax 4,285.75 254,920.00 4,465.90 216,650.00

Net 25,805.09 545,080.00 25,624.94 583,350.00

Net Weekly 496.25 10,482.31 492.79 11,218.27

Difference in budget -3.46 735.96

Good post Aaron
It is quite incredible that in these times of extreme inequality and a cost of living crisis that people would vote for a party who wants to give the already wealthy more.

After being away from NZ for 20 years & returning some 10 years ago, I noticed a real change to quite a large segment of the population that had become greedy.
Personally I think it is the untaxed gains on property that has created this cavalier attitude to others. Commoditising housing and as you pointed out the regressive GST regime.

If an alien landed on earth and saw that a large percentage of people struggled to buy food.
I am sure they would ask, and yet you tax people to eat?

[Getty]

We're already too dependent on china.

Thankfully there has been some new trade deals to help us diversify, having china build simple roads for us like we're one of their African colonies would set us back.

Selling some butter up to China, and getting a slippery slope motorway back would be a fair deal wouldn't it?

[Panda-NZ-]

Selling some butter up to China, and getting a slippery slope motorway back would be a fair deal wouldn't it?

We would own both sides of the transaction.

National would have us own nothing, and be dependent on others for everything. It's degrading and a national security risk.

[FTG]

It is quite incredible that in these times of extreme inequality and a cost of living crisis that people would vote for a party who wants to give the already wealthy more.

You will continue to present confused & futile thinking whilst you formulate your opinion on corrupted premises.

Perhaps best to invert your perspective? The glass needn't be 1/2 empty, it instead COULD be 1/2 full under something similar to Act's Tax Policy. Their Tax policy doesn't 'give' anyone more money. Instead it sets the framework for the State to TAKE LESS of our money....and that's everyone by the way, not just the 'wealthy'.

In this context, what does "wealthy" mean anyway? The are many, many folk in NZ who work hard and/or smart and who earn a 'large' income, yet under many peoples definition are still on "Struggle Street' and aren't truly 'wealthy'. Anyway, I digress.

Lest keep to the facts & not forget the current travesty that reigns unabated...

The 21% (just 1 in 5 people!) of Kiwi's who earn an annual income of >$70K basically prop up the system by paying 68% of the country's entire INCOME TAX take.

Take some more time to properly digest that - that's over 2/3rds!

Compare that to the nearly 50% who in effect pay NO or very little income tax (through receiving various benefits supplements, rebates, etc) and it takes only a few observational skills to see why we are experiencing such large & systemic economic & societal issues in NZ.

Meanwhile & unfortunately, we still have a handful of Greedy Turkeys here who start squawking the moment a political party espouses a tax policy which allows those who work hard/smart to keep a little more of their own money.

Wake up & smell the roses!

[Panda-NZ-]

As a percentage of income the wealthy pay less than even the poor, esp. when you factor in GST.

Imagine being a young person in NZ for comparison -

12% student loan repayments;
PAYE with no tax free threshold;
High rent for a crappy house;
15% GST with no exemptions.

Approx 50% in various taxes before rent -- no wonder they leave.