OnPoint: Tax cut zombies
65 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Right $60k now....well that just makes it less likely that lower income earners would be registered, because it just seems like a hassle (and it kinda is).
-
Keith, you really must stop indulging in such doubleplusbadthink.
You're making it very difficult for our National Overlords and their MSM toadies to achieve the consensus reality we require in order to make New Zealand internationally competitive.
-
Since you mentioned it, I wanted to listen to it, and others might too, so here it is... Are you payin' attention?
PS NSFW. Sorry, I forgot.
-
That is all.
-
And of course, there's the rise in ACC levies. I'm wondering if the talk about an increase in GST is a cover for something else nasty that we haven't thought of. We'll be so relieved when the Masters tell us OK we've listened to the people and we're not going to increase GST.
-
a cover for something else nasty that we haven't thought of
What, beneficiary bashing, national standards, tertiary student funding cuts and mining national parks aren't enough already?
They'll be increasing GST for sure - it's an easy large chunk of income whose compliance costs mainly fall on businesses and organisations.
And it's small businesses, their owners, employees and suppliers who will suffer from any suppression of consumption in favour of 'saving' and 'investment'. Remember the flow-on effect of Ruth Richardsons's evil budget on provincial New Zealand as benefit changes and so on sucked 10 figures out of the economy in one hit and gutted whole towns? Ask a dairy owner or mechanic if they think raising GST is a good idea for their community.
-
-
And it's small businesses, their owners, employees and suppliers who will suffer from any suppression of consumption in favour of 'saving' and 'investment'.
Ah yes,. I did have to get out the hankie when One News trotted out a flat screen TV and a $60K car as case studies in how an increase in GST from 12.5% to 15% is going to root the Kiwi battlers on struggle street.
I can also understand why retailers would consider "saving" a dirty word, when they're as hooked on binge spending (and bad credit) as the rest of us. Sorry, but I don't know if it's entirely a bad thing overall if debt-driven consumption was 'suppressed' a bit.
Ask a dairy owner or mechanic if they think raising GST is a good idea for their community.
Sacha: There's plenty of people who would argue that GST -- by its very nature -- is a regressive and downright evil way to fuck the poor. After all, holding on to your tired but still serviceable car for another couple of years (or trading down to a cheaper model) is a lifestyle option. Starving to death isn't. Now, if Phil Goff and his deputy want to repent voting for its introduction in 1986, and increasing it three years later, I look forward to the next Labour government repealing GST entirely.
-
I did have to get out the hankie
Me too - and none of the coverage seemed to do the obvious and find an item priced in multiples of $40 that would go up $1. Or better still, work out annualised costs for common expenses like power bills.
voting for its introduction in 1986, and increasing it three years later
That's hardly the point, Craig - we are talking about a decision being planned right now. Not about one that's long out of our influence.
And even Key acknowledged GST is regressive. It's just a temptingly easy wodge of money to play with like the FastForward research fund and Cullen contributions slashed when they first took office. They're all politicians, after all.
-
Craig, are you arguing that because Labour did a bad thing, I can't criticise National for making it worse? Because that would be stupid, yet I can't find any other way to understand what you wrote.
-
Craig, are you arguing that because Labour did a bad thing, I can't criticise National for making it worse?
Dude, that is his only argument. EVER.
-
Dude, that is his only argument. EVER.
And your only response to anything I say is a snide bad-faith drive by. Which reminds me I've not poked Master Bater over at Kiwiblog for a while...
Craig, are you arguing that because Labour did a bad thing, I can't criticise National for making it worse?
I love the smell of torched straw, Stephen, but if I'm going to get in your face rest assured I won't be at all passive-aggressive about it.
That's hardly the point, Craig - we are talking about a decision being planned right now. Not about one that's long out of our influence.
Phil Goff is at least pretending to be the leader of the Opposition right here and now. If he is now going to pretend that increasing GST is unspeakably evil and abusive towards the poor and people on low-incomes, then it strikes me as entirely fair comment to ask when he changed his mind.
He's the one with the track record of voting to increase GST, not Key.
It would also be entirely fair to ask whether it will be Labour policy to reverse any increase in GST (or even lower it further) when next in government. Or will it be a case of vehemently oppose it's introduction but find that it's not so hard to live with, after all -- a la National and WFF
I'd be kind of interested to know, because the Government isn't the only part of the legislature that deserves to have it's pronouncements examined.
-
his only argument
It's a weak card, but Craig does have others and is capable of playing them with style. I like it when he does.
-
Thank you for fleshing that out, Craig. Do you think you could continue to do that in future? Because I'm afraid I really couldn't have inferred all that from your previous comment.
-
GST increase will have only minor temporary effect judging by last time, say tax group head Bob Buckle, historian Paul Goldsmith and Retailers Association honcho John Alberton.
-
GST increase will have only minor temporary effect judging by last time, say tax group head Bob Buckle, historian Paul Goldsmith and Retailers Association honcho John Alberton.
Yeah, but what do those people think they're saying? Of course a rise in GST only causes a 'small blip' in inflation. That's because you don't increase it by 2.5% every year. A "small blip" is a 2.5% increase in the price of goods and services until it is repealed.
And there they talk about supposed big ticket items which have never been anybody's problem with increasing GST. So you can 'save' by buying these before the rise takes effect. So? Unless they expect everybody to live off canned goods for the next few years, how exactly does that deal with the real issues?
Meh. Maybe I'm talking out of my ass. But they sure are too.
-
Keith,
The last para in your short post is very important. It puts these cuts into political persepctive.
I'd love to hear Cullen's private thoughts right now. -
RNZs Panel had Brian Edwards says Bollards study of the 80's GST rise caused the ressession to last years longer due to reduced spending.
-
Perhaps the Dompost editorial staff think they have a really, really expensive cat. Like, one that's 666.67 times more valuable than the Six Million Dollar Man.
-
Yeah, but what do those people think they're saying?
More to the point, if it's only going to have a minor transitory effect then why bother? Tell it to someone who buys food each week forever. Truthiness in the air..
-
buy a t shirt ?
Sorry, but I already have my next politicised cartoon zombie t-shirt purchase sorted: Ben Franklin and the Dead Presidents doing Thriller.
-
Thank you for fleshing that out, Craig. Do you think you could continue to do that in future? Because I'm afraid I really couldn't have inferred all that from your previous comment.
You're welcome -- though I can't bloody win. Either it's "dude, you do bang on" or "well, that was snippy." :)
-
and you can't register [for GST if] you are part of the PAYE tax system
You cannot claim expenses incurred in earning income that has PAYE deducted. Which means you cannot register for and process GST if your income is solely wages/salary. If you're a sole-trader who has a part-time job you can register for GST and claim it back, but only for expenses relating to your sole-trader income.
One of the reasons that NZ's personal income tax system is so straightforward and avoidance (as opposed to structuring to reduce liability) so minimal is that it's very, very simple. Wage and salary earners have no deductions available to them in relation to that income, and it's all supposed to be taxed at source. That's hard to avoid, and doesn't encourage rorts of the sort seen overseas. That's not to say that people don't avoid income tax, or rort the system, but that it's a lot harder to do when the majority of personal income tax is deducted before the money ever hits the employee's bank account and that there's nothing they can claim back in relation to how they earned that income.
-
It's a common mistake to think that, when Key says he is "embushus for Nyu Zillund," he actually means that he is "ambitious for New Zealand." The truth is that those words mean something else entirely. The phrase is perhaps best translated as "Bron and I are taking the kids to Hawaii now. See you in a bit. Byeee!"
-
$0. That's what "revenue neutral" means.
Ahem.
$12 million tax increase. That's what "revenue neutral" really means.
I remember when I used to get outraged about people failing to adjust shit by CPI and drawing inappropriate conclusions from indicies.
Yeah...
($4b x CPI) - ($4b x LCI) = $12 million Tax Increase.
CPI = 2.1%
LCI = 1.8%
Post your response…
This topic is closed.