gzt: I don't know what the proposals are but there's a lot wrong with that analogy.

Which analogy? The beer one?

gzt: I don't know what the proposals are but there's a lot wrong with that analogy.

This outlines National's proposals: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/03/national-leader-christopher-luxon-s-18-000-income-tax-reduction-if-he-becomes-prime-minister.html

antonknee:

 

Percentages work the way percentages work , and our tax system is progressive, which is why tax relief solely in the form of tax cuts is a solution in search of a problem (ie it's the wrong solution to the problem). Although that depends what your problem is...

 

Pretty abysmal that realigning the tax brackets with the stonking amount of inflation we're mostly trying to cope with is now couched as a 'tax cut'.

antonknee:

 

That anecdote often gets posted by people who would pay more tax.... your bolded section betrays its true agenda. Tax is NOT an attack on the wealthy.

 

Percentages work the way percentages work , and our tax system is progressive, which is why tax relief solely in the form of tax cuts is a solution in search of a problem (ie it's the wrong solution to the problem). Although that depends what your problem is...

 

Had to laugh at Luxon's squirming when he got interviewed by Tova on this exact topic.

 

As I posted a few pages back, for me personally would I like to pay less tax, ofcourse, do I "need" to pay less tax (or would the prospect of paying less tax buy my vote) no, but my circumstances are different than others.

By all means, bring in tax cuts that are likely too benefit the middle, but tweak the upper tax rates so that those earning remain neutral. In the beer example above, the $20 could be split more between the middle of the pack, but then this shrinks the tax base and makes reliance on taxing the top bracket even more, it would also incentivize people to find creative ways of avoiding the top bracket if the penalty for hitting it is too great.

Apart from anything else, I wish Luxon would quit mindlessly waffling on about the government being 'addicted to spending'. This doesn't say anything. It is a stupid parroted phrase that makes him look like he can't think of anything better. If he has anything specific to say about government policy, he should say it and quit resorting to empty slogans.

Rikkitic:

 

Apart from anything else, I wish Luxon would quit mindlessly waffling on about the government being 'addicted to spending'. This doesn't say anything. It is a stupid parroted phrase that makes him look like he can't think of anything better. If he has anything specific to say about government policy, he should say it and quit resorting to empty slogans.

 

 

 

Governments get elected on empty slogans (and even emptier promises) pretty much every election, why would they move away from what works?

Rikkitic:

 

Apart from anything else, I wish Luxon would quit mindlessly waffling on about the government being 'addicted to spending'. This doesn't say anything. It is a stupid parroted phrase that makes him look like he can't think of anything better. If he has anything specific to say about government policy, he should say it and quit resorting to empty slogans.

 

 

 

It matters not a bit what he says it does, it wasn't like he was going to impress you. No matter who it was, the fact they are a National representative excludes them in your view. 

I find it a bit funny though, you complaining about 'empty' slogans, after the last 5 years :) 

Sorry for going quiet guys, lost reception on the North West Light Rail ride to work as I went through Waterview.

What's this about empty promises?

GV27:

 

Sorry for going quiet guys, lost reception on the North West Light Rail ride to work as I went through Waterview.

 

What's this about empty promises?

 

Was that from travelling when you left your kiwibuild residence, surrounded by a forest of 1,000,000,000 trees?

sen8or:

 

Was that from travelling when you left your kiwibuild residence, surrounded by a forest of 1,000,000,000 trees?

 

This one earned a smile and a wince. My partner and I sat on the sidelines for two years waiting for Kiwibuild to scale up before we have to just bite the bullet and buy. I'm glad we did, but it also meant we didn't qualify for any FHB assistance and had to take on more mortgage debt to make it happen. 

Oh, and the cancelled tax cuts cost my household about $1800 a year + the inflationary effects post 2018; But I don't seem to ever see that framed as a tax hike, so I'm not sure why realigning tax brackets with the inflation the Government compels the RBNZ to create is suddenly considered a 'tax cut'. 

Just throwing that out there that the government walking away from what it said it would do has actual real-world consequences for real people, while we seem to get more media scrutiny and challenges to an interview by the Leader of the Opposition a year out from the next election.

Kind of feels like the key function of political accountability might be a tad (totally) broken.

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Apart from anything else, I wish Luxon would quit mindlessly waffling on about the government being 'addicted to spending'. This doesn't say anything. It is a stupid parroted phrase that makes him look like he can't think of anything better. If he has anything specific to say about government policy, he should say it and quit resorting to empty slogans.

 

 

 

 

It matters not a bit what he says it does, it wasn't like he was going to impress you. No matter who it was, the fact they are a National representative excludes them in your view. 

 

I find it a bit funny though, you complaining about 'empty' slogans, after the last 5 years :) 

 

 

 

Not a serious response to my point, which has nothing whatsoever to do with how I feel about National or Luxon or anything Labour may have done for the past five years. I was commenting on the fact that Luxon keeps farting out 'addicted to spending' every time he mentions the government. This says absolutely nothing about anything. It is like Putin saying that Ukraine is bad for existing. Of course I would never vote for National but I like to think our political discourse is deserving of better than his ridiculous addicted to spending bray, which is actually within the capability of any well-trained parrot.

Rikkitic:

 

Not a serious response to my point, which has nothing whatsoever to do with how I feel about National or Luxon or anything Labour may have done for the past five years. I was commenting on the fact that Luxon keeps farting out 'addicted to spending' every time he mentions the government. This says absolutely nothing about anything. It is like Putin saying that Ukraine is bad for existing. Of course I would never vote for National but I like to think our political discourse is deserving of better than his ridiculous addicted to spending bray, which is actually within the capability of any well-trained parrot.

 

It absolutely relates to how you feel about National and anyone who is associated with them. I don't see you using insulting animal references to refer to the way that Labour and the Greens use slogans that mean nothing and achieve nothing. 

If you agreed with his comments, you almost certainly wouldn't be taking him to task for using that phrase repeatedly. 

I mean, if anyone here had suggested Jacinda Arderns multi time a day use of 'the team of 5 million' was pointless braying there would be outrage. 

I just think New Zealand deserves better than someone in a clown car honking a novelty horn.

Rikkitic:

 

I just think New Zealand deserves better than someone in a clown car honking a novelty horn.

 

 

 

Or a fairy princess throwing out dust......

GV27:

 

antonknee:

 

Percentages work the way percentages work , and our tax system is progressive, which is why tax relief solely in the form of tax cuts is a solution in search of a problem (ie it's the wrong solution to the problem). Although that depends what your problem is...

 

 

Pretty abysmal that realigning the tax brackets with the stonking amount of inflation we're mostly trying to cope with is now couched as a 'tax cut'.

 

I should clarify - I think the brackets should be moved to allow for inflation over the last decade or whatever it is. That's not really what I'm referring to as a tax cut (although I accept that others probably do consider that a tax cut even though it isn't really; and that my post wasn't worded well enough to make that clear).

However removing the 39% bracket is certainly a tax cut - that's nothing to do with inflation or indexing or fiddling with things, it's a plain and simple tax cut.

Also - in an inflationary environment, giving people more disposable income doesn't really help for obvious reasons, even though individual householders will appreciate the small boost to disposable income I'm sure.