I dont recall saying removing the tax cuts is not an increase. Why did National offer tac cuts to coincide with an election? Are we that rich that is share cash, not needed for anything? Should that have been offered at all?
Yes, Labours differs. You can argue both ways whether that is a good or bad idea. All of their policies differ to National, and vice versa. The implication is that Labour wants to tax tax and tax. What about Nationals number of tax increases? No one wants to discuss that. Tax in the Govts source of income, it doesnt matter who is in power, if they need it, they tax it. All of these National and Labour taxes arent levelled at everyone, Income Tax does that. If you feel that many taxes should be removed, thats a fair comment. You then need to justify when the books are in deficit, and we borrow, and we have an ever increasing interest charge.
I'm not rich. I am struggling to pay rent and save a deposit for a house. Those tax cuts would have been gotten me an extra $1k closer to that goal.
No one is talking about the 'new' taxes National added because they aren't the ones being deliberately vague or deliberately misleading about whether they do or don't have a tax agenda in this election we're in now. What you're doing is the playground equivalent of "he started it".
Furthermore, it's not me who needs to justify the current level of taxation - the party wanting to be elected that is being deliberately coy on tax policy which clearly exists because they know it will likely be rejected by the electorate for the third time in a row is the one that has to justify why they're needed, how they're going to work, etc.
BTW National is paying down crown debt and Labour freely admit they won't repay debt as quickly as the Nats will. I know all you're getting from Labour is slogans but detail tends to be quite important when you're taking money out of peoples' pockets.