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 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862032 11-Sep-2017 06:41

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Why did National offer tac cuts to coincide with an election? Are we that rich that is share cash, not needed for anything? Should that have been offered at all?

They got us into Surplus and its fair to assume that there may be some money to throw around.

Surely throwing that money back to the taxpayers is a good option? Where do you suggest it go?

Helen Clarke had 8 surpluses, thats not new. A fair assumption that there is money to go around? Its AN assumption, when health etc are under resourced.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862033 11-Sep-2017 06:43

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Why did National offer tac cuts to coincide with an election? Are we that rich that is share cash, not needed for anything? Should that have been offered at all?

They got us into Surplus and its fair to assume that there may be some money to throw around.

Surely throwing that money back to the taxpayers is a good option? Where do you suggest it go?

Here is a few....

Improving health services

Improving schools

Increasing benefit payments to ease poverty

Retiring debt

But the new election policies address some of those, finally.....

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862034 11-Sep-2017 06:45

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Why did National offer tac cuts to coincide with an election? Are we that rich that is share cash, not needed for anything? Should that have been offered at all?

They got us into Surplus and its fair to assume that there may be some money to throw around.

Surely throwing that money back to the taxpayers is a good option? Where do you suggest it go?

Here is a few....

Improving health services

Improving schools

Increasing benefit payments to ease poverty

Retiring debt

But others have been complaining about Nationals tax increases over the years. I guess no matter how hard you try you can never please everyone.

No they haven't. You have been complaining about a few targeted taxes all through this thread, as though Labour is a tax fiend. The mentioning of Nationals 18 tax increases in its term is merely to let you know that tax changes are a part of government.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#1862036 11-Sep-2017 07:18

tdgeek:

No they haven't. You have been complaining about a few targeted taxes all through this thread, as though Labour is a tax fiend. The mentioning of Nationals 18 tax increases in its term is merely to let you know that tax changes are a part of government.

Changes to tax yes, being deliberately coy about them because you know they're going to make you unelectable is rubbish.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#1862040 11-Sep-2017 07:26

So Labour holds the dual positions of extending the Bright Line test and then also having a Tax Working Group to work out the most effective way of taxing property. Nope, no issues with that at all.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862041 11-Sep-2017 07:28

GV27:

tdgeek:

No they haven't. You have been complaining about a few targeted taxes all through this thread, as though Labour is a tax fiend. The mentioning of Nationals 18 tax increases in its term is merely to let you know that tax changes are a part of government.

Changes to tax yes, being deliberately coy about them because you know they're going to make you unelectable is rubbish.

Thats an assumption. Or has the Working Group already been selected and already decided what options to suggest to Labour?

I dont disagree that its not ideal. But despite that, the people appear to be favouring Labour in numbers. They appear to be electable despite being coy

And remember National got in on tax cuts, then surprised everyone by increasing GST after they got elected. As you know, Income Tax and GST is not in the discussion for Labour, so while they should give more clarity or at least direction, the taxes under discussion are targetted taxes, that wont affect everyone, everyday.

Apple TV

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862042 11-Sep-2017 07:31

GV27:

So Labour holds the dual positions of extending the Bright Line test and then also having a Tax Working Group to work out the most effective way of taxing property. Nope, no issues with that at all.

No. You talk about them being coy with tax. The increasing of the Brightline test to 5 years is one part they have disclosed. Obvipously the TWG wont be discussing that, its been decided already

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#1862043 11-Sep-2017 07:34

tdgeek:

No. You talk about them being coy with tax. The increasing of the Brightline test to 5 years is one part they have disclosed. Obvipously the TWG wont be discussing that, its been decided already

They have announced one part of the tax policy which is totally undermined by the broader tax reform pitched by the TWG, which will definitely be covering a CGT which is what the bright line test is. All the while insisting they don't want to undermine or predetermine the TWG outcomes.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862044 11-Sep-2017 07:42

GV27:

tdgeek:

No. You talk about them being coy with tax. The increasing of the Brightline test to 5 years is one part they have disclosed. Obvipously the TWG wont be discussing that, its been decided already

They have announced one part of the tax policy which is totally undermined by the broader tax reform pitched by the TWG, which will definitely be covering a CGT which is what the bright line test is. All the while insisting they don't want to undermine or predetermine the TWG outcomes.

How can the extension be undermined by the TWG? The TWG will give options for the Govt, there is no need to give an option for Brightline as thats been decided. Or would you prefer that Labour now say that they wont commit to 5 years, it might be 1 it might be 15? Its quite simple, of all the tax issues they want an expert panel to advise on, Brightline isnt one of them

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#1862045 11-Sep-2017 07:48

tdgeek:

How can the extension be undermined by the TWG? The TWG will give options for the Govt, there is no need to give an option for Brightline as thats been decided. Or would you prefer that Labour now say that they wont commit to 5 years, it might be 1 it might be 15? Its quite simple, of all the tax issues they want an expert panel to advise on, Brightline isnt one of them

The Brightline is a Capital Gains tax. The TWG is going to consider Capital Gains Taxes. You don't see how immediately amending a tax and then holding a working group to find the best method of actually taxing something is trying to have your cake and eat it too?

This is no different to Bill English holding two positions on lowering some taxes and raising others but you're determined to not hold Labour to anywhere the same level of scrutiny you hold the Nats to.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862047 11-Sep-2017 08:03

GV27:

tdgeek:

How can the extension be undermined by the TWG? The TWG will give options for the Govt, there is no need to give an option for Brightline as thats been decided. Or would you prefer that Labour now say that they wont commit to 5 years, it might be 1 it might be 15? Its quite simple, of all the tax issues they want an expert panel to advise on, Brightline isnt one of them

The Brightline is a Capital Gains tax. The TWG is going to consider Capital Gains Taxes. You don't see how immediately amending a tax and then holding a working group to find the best method of actually taxing something is trying to have your cake and eat it too?

This is no different to Bill English holding two positions on lowering some taxes and raising others but you're determined to not hold Labour to anywhere the same level of scrutiny you hold the Nats to.

So, CGT has only one parameter, Brightline? No. The issues at hand are exemptions, its not your cake and eat it too. Exemptions are key. Extending speculator profits from 2 to 5 years is sound. The key is exemptions so that Joe Average doenst get taxed as a speculator when he isnt.

TWG will be reviewing the tax system, CGT is but one part. Given that they didnt get the books till recently, it makes sense to get it right. The books should have been available well before now so the TWG could have already reviewed the whole tax system (less Income Tax and GST) Or Labour could have just worked it out themselves and hoped that its ok. Id prefer a panel of experts than a panel of MPs.

End of the day dont vote Labour. If they lose that will be why, simple.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#1862058 11-Sep-2017 08:10

tdgeek:

So, CGT has only one parameter, Brightline? No. The issues at hand are exemptions, its not your cake and eat it too. Exemptions are key. Extending speculator profits from 2 to 5 years is sound. The key is exemptions so that Joe Average doenst get taxed as a speculator when he isnt.

TWG will be reviewing the tax system, CGT is but one part. Given that they didnt get the books till recently, it makes sense to get it right. The books should have been available well before now so the TWG could have already reviewed the whole tax system (less Income Tax and GST) Or Labour could have just worked it out themselves and hoped that its ok. Id prefer a panel of experts than a panel of MPs.

End of the day dont vote Labour. If they lose that will be why, simple.

Arden has repeated the oft-quoted lie by Labour party leaders that speculators are not taxed on property in NZ when they are. Forgive me for having my doubts that the TWG is not a sensitive election policy deferral and a foregone conclusion masquerading as sudden concern for detail.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862059 11-Sep-2017 08:20

GV27:

tdgeek:

So, CGT has only one parameter, Brightline? No. The issues at hand are exemptions, its not your cake and eat it too. Exemptions are key. Extending speculator profits from 2 to 5 years is sound. The key is exemptions so that Joe Average doenst get taxed as a speculator when he isnt.

TWG will be reviewing the tax system, CGT is but one part. Given that they didnt get the books till recently, it makes sense to get it right. The books should have been available well before now so the TWG could have already reviewed the whole tax system (less Income Tax and GST) Or Labour could have just worked it out themselves and hoped that its ok. Id prefer a panel of experts than a panel of MPs.

End of the day dont vote Labour. If they lose that will be why, simple.

Arden has repeated the oft-quoted lie by Labour party leaders that speculators are not taxed on property in NZ when they are. Forgive me for having my doubts that the TWG is not a sensitive election policy deferral and a foregone conclusion masquerading as sudden concern for detail.

TWG is a sensitive issue. Whether its a masquerade of an already decided policy, thats debatable. It might be. It might also be a genuine effort to get it right.

Given the lies in this campaign, who knows, but IMO they want to get it right

You are saying speculators are taxed properly? Extending the period to 5 years is better IMO

Why do you call what she said as a lie?? It doesnt agree with your opinion so that makes it a lie? When things get to emotive, its colours the discussion. Im a National voter and here I am defending Labour. Well, I'm actually defending the bias, in favour of a balanced discussion.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1862093 11-Sep-2017 08:55

tdgeek:

Who paid for the EQ?

EQC Levies built up over many decades

Insurance companies.

I guess you not aware of the AMI insurance company government bailouts then? Something like $1.25bn. Where did that money come from? personally I would rather goverment not bail out insurance companies. But then I guess the evil Nats would be even more evil. Can't please everyone

Then you forgetting all of the governments reconstruction activity post earthquake. I suppose we could have just left everything all broken to pieces, roads/infrastructure etc.. I have no idea how much its all cost government in the end, but its a huge amount none the less, and its billions of $ which NZ simply did not have. Where should the money have come from?

tdgeek:

Helen Clarke had 8 surpluses, thats not new. A fair assumption that there is money to go around? Its AN assumption, when health etc are under resourced.

I can't recall if Helen Clark's government made a single tax cut. I may be wrong, but the 1st of April 2018 will be our third under National.

tdgeek:

But the new election policies address some of those, finally.....

Definitely not the retiring debt.

I find it odd that many of your posts reference comparisons between labour/national and their debt. Yet labour is making no plans in the near future to pay down debt. National is.

tdgeek:

You have been complaining about a few targeted taxes all through this thread, as though Labour is a tax fiend. The mentioning of Nationals 18 tax increases in its term is merely to let you know that tax changes are a part of government.

National has given us a number of tax cuts over the years. 1st April 2018 will be the third. How many did Labour give out the last time they were in office? I recall a similar post of yours where you mentioned many of those "taxes", are not really "taxes". I think you prefered using the term "levies". If I recall correctly income tax was really the only tax. But I suppose they can only be called taxes if the shoe is on nationals foot.

tdgeek:

And remember National got in on tax cuts, then surprised everyone by increasing GST after they got elected. As you know, Income Tax and GST is not in the discussion for Labour, so while they should give more clarity or at least direction, the taxes under discussion are targetted taxes, that wont affect everyone, everyday.

I'm looking forward then to a labour Goverment cutting GST. Unfortunately for you they have already said there will be no tax cuts in the near future. Even the 1st April 2018 tax cut will be toast. Therefore I can only assume that labour is fully behind that GST increase too.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862100 11-Sep-2017 09:05

So far it seems to me that the only way to benefit from Labour is to breed, be a student or be old.

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