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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 20

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1845248 11-Aug-2017 15:01

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

My comment was aimed at the OP.

Also add 4) retaining reserves for planned future expenditure

In an ideal world we would pay down debt, like we would at home, and pay for new initiatives. Tax cuts are fine if they can be part of an annual distribution of wealth once all other bases are covered, and if surpluses are all or at least most years. As regards the current surplus, with the health board under pressure, nothing has been done in past years at all, or of any significance for the water pollution, housing issues, traffic congestion, how much surplus are we having due to putting these things aside? I could increase my surplus by flagging maintenance and repairs, and then say we are doing well, then start giving it away, only then to be caught having to invest a lot to catch up past years. Not very responsible IMHO

Again - this is simply not true.

2008 National Health budget was $11.92 billion per annum By 2017 it has increased to $16.77 billion. (a 40.7% uplift)

And to claim nothing of significance in the other areas you mention is also spurious.

Up 40% in 9 years. I read months ago that the CDHB and one other were millions (40 I think) behind. And the other three areas I mentioned have been adequately attended to by the Govt? In that case lets increase the tax cuts we are on top of everything, and the surplus is indeed spare. I also see we do nothing about renewables, thats also unimportant, but we will get to 100% in 33 years time. In less than 18 months, Genesis will eat into about half that. Its good someone will.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1845249 11-Aug-2017 15:04

6FIEND:

Again - this is simply not true.

2008 National Health budget was $11.92 billion per annum By 2017 it has increased to $16.77 billion. (a 40.7% uplift)

And to claim nothing of significance in the other areas you mention is also spurious.

Lets not forget the 2015 budget. A $790 million package which saw benefits rise beyond inflation for the first time in 30 years. Yes it came with some increased work obligations, but thats a good thing.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1845251 11-Aug-2017 15:05

6FIEND:

Again - this is simply not true.

2008 National Health budget was $11.92 billion per annum By 2017 it has increased to $16.77 billion. (a 40.7% uplift)

Nothing is ever "true" in terms of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

You haven't inflation adjusted the 2008 $11.98 billion to 2017. If you try, using the RBNZ inflation calculator, then you can't because there isn't a "healthcare index" - but to hazard a guess, it'll be higher than general background inflation.

You haven't allowed for population increase, which was about 7% over that period.

You haven't allowed for demographic trends such as "the aging population" - I'm not going to make a guess as to the % change in funding needed to compensate, but it will be an increase - not a decrease.

etc...

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1845256 11-Aug-2017 15:11

@Fred99

Let’s look at what at what Vote Health has done between 2008 and Budget 2017.

Nominal Vote Health – increased by $4.85 billion a year from $11.92 billion to $16.77 billion – a 40.7% increase
Real Vote Health – increased by $3.00 billion a year from $13.77 billion to $16.77 billion – a 21.8% increase
Real Vote Health per capita – increased by $341 a year from $3,233 to $3,574 – a 10.5% increase

However you want to slice and dice it, it's still wrong to claim that nothing has improved.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1845257 11-Aug-2017 15:11

Going back to the start of this thread, MikeB4 said it should only be for low income brackets, and it was stated that it is only for low income brackets. I think he meant low income earners. But everyone will get an increase, why doesn't the increase become larger and only support those under $52000? They are the needy, not everyone, and they are the ones more hit by margin erosion

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1845260 11-Aug-2017 15:18

6FIEND:

@Fred99

Let’s look at what at what Vote Health has done between 2008 and Budget 2017.

Nominal Vote Health – increased by $4.85 billion a year from $11.92 billion to $16.77 billion – a 40.7% increase
Real Vote Health – increased by $3.00 billion a year from $13.77 billion to $16.77 billion – a 21.8% increase
Real Vote Health per capita – increased by $341 a year from $3,233 to $3,574 – a 10.5% increase

However you want to slice and dice it, it's still wrong to claim that nothing has improved.

No one disagrees that it hasn't improved, everything must increase. Its what real increase there has been to account for inflation, and the population increase and the ever increasing numbers of the aged. If the improvement did maintain per capita expenditure, plus a boost for aged care, then that would be fine, but it doesn't seem to be that way

Samsung

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

Reciprocity

169 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 97
Inactive user

#1845263 11-Aug-2017 15:23

tdgeek:
Going back to the start of this thread, MikeB4 said it should only be for low income brackets, and it was stated that it is only for low income brackets. I think he meant low income earners. But everyone will get an increase, why doesn't the increase become larger and only support those under $52000? They are the needy, not everyone, and they are the ones more hit by margin erosion

In a single sentence, the answer is because those earning under $52000 pay less in tax than they receive in direct money transfers from the govt. (on average)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1845271 11-Aug-2017 15:30

6FIEND:

@Fred99

Let’s look at what at what Vote Health has done between 2008 and Budget 2017.

Nominal Vote Health – increased by $4.85 billion a year from $11.92 billion to $16.77 billion – a 40.7% increase
Real Vote Health – increased by $3.00 billion a year from $13.77 billion to $16.77 billion – a 21.8% increase
Real Vote Health per capita – increased by $341 a year from $3,233 to $3,574 – a 10.5% increase

However you want to slice and dice it, it's still wrong to claim that nothing has improved.

That figure - the $13.77B is using the general CPI index which will not be correct as many healthcare related costs have increased much faster than background inflation.

I suspect that if it was calculated correctly (which won't be easy) then the increase in vote health per capita will be nil - or even a decline.

That also fails to address the reality that as well as higher costs, there's greater expectation for improved procedures, devices, medications as technology advances. MRIs PETs, high tech cat scanner linacs etc cost a lot, but globally they've gone from exotic to routine life-savers. If we don't keep up - we'll end up third world.

Look at healthcare cost increases in comparable countries to NZ. As well as spending more, I'd wager that the rate of increase is higher than NZ.

Anyway the disgraceful personal attack by Minister Coleman on the Urology Dept at Dunedin Hospital was enough to convince me that he's not a person I want around in any capacity in Government.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1845273 11-Aug-2017 15:35

tdgeek:

Going back to the start of this thread, MikeB4 said it should only be for low income brackets, and it was stated that it is only for low income brackets. I think he meant low income earners. But everyone will get an increase, why doesn't the increase become larger and only support those under $52000? They are the needy, not everyone, and they are the ones more hit by margin erosion

Nobody is getting an increase in April 2018. Everybody is going to pay less tax, thats all. I think you whole perspective on this is wrong.

What you asking is the the same as asking if we should tax the high income earners more? But this is a tax deduction, its not about giving anybody more or less money. A tax deduction is about government taking less money.

Higher taxes to high earners will lead to a reduction in investment because the people most likely to invest will have their money taxed higher. If there is less investment, then there are less businesses and our unemployment will increase (we at 4.9%, pretty good IMO). Increasing taxes for just the high income earners will discourage new businesses. It also encourages a class situation where the poor and middle class begin to resent the rich (This is already evident in NZ unfortunately). Its not right IMO to tax different people differently depending on what they earn. High income earners already pay much more tax than low income earners (even if they on the same tax rate)

Its impossible to tax a nation into prosperity. It like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. never going to work.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1845275 11-Aug-2017 15:43

6FIEND:

@Fred99

Let’s look at what at what Vote Health has done between 2008 and Budget 2017.

Nominal Vote Health – increased by $4.85 billion a year from $11.92 billion to $16.77 billion – a 40.7% increase
Real Vote Health – increased by $3.00 billion a year from $13.77 billion to $16.77 billion – a 21.8% increase
Real Vote Health per capita – increased by $341 a year from $3,233 to $3,574 – a 10.5% increase

However you want to slice and dice it, it's still wrong to claim that nothing has improved.

The numbers have gone up for sure. The reality is that services overall have not improved and in may areas have dropped considerably

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1845287 11-Aug-2017 16:21

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=2017+health+budget&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=KSKNWZK9IcWS8wWwwI74CA

I skimmed the two Stuff articles as a summary. Clearly we have a great healthcare system, but its underfunded. There were a cookie of big numbers in there , one I think was the payroll issue, the other I think was the pay increases for aged care workers, but the budget fell short.

Dell

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1845288 11-Aug-2017 16:34

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Going back to the start of this thread, MikeB4 said it should only be for low income brackets, and it was stated that it is only for low income brackets. I think he meant low income earners. But everyone will get an increase, why doesn't the increase become larger and only support those under $52000? They are the needy, not everyone, and they are the ones more hit by margin erosion

Nobody is getting an increase in April 2018. Everybody is going to pay less tax, thats all. I think you whole perspective on this is wrong.

What you asking is the the same as asking if we should tax the high income earners more? But this is a tax deduction, its not about giving anybody more or less money. A tax deduction is about government taking less money.

Higher taxes to high earners will lead to a reduction in investment because the people most likely to invest will have their money taxed higher. If there is less investment, then there are less businesses and our unemployment will increase (we at 4.9%, pretty good IMO). Increasing taxes for just the high income earners will discourage new businesses. It also encourages a class situation where the poor and middle class begin to resent the rich (This is already evident in NZ unfortunately). Its not right IMO to tax different people differently depending on what they earn. High income earners already pay much more tax than low income earners (even if they on the same tax rate)

Its impossible to tax a nation into prosperity. It like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. never going to work.

Get a grip. A tax cut is a reduction in tax, meaning those who get it, get an increase in their take home pay.

I am suggesting, and as has been mentioned here, why not target the low income earners? What is $20 a week going to do for someone on 200k??? Then, you can give those on lower incomes more, as there are less citizens to share the budgeted tax cut. That is not increasing taxes to the higher earners, it is leaving them as they are.

So you propose to tax the guy on 200k at the same rate as the guy on 43k?

If the poor resent the rich, then giving them less a burden deceases that as the are better able to cater for their living expenses.

Taxing a nation into prosperity, what are you on? Friday drinks?

You see tax as an evil evil thing that someone invented. Its the same as my salary. Its an income to be used for the expenses and development of the country. If the Govt income (aka tax) is not enough, it needs either to increase, or we borrow and pay interest on that, or we forego expenditure on some parts of our economy, such as Health which is the case now. If we are taking too much tax as the current tax take is more then what the Govt needs, the tax should decrease.

Taxing to prosperity, here is another take. We can forego expenditure to get prosperity. We are doing the with Health, housing and transport infrastructure. But the books are in good shape. Bad idea. or we can take more and more tax that the Govt doesnt need, also a bad idea. NZ probably has an issue with being small, low economies of scale, cant change that in a hurry.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1845351 11-Aug-2017 19:51

One thing is for sure when it comes to taxation: If we moved to a lower flat income tax rate (regardless of income) combined with a higher flat consumption tax, there would be no need for a pissing contest such as this subject has turned into. More importantly, it would force our two Center of center (main) parties to get off their combined backsides and start to be a little creative long term, and with an easier to understand governmental income model.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1845363 11-Aug-2017 20:14

Wiggum:

6FIEND:

Again - this is simply not true.

2008 National Health budget was $11.92 billion per annum By 2017 it has increased to $16.77 billion. (a 40.7% uplift)

And to claim nothing of significance in the other areas you mention is also spurious.

Lets not forget the 2015 budget. A $790 million package which saw benefits rise beyond inflation for the first time in 30 years. Yes it came with some increased work obligations, but thats a good thing.

Looks like you got sucked into the marketing machine....a small insignificant number of beneficiaries got this $25/week increase....pathetic

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1846155 14-Aug-2017 08:50

Pumpedd:

Looks like you got sucked into the marketing machine....a small insignificant number of beneficiaries got this $25/week increase....pathetic

Are you able to provide a source for that? Or merely anecdote and innuendo?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 20