Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

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

Forums › Politics › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 236

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3174235 22-Dec-2023 06:16

GV27:
quickymart:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/301030420/the-sausages-messes-and-holes-of-nationals-minibudget >> an analysis of the government's mini-mini-mini budget.

Still not seeing any cuts in my tax, yet.

Were you expecting tax cuts effective of the 20th of the month?

It’s almost like there’s a tax year and tax changes are generally introduced in line with that.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3174238 22-Dec-2023 07:09

quickymart:

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2023/12/21/luxons-anti-maori-and-wife-hypocrisy-abuse-of-process-and-nicolas-virtue-signal-mini-me-budget-makes-her-the-finance-minister-who-cried-wolf/

Bomber makes a few good points here. Still waiting to see how Labour left the books in such "terrible" shape (apparently).

PS: where's my tax cut you promised, Luxon? You made it sound like nothing else mattered, apart from falling over yourself to give (some) people tax cuts. Maybe I'm not rich enough?

Tax cuts are 1 July IIRC. If you are a low to medium earner with kids, they are genuine tax cuts. For everyone else, its next to nothing. In fact for everyone else its wasted money. Better to target those that need it and everyone else gets nothing. Then the squeezed middle without dependent kids can actually get tax benefits. Did you know that a low earner of 46k gets about $4 a week??? My god. They could be unskilled workers, they could be kids starting out, but the Squeezed Lower got left out.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3174239 22-Dec-2023 07:15

tdgeek:

Tax cuts are 1 July IIRC. If you are a low to medium earner with kids, they are genuine tax cuts. For everyone else, its next to nothing. In fact for everyone else its wasted money. Better to target those that need it and everyone else gets nothing. Then the squeezed middle without dependent kids can actually get tax benefits. Did you know that a low earner of 46k gets about $4 a week??? My god. They could be unskilled workers, they could be kids starting out, but the Squeezed Lower got left out.

$46K is minimum wage. Yes, they're getting close to nothing but these were the same people that Robertson wanted to start pushing into the 30 cent bracket within the next three years under Labour. So it's an improvement but not by much.

A wholesale reshuffling of the tax brackets is needed, and urgently. Extremely disappointed National did return to the Bill English-era alignment rates as a matter of principle.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3174241 22-Dec-2023 07:34

GV27:

$46K is minimum wage. Yes, they're getting close to nothing but these were the same people that Robertson wanted to start pushing into the 30 cent bracket within the next three years under Labour. So it's an improvement but not by much.

A wholesale reshuffling of the tax brackets is needed, and urgently. Extremely disappointed National did return to the Bill English-era alignment rates as a matter of principle.

Labour isnt the government now, so why is that relevant? They got voted out so here we are, a flagship tax cut policy, its a discussion about the new Government not the old. Its as though accountability has also been repealed.

Yes, there is a need for tax reform, but the implication from you (I feel) is that it must provide lower taxes by active threshold management. I don't disagree with that. However, the fact is we dont have enough tax revenue to begin with.less after this flagship tax policy, less after cutting other funding to cover the cost of the underfunded tax cut policy, and less again after the coalition partners take their share. Its either finding massive extra tax revenue from somewhere, or better redistribution of wealth.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3174246 22-Dec-2023 07:47

tdgeek:

Yes, there is a need for tax reform, but the implication from you (I feel) is that it must provide lower taxes by active threshold management. I don't disagree with that. However, the fact is we dont have enough tax revenue to begin with.less after this flagship tax policy, less after cutting other funding to cover the cost of the underfunded tax cut policy, and less again after the coalition partners take their share. Its either finding massive extra tax revenue from somewhere, or better redistribution of wealth.

I mean there isn't going to be a perfect system to reflect the differentials between wealth, income, one that addresses the problem of everyone 'paying a fair share' when a disproportionate number of people pay a huge portion of the tax take.

But threshold management doesn't need to be done in a uniform way - we can adjust the middle brackets without touching the top ones and target that relief. One of the reasons I voted for this government is that they put the abatement thresholds on the table for adjusting - since abandoned, to my extreme annoyance - but the idea that the state can't for whatever reason find a way to do more with less tax revenue but the people they collect it from have to make do with less and less is pretty hard to justify when government spending and actual outcomes has had a strained relationship as of late.

The whole discussion around adjusting brackets is too politically charged and you end up with perverse outcomes like 7% inflation but no adjustments to thresholds for 13 years; tbh the whole thing should be legislated for and taken out of the hands of politicians trying to appeal to partisan voting bases.

If we end up in a situation (like we are now) where the tax system as a whole genuinely cannot collect enough to fund the state, then the governments/political parties need to make the case as to why the tax system needs to be reformed. Just getting fat on non-indexed income tax has allowed successive governments to avoid having that discussion - and that's actually the job they get paid to do. You can't just take the path of least resistance because people might not like what you say when your well-paid job is to actively lead those discussions.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3174249 22-Dec-2023 08:01

GV27:

I mean there isn't going to be a perfect system to reflect the differentials between wealth, income, one that addresses the problem of everyone 'paying a fair share' when a disproportionate number of people pay a huge portion of the tax take.

But threshold management doesn't need to be done in a uniform way - we can adjust the middle brackets without touching the top ones and target that relief. One of the reasons I voted for this government is that they put the abatement thresholds on the table for adjusting - since abandoned, to my extreme annoyance - but the idea that the state can't for whatever reason find a way to do more with less tax revenue but the people they collect it from have to make do with less and less is pretty hard to justify when government spending and actual outcomes has had a strained relationship as of late.

The whole discussion around adjusting brackets is too politically charged and you end up with perverse outcomes like 7% inflation but no adjustments to thresholds for 13 years; tbh the whole thing should be legislated for and taken out of the hands of politicians trying to appeal to partisan voting bases.

If we end up in a situation (like we are now) where the tax system as a whole genuinely cannot collect enough to fund the state, then the governments/political parties need to make the case as to why the tax system needs to be reformed. Just getting fat on non-indexed income tax has allowed successive governments to avoid having that discussion - and that's actually the job they get paid to do. You can't just take the path of least resistance because people might not like what you say when your well-paid job is to actively lead those discussions.

100%. To make change you need votes, to get votes you either bribe or you forego the required changes that the masses perceive as bad news. And its not actually "as we are now" its been like this for many decades. The Covid/Ukraine era has pulled those cans we kick down the road, into our front yard. Same applies to most other countries

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3174253 22-Dec-2023 08:09

tdgeek:

100%. To make change you need votes, to get votes you either bribe or you forego the required changes that the masses perceive as bad news. And its not actually "as we are now" its been like this for many decades. The Covid/Ukraine era has pulled those cans we kick down the road, into our front yard. Same applies to most other countries

Agreed. I had high hopes of there being some form of reset and the English-era brackets being a pragmatic middle-ground between ACT's madness and National's non-committal cheese block tax program. But that only becomes possible if you are prepared to talk about moving the Super age, means-testing things like Winter Energy Payments etc.

Frustrating because we actually spend relatively little on things that have huge potential to improve people's lives day-to-day (Pharmac costs around $1.5b a year which is probably the best money the government spends) while some $350m a year alone on Winter Energy payments is possibly going to people who realistically don't need it.

All discussions that need to be had. Taxation system designed to suit. Instead we race ahead with policy goodies first and then use the ongoing inflated income tax receipts to fund them (and apparently for a limited time only, which both parties appear to have done in 2017 and 2023 budgets respectively). It's like a gambling addict with a no-limit credit card.

Not a good recipe for a stable country where people are able to rely on sensible levels of government services without having their net pay decimated, on top of other living cost pressures.

quickymart

14943 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13962

ID Verified

#3174264 22-Dec-2023 08:38

It's okay, I'm sure Luxon can fix everything, he used to run an airline 🙄

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3174446 22-Dec-2023 10:24

freitasm:

At the end they will be doing less, and still not delivering tax cuts. But delivering benefits for the rich.

Got it.

The interesting thing I've heard yesterday and is in the article today is this: "Unemployment is set to rise from 3.6% in 2023 to 4.5% next year and 5.2% in 2025."

So, under National's watch, then?

Don't forget that when it does, that was designed. The RBNZ said earlier in the year that unemployment would have to rise in order for inflation to drop. Ditto for the last quarter, which was recessionary. All of this is at least partly deliberate.

I assume the new FANT government (because NZF and Act seem to be in the driving seat here) is quite happy with that though given the revenge binge they are currently on. Just another thing they can blame the previous government for.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3174447 22-Dec-2023 10:25

quickymart:

It's okay, I'm sure Luxon can fix everything, he used to run an airline 🙄

At least he'll have the 757 sorted out by next Tuesday. He will just call the Air Force at 4pm every day and tell them to fix it.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3174450 22-Dec-2023 10:39

GV27:

All discussions that need to be had. Taxation system designed to suit. Instead we race ahead with policy goodies first and then use the ongoing inflated income tax receipts to fund them (and apparently for a limited time only, which both parties appear to have done in 2017 and 2023 budgets respectively). It's like a gambling addict with a no-limit credit card.

Not a good recipe for a stable country where people are able to rely on sensible levels of government services without having their net pay decimated, on top of other living cost pressures.

Even on this forum where I generally expect the debate to be intelligent there are plenty of people willing to go into bat for the rich listers with multiple megayachts. Which I genuinely don't understand ... it's like, none of us are ever going to be one. This ain't America, and we are not all temporarily embarrassed billionaires (and neither is 99.999% of America, either, but that's their problem to solve). What are you protecting? Do you think Graeme Hart gave $700K to right-wing political parties just because he's a really big fan of democracy? What about the Mowbrays, owners of Zuru, the company that turns crude oil into landfill? They don't give a single **** about you in return.

And as long as we keep on letting them get away with a free ride the rest of us are going to keep spending an ever-escalating proportion of our resources paying for the country.

Ah, whatever. The fall of the Roman Empire took 400 years. This is what it felt like to live through it: it started before we were born, and it'll continue after we're dead. All we can do right now is fight a rear-guard action to fend it off a little longer, and we can't even do that.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3174451 22-Dec-2023 10:39

GV27:

tdgeek:

100%. To make change you need votes, to get votes you either bribe or you forego the required changes that the masses perceive as bad news. And its not actually "as we are now" its been like this for many decades. The Covid/Ukraine era has pulled those cans we kick down the road, into our front yard. Same applies to most other countries

Agreed. I had high hopes of there being some form of reset and the English-era brackets being a pragmatic middle-ground between ACT's madness and National's non-committal cheese block tax program. But that only becomes possible if you are prepared to talk about moving the Super age, means-testing things like Winter Energy Payments etc.

Frustrating because we actually spend relatively little on things that have huge potential to improve people's lives day-to-day (Pharmac costs around $1.5b a year which is probably the best money the government spends) while some $350m a year alone on Winter Energy payments is possibly going to people who realistically don't need it.

All discussions that need to be had. Taxation system designed to suit. Instead we race ahead with policy goodies first and then use the ongoing inflated income tax receipts to fund them (and apparently for a limited time only, which both parties appear to have done in 2017 and 2023 budgets respectively). It's like a gambling addict with a no-limit credit card.

Not a good recipe for a stable country where people are able to rely on sensible levels of government services without having their net pay decimated, on top of other living cost pressures.

Yep.

The time limited, funds, while hitting the news most days is a red herring, not secret

Winter Energy, yes many get that that don't need it, but that's probably very low as most goes to beneficiaries who will need it, and to retired people, of which there will be some that do need it but many that don't, but overall not much $ there IMO

We need more money. Its either extra new money or assessing distribution of what we do have, which again comes back to wealth taxes, capital gain taxes, or adjusting tax thresholds to put less load on the low to medium taxpayers and add load to above average taxpayers. While I'm not promoting those measures, it does seem that the mix we have isn't as fair as it could be. Then we can grab the can opener for the can of worms those discussions will have!

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3174456 22-Dec-2023 10:47

tdgeek:

Then we can grab the can opener for the can of worms those discussions will have!

BRB

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3174458 22-Dec-2023 10:49

SaltyNZ:

Even on this forum where I generally expect the debate to be intelligent there are plenty of people willing to go into bat for the rich listers with multiple megayachts. Which I genuinely don't understand ... it's like, none of us are ever going to be one. This ain't America, and we are not all temporarily embarrassed billionaires (and neither is 99.999% of America, either, but that's their problem to solve). What are you protecting? Do you think Graeme Hart gave $700K to right-wing political parties just because he's a really big fan of democracy? What about the Mowbrays, owners of Zuru, the company that turns crude oil into landfill? They don't give a single **** about you in return.

And as long as we keep on letting them get away with a free ride the rest of us are going to keep spending an ever-escalating proportion of our resources paying for the country.

Ah, whatever. The fall of the Roman Empire took 400 years. This is what it felt like to live through it: it started before we were born, and it'll continue after we're dead. All we can do right now is fight a rear-guard action to fend it off a little longer, and we can't even do that.

Possibly two issues there

We have a Status Quo. If that gets changed too much you might get minor anarchy

The mix of left, right and swing voters isnt enough to force a change. Rock the status quo boat and you wont get the votes to rock the status quo boat

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3174463 22-Dec-2023 10:59

tdgeek:

Possibly two issues there

We have a Status Quo. If that gets changed too much you might get minor anarchy

The mix of left, right and swing voters isnt enough to force a change. Rock the status quo boat and you wont get the votes to rock the status quo boat

Yeah, you're not wrong. But on the other hand, if you already know you can't do enough to actually change things because of status quo then why not just campaign on it anyway? You're not losing anything by doing so if you already concluded you weren't going to win. For example, in my electorate, with all due respect to Chris Penk (who actually does a pretty good job as a local MP, in my opinion, regardless of what I think about his politics) National could put googly eyes on a tree stump here and it would get elected. So there's no reason not to promote two-ticks Green Party. The votes won weren't going to be the difference between a National MP and a Labour MP anyway.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | ... | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 236