Where does the money for National promises come from?

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

Forums › Politics › Where does the money for National promises come from?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2568038 19-Sep-2020 14:28

GV27:

Fred99:

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.

$64k is "relatively wealthy". More than half the working population earn less than that.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2568049 19-Sep-2020 15:16

sen8or:

And welcome back the to the 1970s https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12366237

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.

Every time any form of improvement in basic conditions is brought in there's bleating that it's unaffordable. 4 weeks annual leave was unaffordable (except it was). Any raise to the minimum wage is unaffordable etc etc. There are obviously effects in changing minimum conditions but if the result is killing a few relatively crap businesses then IMO that's acceptable.

Prior to COVID NZ had a labour market with practically full employment and zero real wage growth. That suggests that business was doing just fine and the balance was still in their favour.

Certainly having stronger union representation hasn't hurt the Australian economy. Basically all the proposed changes would align the NZ labour market more closely with Australia.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2568105 19-Sep-2020 16:27

Fred99:

$64k is "relatively wealthy". More than half the working population earn less than that.

Income is not a measure of wealth, for a start. And $64K is roughly halfway through the new teacher pay scales. We didn't tell teachers "sorry, you're too wealthy, no more money for you".

But let's talk about how 'wealthy' $64K is - it's $52K after tax. Knock another $5,280 off for Student Loan repayments. So you're down to $47K in the hand. Average rent is $600 a week in Auckland, so knock off $31K. You're down to $16K. Do you like eating? The average food spend is $300, but let's say you're a whiz and can grow some stuff, so take that down to $200 a week. $10K gone. So, from $64K, we're down to $6K to clothe ourselves, get to work, pay incidentals like childcare costs, doctor's bills or health insurance, internet, insure your car, etc - you better not get sick, lose your job or have to find bond for a new home in case the place you're renting gets sold out from under you. At that point, you're living off credit cards or afterpays to make ends meet.

It's also pretty much the reason why WFFTC and PPL exists - and why WFFTC In-work Tax Credits don't fully abate until you earn over $120K. We accept that life on this kind of money is borderline impossible if you want things like a family. Because someone in the above situation, on $64K with two kids, would be getting an extra $169 a week in WFF assistance. Why? I'll let you come to your own conclusions.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2568218 19-Sep-2020 17:45

I've always been opposed to WFF. That it's now entrenched and essential for some to get by on is a symptom of systemic failure of our NZ capitalist society.

Anyway you're right about income/wealth, but more than half (probably 2/3) of wage/salary earners are paid less than $64k. Sure teachers, nurses etc - not highly paid, but look around - most of the people you'll deal with on a day to day basis at the supermarket, gas station, restaurant, warehouses etc etc are paid less - considerably less. They deserve misery because they're not clever enough to earn average wage in a high-cost economy? Is that what you're advocating?

I do some part-time work for fun really - I retired long ago. Much of that work I have access to homes across the city where I live, and I'm constantly surprised by the wealth division and how absolutely sh*t many working people's lives are in NZ (and how ludicrously rich some people are) We have a society of haves and have-nots - and I'm sure it's got much worse over my lifetime.

The tax cut/trickle-down concept did not work, will not work now, will never work. But here we are, with a wealthy and jaded old leader of the opposition from my generation, a boomer like me, and wanting to give me more money, and stuff the poor.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2568652 20-Sep-2020 14:26

Fred99:

I've always been opposed to WFF. That it's now entrenched and essential for some to get by on is a symptom of systemic failure of our NZ capitalist society.

Anyway you're right about income/wealth, but more than half (probably 2/3) of wage/salary earners are paid less than $64k. Sure teachers, nurses etc - not highly paid, but look around - most of the people you'll deal with on a day to day basis at the supermarket, gas station, restaurant, warehouses etc etc are paid less - considerably less. They deserve misery because they're not clever enough to earn average wage in a high-cost economy? Is that what you're advocating?

The reason that we have such a long tail of low earners is largely due to schemes like WFFTC taking the burden of lifting wages off employers - in that sense it does enable some pretty awful stuff like long term wage suppression - why should employers have to pay more when the state is picking up the tab? Why does the state have to reign in things like excises which hit the poor even more? Just give them a few bucks more to make up for it. It's cynical, but it seems to be how it works in NZ.

To be clear, I'm not saying anyone "deserves misery", whatever that actually means. Such emotive rubbish like this and 'paying your fair share' which is essentially meaningless dribble you'll find shouted through megaphones at protests but hard to articulate into proper policy. Is it lift benefits to respectable levels? Raise the age of super but pay it out at a higher rate to make life more comfortable? Because if that's what you actually mean, then sign me up. But if you just want to hide behind over-emotive throwaway comments then like, then whatever.

The main thing I'm taking issue with is that the idea that someone on $64K is on the pig's back. It might have been true 20 years ago, but it isn't anymore. Even our own welfare programmes recognise this, so I'm assuming that if we're now classing that as 'relatively wealthy' and undeserving of tax relief, you're in favour of ending WFF access to people who make that much a year? No more subsidised state housing for people who earn over the average wage? Or can we accept that life at that level of income is pretty hard as well?

Regardless I'd really like to see us just adopt Australia's tax brackets (zero rated lower threshold, higher tax rates as incomes climb) and be done with it. I'm unsure if there'd be any benefits from this kind of alignment but given we are very similar markets with similar approaches to tax, it makes sense.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2568713 20-Sep-2020 15:52

You'd need to move the Australian limits down ~30% to have a similar tax system to Australia. Australia's median wage is ~30% higher than NZ so they are able to get the tax take they need with higher thresholds.

Lego

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

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2568714 20-Sep-2020 15:54

So it turns out National couldn't read the legislation or use a calculator and has an actual $4 billion hole in their forecasts. It's good that they are such prudent managers of the economy that they misplaced such an insignificant amount of money.

I do give them some credit for owning up to it.

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Lifetime subscriber

#2568779 20-Sep-2020 20:29

Handle9:
So it turns out National couldn't read the legislation or use a calculator and has an actual $4 billion hole in their forecasts. It's good that they are such prudent managers of the economy that they misplaced such an insignificant amount of money.

I do give them some credit for owning up to it.

Or Labour hid the fact that they were reducing /suspending payments to the superfund, all the while criticising National for doing the very same thing.

I aim to misbehave.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2568822 20-Sep-2020 20:31

DS9:
Handle9:

So it turns out National couldn't read the legislation or use a calculator and has an actual $4 billion hole in their forecasts. It's good that they are such prudent managers of the economy that they misplaced such an insignificant amount of money.

I do give them some credit for owning up to it.

Or Labour hid the fact that they were reducing /suspending payments to the superfund, all the while criticising National for doing the very same thing.

The formula for Superfund contributions was cunningly concealed in the legislation. If only that was public record.

Oh wait, it was. You do not seem informed at all on this topic.

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Lifetime subscriber

#2568830 20-Sep-2020 20:41

The formula for Superfund contributions was cunningly concealed in the legislation. If only that was public record.

Oh wait, it was. You do not seem informed at all on this topic.

National had less than a day to read the prefu line, by line, so they used the budget instead (silly them). But you're right, Labour where very open and transparent about the change on Thursday.

I aim to misbehave.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2568833 20-Sep-2020 20:45

DS9:
The formula for Superfund contributions was cunningly concealed in the legislation. If only that was public record.

Oh wait, it was. You do not seem informed at all on this topic.

National had less than a day to read the prefu line, by line, so they used the budget instead (silly them). But you're right, Labour where very open and transparent about the change on Thursday.

Once again you seem somewhat confused. PREFU is when the numbers are revealed and a competent opposition would use those numbers.

The party of "good" economic management can't read or use a spreadsheet? Were they relying on an abacus for their calculations?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Lifetime subscriber

#2568840 20-Sep-2020 20:55

Once again you seem somewhat confused. PREFU is when the numbers are revealed and a competent opposition would use those numbers.

The party of "good" economic management can't read or use a spreadsheet? Were they relying on an abacus for their calculations?

I'm enjoying your condescending tone, but no. Labour changed it's numbers in the prefu making it almost a mini budget, when it's supposed to only be a snapshot of the economy.

That's why National used the budget projections for super fund payments, but my original point stands, Labour have been very hypocritical criticising National about suspension of payments when it was their (Labour) intention to do similar all along.

I aim to misbehave.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2568843 20-Sep-2020 21:02

Labour doesn't publish PREFU, treasury does. It's a record of the actual state of the accounts. Do you think there have been many economic changes since the budget?

You are trying to see what you want to see and use that to excuse a huge cock up by National. It's a pretty dumb argument on your part.

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Lifetime subscriber

#2568847 20-Sep-2020 21:09

Handle9:
Labour doesn't publish PREFU, treasury does. It's a record of the actual state of the accounts. Do you think there have been many economic changes since the budget?

You are trying to see what you want to see and use that to excuse a huge cock up by National. It's a pretty dumb argument on your part.

Yeah thanks again, just one question, where does treasury get its policy information from (or do they make it up)?

If showing how Labour (who I generally vote for) are being hypocrites is a dumb argument, it says more about blind voter faith than me.

Anyway, have a good one.

I aim to misbehave.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2568852 20-Sep-2020 21:27

There is a fairly substantial policy difference between suspending payments to the superfund and making them based on the statutory formula. About $15 billion difference based on the current forecast.

Please explain where Labour have been hypocritical in this area? They are doing exactly what they said they would do - stick with the current policy.

There's plenty of areas to criticise hypocrisy from the government, this isn't one of them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5