Neither main party will introduce a CGT or wealth tax. Ever increasing wealth disparity - and the social decay that will bring - are an inevitable consequence of the "Tragedy of the Commons". Promise to fix that - you'll lose an election.
That the increased taxes for those earning more that $180k per year may have negative consequences. If Labour are re-elected then when we can move to Australia, expect the flight of the rich maybe?
Good luck. 37% cuts in at $90k and 45% cuts in at $180k over there.
Good luck. 37% cuts in at $90k and 45% cuts in at $180k over there.
This is a great example of why just comparing %s is not really that effective. The Australian zero-rate up to $18K makes literally everyone better off - the extent that you'd have to be on way more than $180K before you're any worse off in Australia (think $260K AUD). That's before you take into account their higher wages and lower living costs. The rates themselves only tell half the story.
Good luck. 37% cuts in at $90k and 45% cuts in at $180k over there.
This is a great example of why just comparing %s is not really that effective. The Australian zero-rate up to $18K makes literally everyone better off - the extent that you'd have to be on way more than $180K before you're any worse off in Australia (think $260K AUD). That's before you take into account their higher wages and lower living costs. The rates themselves only tell half the story.
Income tax on $180k in Aus is $54,097 + $3,600 (medicare) = $57,697
Income tax on $180k in NZ is $50,320
So you're wrong - by about $138 / week.
On a $500k salary, tax (incl levy):
Aus $208,097
NZ $155,920
Yes - I think we should have a zero rate up to ~25k or whatever.
Yes - I think we should have a zero rate up to ~25k or whatever.
Those are at current tax rates, not the rates that would apply at the time 39c over $180K is brought in.
In saying that it looks like I've squeezed in an extra $135K into my workings, which is weird. Seems like the cross-over will be $145K AUD v NZD once the relevant rates at that time are in place.
I remember fact-checking this post out of curiosity and it was based on 2024/2025 legislated cuts but now I'm wondering how the hell I managed to get it to line up?
I agree that cross-country comparisons aren't much use. But NZ is a low tax country for "the wealthy", and on many social statistics - despite some opinion that we're leaning heavily toward the "socialist" side of social democracy, we're a deeply neo-conservative capitalist economy with an embedded belief in meritocracy, and that has many failings. Australia does better - and much better in some cases - on many social measures.
As shown by media response to National's proposed tax cuts. Nobody in the media give mention to Goldsmith's disingenuous exemplar of tax savings for the "average" wage and salary earner, when most official stats use median (about $10k below "average") wage. Half the workers in NZ get almost nothing at all from the proposed tax cuts. Exactly what you should expect.
As shown by media response to National's proposed tax cuts. Nobody in the media give mention to Goldsmith's disingenuous exemplar of tax savings for the "average" wage and salary earner, when most official stats use median (about $10k below "average") wage. Half the workers in NZ get almost nothing at all from the proposed tax cuts. Exactly what you should expect.
They get even less from Labour's tax reform, which also didn't get mentioned.
As shown by media response to National's proposed tax cuts. Nobody in the media give mention to Goldsmith's disingenuous exemplar of tax savings for the "average" wage and salary earner, when most official stats use median (about $10k below "average") wage. Half the workers in NZ get almost nothing at all from the proposed tax cuts. Exactly what you should expect.
They get even less from Labour's tax reform, which also didn't get mentioned.
Both major parties economic policies are 90% the same. Both are tinkering at the edges of a third way economic policy rather than providing any real contrast.
As Labour is the incumbent it won't help National much, if at all, but may stop it totally bleeding out.
Increased taxation is inevitable to fund the Covid-19 campaign and recovery. However it should not be the burden of the wealthy only. It The easiest way to fund it would be a temporary increase in GST, capital gains tax and temporary surcharge on RUCs.
Sounds like a great way to increase poverty by pushing most of the burden onto low income earners. Consumption taxes are punitive on low income earners who spend most of their income. This is of course why they are favoured by right wing parties - they keep the donations coming in nicely.
CGT would be nice but it won't happen - no party has the courage to push it through.
Increased taxation is inevitable to fund the Covid-19 campaign and recovery. However it should not be the burden of the wealthy only. It The easiest way to fund it would be a temporary increase in GST, capital gains tax and temporary surcharge on RUCs.
Did you really work in social work sector as you claim? If so, it's hard for me to understand how you constantly fail to understand the utterly regressive and morally repugnant nature of the effect of any rise in GST upon the very poor that you claimed to have worked with. The wealthy (and my wife and I certainly fit in by virtue of our income and we'll be hit by Labour's tax increase - IMO the increase wasn't enough) in NZ is already doing well enough tax-rate wise compared with comparable countries. The world's not a zero sums game -- if someone gets a "hit", you don't have to spread the pain to other people as well.
Increase in GST gives a temporary boost in consumer spending in the leadup to implementation, so can be a trick to avert "official" recession if timed right. Problem is the boost isn't sustainable. It's also kind of daft - people will buy something immediately for $100 because they don't want to pay $102.50 next month or whatever. John Key understood how sheep behave, maybe with some guidance from Bill English.
As shown by media response to National's proposed tax cuts. Nobody in the media give mention to Goldsmith's disingenuous exemplar of tax savings for the "average" wage and salary earner, when most official stats use median (about $10k below "average") wage. Half the workers in NZ get almost nothing at all from the proposed tax cuts. Exactly what you should expect.
They get even less from Labour's tax reform, which also didn't get mentioned.
Labours tax reform didn't come with guarantees to sabotage the future - suspending payments to the national super fund, and raiding the pandemic recovery fund to give hand-outs to the relatively wealthy.
Increasing power to the unions, Little showing his true colours now, thank goodness at least Jacinda got in and not him!
10 sick days a year? yes, lets make it even harder for businesses, load them with more costs to cover, they are afterall just rich fat cats bathing in their golden hot pools drinking from the fountains of money they earn.
Perhaps each year, 12 months out from the election, each party should have to live by the policies they are looking to create. Labour should try and run a business in the competitive real world with all their socialist policies and their associated costs.
National should have to try and make it with their policies (particularly education and other social costs) and see how they fare (e.g. try living on some sort of benefit).
Once both have done 12 months in the consequences of their policies, then they can decide if they still want to implement them with the knowledge that "they have been there and living it".
Labours tax reform didn't come with guarantees to sabotage the future - suspending payments to the national super fund, and raiding the pandemic recovery fund to give hand-outs to the relatively wealthy.
Ah yes, the 'relatively wealthy' on $64K who stand to benefit the most as a portion of income from the National tax package, which is temporary. $64K doesn't even get you a mortgage approval in Auckland, let alone enough of a deposit to buy a house.
Labour's 'reform' is the weakest type of reform - a completely ineffective tax policy that is designed to rally party activists, not actually reform the tax system in any meaningful way. Literally adding a single line to the tax bracket table in the Income Tax Act is not 'reform'.
But it's not actually about that at all - it's about hoping that people look past the fact that they're no longer committed to delivering a fraction of what they said they would do when they were elected in 2017 and actually had the mandate and two thirds of a term to do it, but squandered the opportunity.
Tax a tiny amount of people on stonkingly high incomes more, but leave exploding residential property prices to carry on to the moon? An extra public holiday, but no real progress on infrastructure outside of actually building a bunch of National's roads they cancelled for political reasons? You can sabotage a country through incompetence and trying to pass star-power off as competent economic management too.
I can (and do) say equally unkind things about National, but if you want to compare apples with apples, the achievements of the last three years from this government has set the bar pretty low.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
ID Verified
