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 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 20

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1860953 8-Sep-2017 14:50

MikeB4:

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1860959 8-Sep-2017 15:03

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1860963 8-Sep-2017 15:17

MikeB4:

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1860978 8-Sep-2017 15:29

The boffins at organisations like Niwa are actually very good at tracking down the culprits

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1861019 8-Sep-2017 16:01

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

Thats primarily the point. Targeting the causers. Whether you charge them via a tax or an invoice makes no difference, they pay. They can keep paying if they wish, and we will use those funds to cleanup, and no doubt there will be bylaws in place to cease further pollution, so that once the cleanup is done its done

Winegrowers will pay a little per bottle, thats invisble. Farmers unsure. Bottlers, well they are taking whats left of our clean water they can pay in Chinese yuan as well. Ideally, if any one cleans up their act, they can avoid paying

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1861042 8-Sep-2017 16:57

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

Never said anything about increasing wages and salaries.

Agreed that the consequence of doing so just increases prices, thus increases the cost of living and thereby fueling inflation.

We need less people on benefits and more people in jobs. This results in more income for government and the need to raise taxes.

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

I understand that the majority of the money goes to working people on income support. It is these people who are getting increases.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1861052 8-Sep-2017 17:23

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1861056 8-Sep-2017 17:32

MikeB4:

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations.

That rings a bell, maybe Labour, but could be National

allio

895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 529

#1861083 8-Sep-2017 20:46

MikeB4:

One area that I would like the next Government to look at but probably wont is subsidies on power and heating for the elderly and or disabled/chronically ill. These of course should be means tested. I have dealt with many people who have medical conditions exacerbated or get ill because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently. I have also dealt with folk who stay in be all day to try and keep warm unfortunately being less active makes one colder and exacerbates illness and disabilities. I believe that providing heating subsidies would reduce medical cost and reduce hospitalisations.

http://www.labour.org.nz/labour_helps_older_new_zealanders_and_low_income_families_with_winter_heating_bills

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1861108 8-Sep-2017 22:51

MikeB4:

The boffins at organisations like Niwa are actually very good at tracking down the culprits

Some of the most regular can be easy to spot: They have 4 legs and are often black and white.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1861109 8-Sep-2017 22:57

MikeB4:

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.

The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1861111 8-Sep-2017 23:02

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

You are assuming or appear to be assuming that all folks on benefit are on primary benefits. There are very large numbers of folks who are working and receiving income support. To move them off income support requires increases in wages and salaries this making us less competitive in our export markets. And as I said earlier this will result in job losses and increased need for benefits and income support. The least disruptive would be a tax or a clean up charge levied at those who pollute the waterways.

We could make it a rule that those who discharge into rivers must take their drinking water from 50 meters or less from the discharge point.

This is a good point. But at the end of the day, raising taxes will hit these people too. And possibly harder.

I can agree on tax on those responsible for polluting the waterways etc. But how do you only hit the guilty ones without taxing those that are not causing the pollution? I think we can all agree that those that make the mess need to clean it up. Taxing bottled drinking water is not getting to the core of the problem, the polluters will continue, and the taxpayers will keep paying to cleanup. The consumer suffers and pays for it in the end (all consumers), even those receiving income support.

Why not set up a government origination that's sole purpose is to tackle these messy industries, clean up their mess, and then invoice/or fine them for the work done. I may even be happy paying a small tax to set something like this up. At the end of the day though, the real problem here is industries, government should be dealing with the problem by tackling those responsible, not creating a tax so that each new Zealander should pay to clean up their mess.

I like that rule about making those who discharge, drink. Reminds me of that scene from the Erin Brockovich movie

Thats primarily the point. Targeting the causers. Whether you charge them via a tax or an invoice makes no difference, they pay. They can keep paying if they wish, and we will use those funds to cleanup, and no doubt there will be bylaws in place to cease further pollution, so that once the cleanup is done its done

Winegrowers will pay a little per bottle, thats invisble. Farmers unsure. Bottlers, well they are taking whats left of our clean water they can pay in Chinese yuan as well. Ideally, if any one cleans up their act, they can avoid paying

Why a tax? Why not fines on the polluters, starting at say $500,000? Pay in 30 days or it's 5 years in prison.

If you want to discourage pollution, surely penalising polluters is better than taxing people? And slapping them with wet bus ticket fines is not going to achieve anything.

If you want a good base for looking at government body, this one might be worth considering.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1861127 9-Sep-2017 07:04

Geektastic:
MikeB4:

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.

The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.

Reducing benefits would reduce spending and create more unemployment and greater welfare spending.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1861147 9-Sep-2017 07:59

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

MikeB4:

How do we get the tax take up by getting folks off benefits and increasing wages and salaries without fueling inflation, making us less competitive in our export markets thus resulting in drops in production and exports meaning job losses and higher unemployment.

I never suggested wages and salaries would get increased. I suggested benefits should go down. You have to deal with getting more income yourself by getting well paid employment. Creating a culture of reliance on the State is not, in my view, a sound basis to run a country.

The other side of wage levels is supply and demand: if wages are low, we might consider whether the population - or at least the number of available people in a particular area of work - is too great.

Reducing benefits would reduce spending and create more unemployment and greater welfare spending.

Maybe. If you carry on carrying the unemployed, which I wouldn't.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1861148 9-Sep-2017 08:01

You are assuming that those on Welfare are doing it by choice, a mistake a lot of people make.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 20