What will a Labour Goverment do to my pocket come April 2018 Tax Cuts?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › What will a Labour Goverment do to my pocket come April 2018 Tax Cuts?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 20

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849428 20-Aug-2017 20:39

Wiggum:

If you care so much for others, then I hope you are already giving to charities etc. We don't need to pay more taxes to help others. And by the way, charity starts in one's own home, and with ones own immediate family. It does not start with more taxes, and jumping onto the socialist bandwagon. Quiet an assumption to make, that because I am against raising taxes some more, I don't care about others? I don't see how the two relate. maybe you can explain.

So I am a socialist? So if there is a need to cover parts of society, thats being socialist? No everyone is lucky bought to be ok, or good, or successful. One of MANY experiences I had was stuck in a jam in Atlanta. Under the underpass where homeless. Beds, bookcases, the whole none yards. We are not there yet. But if see its an issue helping out those that for whatever reason can't get over that line, I pity you. Same trip, SFO, a beggar, two in fact. One was ONLY wanting water, we gave him all we had. The other was well dressed, immaculately shaven, we walked right past. So before you decide who is poor and who should make an effort, and who deserves the help, maybe think again.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849434 20-Aug-2017 20:43

Wiggum:

So every time the government needs some income, you quiet happy for them to raise taxes then? Tell me. At what point are taxes too high? Are you happy to pay 100% tax? Or would you rather have a competent government that builds on the economy, and increases their income that way. The problem with labour is that they currently have no propositions as to how they are going to grow the economy. Its all about more taxes, and even charging for water!

You need to stop speaking politician? If you say something back it up, nine of this "lets grow the economy and all will be well" The rest of this quip is garbage

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849444 20-Aug-2017 20:50

Wiggum:

Not once have I suggested we don't have tax. Nice straw man none the less. I have stated it already, and I will state it again. I am quiet happy to see my taxes at work, creating jobs etc. Building on our infrastructure, and growing our economy.

By the way, $6354 ($2118 x 3 years) is a lot of money don't you think? You seem to make out that its not a lot at all. Just our household, putting that amount of money back into the NZ economy over the next 3 years will be doing more good than increased taxes ever could. At least if it comes back to us it goes back into the economy, not more unnecessary government spending. As charity starts at home, it could even go to a family member that may really need it, or help payoff some student debt.

Your doing it again, making stuff up. I never implied that you want zero tax.

Your taxes do not create jobs, employers do.

Building our infrastructure. Taxes do that, its been deferred, so that is still in the bank, aka Consolidated Fund.

Growing our Economy. Your doing it again, such an easy answer, no specifics. I should be an MP, my slogan will be I will grow the economy. I will win. Its very complex, its more than your "tax cuts"

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849473 20-Aug-2017 21:07

Wiggum:

By the way, $6354 ($2118 x 3 years) is a lot of money don't you think? You seem to make out that its not a lot at all. Just our household, putting that amount of money back into the NZ economy over the next 3 years will be doing more good than increased taxes ever could. At least if it comes back to us it goes back into the economy, not more unnecessary government spending. As charity starts at home, it could even go to a family member that may really need it, or help payoff some student debt.

$40 a week is a lot of money. It goes into the economy, and if you knew anything about economics, cashflow is like oil in an engine.

The movement of funds in an economy is IN the economy, its a good thing. The Govt gets a cut on that. However, if the Govt NEEDS funds, 6354 is worth a lot more than 6354 circulating in the economy. If the Govt needed 6354, remove the tax cut, resolved. Or wait till the clip then ticket eventually gets that back.

The bottom line, which you ignore, is need vs want. As I mentioned 74 pages ago, we could drop healthcare, and we can drop taxes as a result, great. You save tax, you then pay for health insurance. There is no free ride. IF the Govt has no need to any further tax take, it should not increase, as we are then being over taxed. Should the Govt fall short, we either forego that spending(as we never spent on health and roads and so on) and give it back, or we increase it.

Right now we are being gifted a tax cut, and also 1.4 Billon on a hospital, (great, but doesn't solve the core issue) and 10.6 billion on new roads (about time but years late) I fail to see how we can afford a tax cut. No doubt it will be at the expense of future tax cuts, and may well bite back as lengthening the time between tax creep. (When the average wage creeps into higher tax brackets and thus taxes you more, even though they are in a non improving net purchasing power situation. )

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1849651 21-Aug-2017 09:23

tdgeek:

Who will pay to run this country? Roads, power, health, and 48 other things. The Govt manages that, and you pay your share, its called tax. So it's a two day street here its not JUST you, you dont build the road outside your house, or the motorway that you drive to the workplace to earn your salary. There are many costs that' arent your concern = taxes. You want it all, and you dont want to pay for it all, thread closed.

Just a quick reference point here...

New Zealanders are currently OVERTAXED (by definition).

In the purest sense, this means that the government is taking more of our income than it needs to meet its expenses. Billions more. This is what a Budgetary surplus means.

Those expenses include all of the initiatives of the previous Labour Government (WFF, Interest Free Loans, 4wks Annual Leave, extended Paid Parental Leave, etc.) as well as significantly increased Health funding (On an inflation and population adjusted measure), and the first "real" increase to Benefits in many decades. And the small matters of the GFC and the rebuild investment post Canturbury Earthquakes on top of that.

Despite all of those additional costs, (as well as the "discretionary" millions that Mr. Joyce has given away in blatant corporate welfare) the NZ taxpayers have had thousands of millions of dollars more deducted from their wages (or profits)than is needed to fund it.

We are overtaxed.

Now, you can argue that expenses should be higher than they are. You can argue that all of the surplus should go towards paying down debt. Or you can argue that it would be appropriate to take a little less tax from your population. (Or a combination of all three)

But to insinuate that the government somehow can't build roads because instead they returned a fraction of the surplus back to the people who funded it... that's really stretching the credibility of your argument.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1849657 21-Aug-2017 09:30

tdgeek:

The current Govt, whom I almost always vote for, does not do any "unnecessary spending" If you knew anything about the last 9 years you would know that the Govt provides security is reliabilty on economics.

http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/waste_watch

I call most of that “unnecessary spending”.

tdgeek:

Your salary is your income. Tax is the Govt income. Both are used to meet expenditure. (asset purchases and expenses). Should the Govt have enough income, it should not tax more, allowing a 100% distribution back to the populous. Thats is as fair as it gets. (Assuming that the spending is not wasteful and unnecessary)

Sure its government income. My point is, if there is “unnecessary spending”, there is no need to take more from tax, and increase taxes.

tdgeek:

If the Govt tax take after meeting all thats needed leaves room for tax cuts, I am as keen as you. Actually no one is probably as keen as you. Taxes can come down, no question.

And that is exactly what has happened. Surplus of $1.5bn.

So we have some debt, Lets increase our taxes then to pay it off. I'm happy to do that, but not happy to use those taxes for more unnecessary spending, and fixing things that dont really need fixing, especially if there is debt that should be paid off first.

tdgeek:

One of MANY experiences I had was stuck in a jam in Atlanta. Under the underpass where homeless. Beds, bookcases, the whole none yards. We are not there yet. But if see its an issue helping out those that for whatever reason can't get over that line, I pity you. Same trip, SFO, a beggar, two in fact. One was ONLY wanting water, we gave him all we had. The other was well dressed, immaculately shaven, we walked right past. So before you decide who is poor and who should make an effort, and who deserves the help, maybe think again.

You again making the assumption that I don’t care about people like this, and don’t want to give to people in need. Please stop this now! Give up on this strawman because its not going to work with me. Complaining about our increased taxes, and unnecessary government spending does not mean I don’t care about people in need. There are lots of things that the US is doing wrong, and there is lots that they are doing right. Same goes with NZ. We don’t see much of this sort of thing here in NZ because it does not exist (we very fortunate in NZ that we have a very good social welfare system). Existing taxes to good use maybe? Absolute Poverty does not exist in NZ. Funny that you using overseas poverty to try ad back up your claims here. Our walfare systems are already good enough, no need to throw more money at them, and tax people even more. Maybe come back with some real proof of real absolute poverty in our back yard. I am willing to re-evaluate my view on paying more tax, if its going to support people in desperate need. People like those you highlighted above. Until then, I will just continue to support people who I feel are poor enough, making use of channels like world vision etc.

tdgeek:

Your taxes do not create jobs, employers do.

That’s correct. Now go put some thought into where employers come from, and what is the best way for them to create the most possible jobs. If we overtaxed, do you think its good/bad for the economy as a whole, and how does that affect employers.?

The rest of your 8 posts in a row are just white noise to me and I am not even going to bother with them until you give up on your straw man.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849664 21-Aug-2017 09:39

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

Who will pay to run this country? Roads, power, health, and 48 other things. The Govt manages that, and you pay your share, its called tax. So it's a two day street here its not JUST you, you dont build the road outside your house, or the motorway that you drive to the workplace to earn your salary. There are many costs that' arent your concern = taxes. You want it all, and you dont want to pay for it all, thread closed.

Just a quick reference point here...

New Zealanders are currently OVERTAXED (by definition).

In the purest sense, this means that the government is taking more of our income than it needs to meet its expenses. Billions more. This is what a Budgetary surplus means.

Those expenses include all of the initiatives of the previous Labour Government (WFF, Interest Free Loans, 4wks Annual Leave, extended Paid Parental Leave, etc.) as well as significantly increased Health funding (On an inflation and population adjusted measure), and the first "real" increase to Benefits in many decades. And the small matters of the GFC and the rebuild investment post Canturbury Earthquakes on top of that.

Despite all of those additional costs, (as well as the "discretionary" millions that Mr. Joyce has given away in blatant corporate welfare) the NZ taxpayers have had thousands of millions of dollars more deducted from their wages (or profits)than is needed to fund it.

We are overtaxed.

Now, you can argue that expenses should be higher than they are. You can argue that all of the surplus should go towards paying down debt. Or you can argue that it would be appropriate to take a little less tax from your population. (Or a combination of all three)

But to insinuate that the government somehow can't build roads because instead they returned a fraction of the surplus back to the people who funded it... that's really stretching the credibility of your argument.

I never said that.

Roads wise, the Govt has election year promised 10.6 Billion for roads. had those been kept up to date, what will the annual surplus have been over each of the last 10 years? Same with health that has increased year on year, but is still going backward. GFC, we had a very low exposure compared to the rest of the world, but still an effect. The EQ's. I don't have the figures to hand as to if and when EQC ran out of money, the funds used were in Govt reserves, having been built up over many years from EQ levies.

If we are always in surplus and the required expenditure is happening or being accrued, I'm all for tax cuts. To defer spending creates an artificial surplus. A real surplus is worth shuffling tax back, as you say, paying debt down

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849665 21-Aug-2017 09:42

Wiggum:

Just vote for whatever party is giving tax cuts, I have no issue with that

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1849667 21-Aug-2017 09:54

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

Just vote for whatever party is giving tax cuts, I have no issue with that

Actually its more than that, surplus = tax cuts. And thats a good place to be economically. Why give my vote to a party that need to increase taxes, when we already have a surplus??? A vote for deficit?

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1849694 21-Aug-2017 10:17

tdgeek:

Roads wise, the Govt has election year promised 10.6 Billion for roads. had those been kept up to date, what will the annual surplus have been over each of the last 10 years? Same with health that has increased year on year, but is still going backward. GFC, we had a very low exposure compared to the rest of the world, but still an effect. The EQ's. I don't have the figures to hand as to if and when EQC ran out of money, the funds used were in Govt reserves, having been built up over many years from EQ levies.

If we are always in surplus and the required expenditure is happening or being accrued, I'm all for tax cuts. To defer spending creates an artificial surplus. A real surplus is worth shuffling tax back, as you say, paying debt down

There is a big difference between keeping roads up to date, and building new roads/infrastructure. The Kapiti Expressway, and Transmission Gully motorway projects in Kapiti/Wellington are brand new roads, with new bridges/on off ramps etc. Keeping the old SH1 up to date would never have been a solution. These new roads require a huge amount of work/effort and span multiple years. Sure we could have had more of a surplus if they did not happen, but at what expense? These projects created thousands of jobs in the process, and have boosted Kapiti's economy. More jobs = more money from taxes for government anyway.

I don't get your argument. One moment you arguing that the government is not doing any "unnecessary spending", and next thing you saying they are.

I look at infrastructure spending on big projects as investment for our future. Anything that is going to create jobs/grow our economy in the long term is money well spent IMO. Sometimes is actually better to spend a surplus on big projects, than even pay off debt.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849699 21-Aug-2017 10:25

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Roads wise, the Govt has election year promised 10.6 Billion for roads. had those been kept up to date, what will the annual surplus have been over each of the last 10 years? Same with health that has increased year on year, but is still going backward. GFC, we had a very low exposure compared to the rest of the world, but still an effect. The EQ's. I don't have the figures to hand as to if and when EQC ran out of money, the funds used were in Govt reserves, having been built up over many years from EQ levies.

If we are always in surplus and the required expenditure is happening or being accrued, I'm all for tax cuts. To defer spending creates an artificial surplus. A real surplus is worth shuffling tax back, as you say, paying debt down

There is a big difference between keeping roads up to date, and building new roads/infrastructure. The Kapiti Expressway, and Transmission Gully motorway projects in Kapiti/Wellington are brand new roads, with new bridges/on off ramps etc. Keeping the old SH1 up to date would never have been a solution. These new roads require a huge amount of work/effort and span multiple years. Sure we could have had more of a surplus if they did not happen, but at what expense? These projects created thousands of jobs in the process, and have boosted Kapiti's economy. More jobs = more money from taxes for government anyway.

I don't get your argument. One moment you arguing that the government is not doing any "unnecessary spending", and next thing you saying they are.

I look at infrastructure spending on big projects as investment for our future. Anything that is going to create jobs/grow our economy in the long term is money well spent IMO. Sometimes is actually better to spend a surplus on big projects, than even pay off debt.

Forget it. And BTW keeping roading up to date does not mean fixing old roads, but forget it

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1849707 21-Aug-2017 10:40

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Roads wise, the Govt has election year promised 10.6 Billion for roads. had those been kept up to date, what will the annual surplus have been over each of the last 10 years? Same with health that has increased year on year, but is still going backward. GFC, we had a very low exposure compared to the rest of the world, but still an effect. The EQ's. I don't have the figures to hand as to if and when EQC ran out of money, the funds used were in Govt reserves, having been built up over many years from EQ levies.

If we are always in surplus and the required expenditure is happening or being accrued, I'm all for tax cuts. To defer spending creates an artificial surplus. A real surplus is worth shuffling tax back, as you say, paying debt down

There is a big difference between keeping roads up to date, and building new roads/infrastructure. The Kapiti Expressway, and Transmission Gully motorway projects in Kapiti/Wellington are brand new roads, with new bridges/on off ramps etc. Keeping the old SH1 up to date would never have been a solution. These new roads require a huge amount of work/effort and span multiple years. Sure we could have had more of a surplus if they did not happen, but at what expense? These projects created thousands of jobs in the process, and have boosted Kapiti's economy. More jobs = more money from taxes for government anyway.

I don't get your argument. One moment you arguing that the government is not doing any "unnecessary spending", and next thing you saying they are.

I look at infrastructure spending on big projects as investment for our future. Anything that is going to create jobs/grow our economy in the long term is money well spent IMO. Sometimes is actually better to spend a surplus on big projects, than even pay off debt.

Forget it. And BTW keeping roading up to date does not mean fixing old roads, but forget it

The amount of new roads build over the last few years has been staggering IMO and I don't think it would have been possible to have done very much more in this time.

Lets not forget labour would have done nothing, and were even campaigning to stop motorway projects like Kapiti Expressway and Transmission Gully just a few years ago. If you complaing that national should have been keeping these roads up to date, then I am not really sure what labour would have got done. perhaps you could point me to some of their previous policies.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1849708 21-Aug-2017 10:43

I think this discussion has veered off-course. The issue is not about the amount of taxes ('income') or the size of the surplus, but how the money is used. It might be argued that a big part of National's surplus, maybe all of it, has come from not spending enough on things that should have had better support, like mental health and public housing and public transport. If that is the case, the surplus comes from being miserly and pursuing the wrong priorities, not from wise economic management.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849713 21-Aug-2017 10:52

Back to the topic in hand. The answer to the thread question is not give the election year tax cuts.

More interesting news is Lab up, Nats down, Greens up, TOP almost at 5%. Labs playingb the Climnate Chbnage and environment card, Nats getting the chequebook out for a 10 billion roading spend. Its election yeah alright

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1849721 21-Aug-2017 11:02

tdgeek:

Back to the topic in hand. The answer to the thread question is not give the election year tax cuts.

I have not seen anybody from Labour actually rule it out?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 20