Hard News: Rationalisation is at hand!
207 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
I'm with Lucy that R&D is an obvious exception where I'd like to see far more co-investment so we benefit from shifting rapidly to a high-value economy.
Sure, but the big question is how to deliver it. Why are you assuming that a tax credit is the better way to go?
-
Fair point, Deborah - and I'm not wedded to any particular way of delivering it.
I didn't notice Key saying he had a different plan for encouraging R&D other than a head-in-sand moment where he claimed that business will just magically do that (like they've been doing for so long).
I'd love to see a bidding war break out.
-
Yamis
Does anybody have any idea if they match whatever I put into it (up to say 4% like now) ? or if they will chuck in 2% and leave me to take my pick with how much I put in?
It's worse than you think. National plans to cut employer contributions to 2 per cent and abolish the employer tax credit and it will also cut the government contribution (member tax credit) to 2 per cent. As well, anyone presently receiving Working for Families tax cuts (or any government assistance) will not qualify for the Nats tax cuts.
-
Dismiss this as "eat the rich" if you want - but its being willfully blind to a serious threat to our way of life, and one of our most powerful long-term political dynamics.
Passing character judgements on real people on the basis of what you think they earn is extremely hazardous, whether you're talking about beneficiaries or highly-paid knowledge-workers.
Ironically, Nielsen says that the readership of this festering cesspool of leftism has a higher earnings profile than that of a certain popular right-wing blog ...
-
Eddie: I'm not dismissing you as a right-winger. I'm not talking about you at all. I'm talking about demographics, not individuals. And without saying anything at all about what any particular individual thinks, we can quite validly say that there are demographic correlations in voting patterns. Looking at income, National draws its support disproportionately from the rich, Labour from the poor. The parties know this, and target their policies accordingly (they also have ideological positions about what society should look like which drive this as well).
You run counter to the demographic trend. Whoopee for you. But its neither important nor relevant to my point.
-
You run counter to the demographic trend. Whoopee for you.
I think Russell hints that many of us here may run counter to the prevailing pattern. That's a whole lotta whoopee..
-
I/S: Fair enough, and I take the point. You do, however, more than occasionally make statements that sound an awful lot like sweeping character judgements on the basis of said demographic trends. If I'm misinterpreting, I do apologise.
-
It's worse than you think. National plans to cut employer contributions to 2 per cent and abolish the employer tax credit and it will also cut the government contribution (member tax credit) to 2 per cent.
And, I get the impression, let your employer count their contribution against your wages in bargaining.
As well, anyone presently receiving Working for Families tax cuts (or any government assistance) will not qualify for the Nats tax cuts.
I think that only applies to their $10 (rising to $15) 'Independent Earner Rebate'
-
Meanwhile in unrelated news, roaming fuckwits proudly deface hoardings.
We have debated whether a before and after photo of a hoarding would constitute enough proof for convictions. We reckon it may, so will limit ourselves to just taking photos of ones already altered.
-
As well, anyone presently receiving Working for Families tax cuts (or any government assistance) will not qualify for the Nats tax cuts.
Are you 100% sure on that?
My reading suggests the Nat tax package is made up of two elements....
1) changes to rates and thresholds
2) the "independant earner" rebate.I'm fairly sure It's only that second part that thats not available to WFF? Or have I fallen for the spin?
-
Meanwhile, British police authories and councils have a billion quid sunk in Iceland's failed banks.
The Icelandic government is refusing to guarantee British deposits and in response Gordon Brown is threatening to use anti-terrorism legislation to freeze Icelandic assets in Britain. It does make things here seem quite sedate.
-
And when a party proposes policies with the primary aim of enriching its supporters at the expense of the majority of New Zealanders or of future generations, that's not something we should politiely look the other way on.
See, I doubt 'primary aim' there. That might be a side effect (in the opinion of some people) of what the National Party plans to do, but it's not their primary aim.
Most of them believe that lower taxes are good for the economy and society as a whole, both now and in the future. They're not all trying to make themselves rich and recover handouts from the poor. Largely they believe the rhetoric that comes out of their mouths. It's a much better debate for society is the other side recognises that.
-
Passing character judgements on real people on the basis of what you think they earn is extremely hazardous, whether you're talking about beneficiaries or highly-paid knowledge-workers.
Indeed it is. But that's not what I'm doing. Meanwhile your (and others) preciousness is obscuring rather than aiding the discussion.
BTW, for the curious, based on the current PM's salary of $375,000, John Key's tax cut would be $7,660. Under Labour's scheme, he would get only $1,410.
-
The Icelandic government is refusing to guarantee British deposits and in response Gordon Brown is threatening to use anti-**terrorism** legislation to freeze Icelandic assets in Britain. It does make things here seem quite sedate.
I don't think that word means what they think it means.
-
Well JK has an independent income - probably far above any salary he gets from parliament - I suspect his income is far above that of the PM
It's actually a great question for ALL the leaders in a debate - "how much more will you personally be earning if you become the governmen under your tax scheme?" - not only does it tell us if they understand their tax plan, we also get some idea if the candidate can do simple math on their feet (and besides you just know they already worked it out anyway - to say otherwise would give us some idea of their truthiness)
-
And when a party proposes policies with the primary aim of enriching its supporters at the expense of the majority of New Zealanders or of future generations, that's not something we should politely look the other way on.
And if sufficient people were adversely affected then that party would not have a hope of getting another go at the steering wheel. Great thing about democracy. If you tramp on the majority, then they can get rid of you. Maybe not straight away, though.
The trick to doing this is to hoodwink the masses into THINKING that they are being looked after.
-
don't think that word means what they think it means.
Use anti-terrorism powers for an unintended purpose? Inconceivable!
-
Kyle: Charles E Wilson may very well have believed that what was good for General Motors was good for the country (or, to be strictly accurate, "What’s good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa"). That doesn't make it any more excusable.
-
Meanwhile your (and others) preciousness is obscuring rather than aiding the discussion.
As is your overly emotive, negatively-loaded comments like "John Key's rich mates"...
NZInstitute and the NZX have just put out this interesting document. I see a few flaws in a number of the proposals (and particularly on how/when you ween the economy from the measures), but it's focus on making any response to the global financial (and increasingly economic) "crisis" set us up for future growth is an interesting one:
http://www.nzinstitute.org/Images/uploads/Swan_Dive_or_Belly_Flop_-_A_Strategy_Draft_for_the_Economic_Crisis.pdf -
BTW, for the curious, based on the current PM's salary of $375,000, John Key's tax cut would be $7,660. Under Labour's scheme, he would get only $1,410.
That's a trick question, under Labour's scheme John Key doesn't get to be Prime Minister.
-
Paul: an excellent question indeed. I wonder if any journalists will ask it?
Evan:
The trick to doing this is to hoodwink the masses into THINKING that they are being looked after.
Hence the constant talk about "average" kiwis, which simply ignores the reality of income distribution in this country. Fortunately, people can do maths (or at least use the internet to access a site which will do it for them) and can discover the truth quite readily.
-
That's a trick question, under Labour's scheme John Key doesn't get to be Prime Minister.
Point. And yet because Labour has focused on changing thresholds rather than rates, he'd get exactly the same amount. And the difference between the two schemes is money that helps people further down the income pyramid, who really need it (because, lets be honest, John Key doesn't need a helping hand anymore), as well as money that pays for our retirement savings, and of course money we don't have to borrow.
-
The Treasury web page that I/S linked to is a great resource!
From it I learned that the 22% of wage earners who earn more than the average wage (I rounded to $50k to fit with the chart bands ) actually pay 66% of the total tax take... Cool!
-
Kyle: Charles E Wilson may very well have believed that what was good for General Motors was good for the country (or, to be strictly accurate, "What’s good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa"). That doesn't make it any more excusable.
In our neck of the woods, substitute "GM" for "Telecom", and "Charles E Wilson" for "Rod Deane".
-
In our neck of the woods, substitute "GM" for "Telecom", and "Charles E Wilson" for "Rod Deane".
In the recent TVNZ 7 Internet Debate, the only time that Rodney Hide really stopped clowning and became passionately serious was when I pointed out that since the telecommunications reforms, my neighbourhood had seen historic levels of physical investment, my service had improved greatly and I had a choice of competing voiceline providers.
(Further, Telecom Wholesale can now choose to sell a service that Retail doesn't want in the market. Indeed, under the oversight rules, it has to make an independent commercial decision, rather than protecting another part of the company. The Telecom Wholesale people I've talked to in briefings seemed genuine in their desire to do business widely and in an enterprising fashion.)
I put it to him that he surely wouldn't reverse that, and he went off about the property rights of Telecom and its investors. He really believed that the national interest was something other than it appeared to be.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.