What will happen to National now?

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 happen to National now?

1 | ... | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | ... | 111

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2884402 10-Mar-2022 14:10

elpenguino:

So far we've had:

1 - tax cuts

Is refusing to adjust tax brackets once a decade to account for inflation considered a tax increase?

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#2884408 10-Mar-2022 14:13

GV27:

elpenguino:

So far we've had:

1 - tax cuts

Is refusing to adjust tax brackets once a decade to account for inflation considered a tax increase?

It's either an increase or a decrease.

There must be some reason no party wants to touch it....... ahhh, maybe it's votes?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2884410 10-Mar-2022 14:15

elpenguino:

There must be some reason no party wants to touch it....... ahhh, maybe it's votes?

Who is going to vote against adjusting the tax brackets?

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#2884439 10-Mar-2022 15:07

Voters, obviously.

Voters who are less well off after the adjustment, in particular.

Why do you think no party has adjusted the brackets for so long?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2884443 10-Mar-2022 15:15

elpenguino:

Voters, obviously.

Voters who are less well off after the adjustment, in particular.

Why do you think no party has adjusted the brackets for so long?

As opposed to now where almost everyone is worse off over time?

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#2884468 10-Mar-2022 15:53

elpenguino:

Voters, obviously.

Voters who are less well off after the adjustment, in particular.

Why do you think no party has adjusted the brackets for so long?

Who would be worse off?

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2884469 10-Mar-2022 15:55

Jas777:

elpenguino:

Voters, obviously.

Voters who are less well off after the adjustment, in particular.

Why do you think no party has adjusted the brackets for so long?

Who would be worse off?

I'm very sleep-deprived, but I also couldn't work that out.

invisibleman18

1420 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 427

#2884473 10-Mar-2022 16:00

Also not sure who would be worse off after that adjustment, unless maybe some tax credit like Working for Families takes into account after tax earnings rather than before tax? So might result in someone getting less when their after tax income goes up, but presumably those thresholds would also be adjusted over time too.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2884475 10-Mar-2022 16:03

Perhaps getting at the idea that indexing the brackets effectively lessens government revenue, so they increase another tax (or add a new bracket or make other tax changes) to offset that "lost" revenue - which would no doubt make some worse off?

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2884477 10-Mar-2022 16:07

antonknee:

Perhaps getting at the idea that indexing the brackets effectively lessens government revenue, so they increase another tax (or add a new bracket or make other tax changes) to offset that "lost" revenue - which would no doubt make some worse off?

Well, why would you guess at something that hasn't been proposed? What has been proposed and discussed is the increase of the brackets, that's all, so that on it's own should be what is being debated in terms of pros and cons.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#2884505 10-Mar-2022 17:25

antonknee:

Perhaps getting at the idea that indexing the brackets effectively lessens government revenue, so they increase another tax (or add a new bracket or make other tax changes) to offset that "lost" revenue - which would no doubt make some worse off?

That's right.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Dell

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2884517 10-Mar-2022 18:10

elpenguino:

antonknee:

Perhaps getting at the idea that indexing the brackets effectively lessens government revenue, so they increase another tax (or add a new bracket or make other tax changes) to offset that "lost" revenue - which would no doubt make some worse off?

That's right.

Agree. Tax creep is an issue. It artificially adds to Govt revenue. It should be adjusted every year in the tax tables but it isnt. Until someone makes it a lifesaver policy.

JPNZ

1717 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842

#2884587 10-Mar-2022 22:23

elpenguino:

If Luxon is as bereft of ideas as he looks, my predictions for future announcements are :

2 - tough on law and order

3 - beneficiary bashing.

These dog whistles ignore the facts that :

a - crime is generally decreasing

b - unemployment is effectively zero ( you'll never get below 3% for various reasons ) and far more social welfare money is spent on superannuation than unemployment benefits.

The government's self congratulations on "unemployment" are nonsense, unless of course you realise that as governments do they changed the definition of unemployed to suit the narrative. Did you know that if you are not working and on the dole/jobseeker benefit and looking for work you are not actually "unemployed"? I couldn't get my head around it either...

"When Labour took office, there were 289,788 on a main benefit, or 9.7 per cent of the working-age population. The bulk of today’s beneficiaries are on Jobseeker Support, which has rocketed from 123,042 four years ago, to 187,989 today. That’s a 53 per cent increase. As a proportion of the working-age population, it has leapt from 4.1 per cent to 6.0 per cent. Currently, 368,172 Kiwis are the recipient of a main benefit, 11.7 per cent of the working-age population, whether it be Jobseeker Support, Sole Parent Support or Supported Living.

Moreover, even if you are working just one hour a week, while drawing Jobseeker Support, you won’t be counted as officially unemployed. It’s an abject nonsense. And it explains why our “official” unemployment rate of 3.4 per cent bears no correlation to the billowing number of New Zealanders parked up on Jobseeker Support and dependent on the state, at 6.0 per cent."

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

gzt

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7829

Lifetime subscriber

#2884634 11-Mar-2022 07:29

JPNZ: Moreover, even if you are working just one hour a week, while drawing Jobseeker Support, you won’t be counted as officially unemployed. It’s an abject nonsense. And it explains why our “official” unemployment rate of 3.4 per cent bears no correlation to the billowing number of New Zealanders parked up on Jobseeker Support and dependent on the state, at 6.0 per cent."

This is an interesting topic and probably belongs in the government thread instead of here. Your post implies this has recently changed to allow the government to claim lower unemployment. I have found no evidence to support that.

JPNZ

1717 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842

#2884639 11-Mar-2022 07:47

gzt:
This is an interesting topic and probably belongs in the government thread instead of here. Your post implies this has recently changed to allow the government to claim lower unemployment. I have found no evidence to support that.

Regardless the numbers don’t lie, there are now 78,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit than there were in 2017. Yet unemployment is lower than 2017?

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

1 | ... | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | ... | 111