What the Christ are National going on about now?
A fund that rich people pay into to fund welfare?
We already have s system for that, it’s called taxation!
National are suggesting this to inoculate themselves from their tax cut of the top tax rate that will see average workers getting $800 while Chris Luxon will get $18000!
This is bullshit!
Collect tax with a proper tax system, don’t open trusts that the rich can donate into! What is this, a plutocracy?
This is the Gothem City Charitable Trust is it?
National are out sourcing the obligations of the State to the generosity of the rich?
Fuck off.
Why are National trying right wing experiments at a time when we face geopolitical shock waves?
Didn’t Lizz Truss show everyone this kind of thing doesn’t work?
National want to implement more ‘social investment’ bullshit which is what spawned Oranga Tamariki. Why adopt more Frankenstein neoliberal experiments in welfare?
National want more neoliberal policy in welfare, it won’t work.
Nicola Willis is a Welfare Hawk and she will rip strips off beneficiaries while Luxon will offer his thoughts and prayers.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
She has actually said a few things lately that don’t ring true. In parliament the other day she was berating the Finance Minister for people borrowing loads at dirt cheap rates in the middle of a global pandemic. It seems personal responsibility is only applied to poor people who clearly got themselves into that situation all on their (according to National). Borrow loads in a such an uncertain environment and it’s not your fault at all?
Agree totally. To subject welfare to the whims of “the rich” is wrong.
Agree totally. To subject welfare to the whims of “the rich” is wrong.
Newshub is biased and the Panel will Hammer this Government. Don’t ask hard Questions and these hacks are ignorant.
I find Simon and Rebecca much more inclined to ask the ‘hard’ questions than many journo’s.
I always wonder about National outsourcing welfare programmes to the private sector.
In the U.S JPMorgan runs the food stamp programme,that has 40 million beneficiaries….nice earner.
News hub the online version is so far right, Luxon is the CEO, the left bloc have no chance for balanced journalism.
Keep crying Martyn. The left have had their chance to make the lives of our most vulnerable better, but like everything else have utterly failed.
Suck it up, change is coming whether you like it or not.
Change may well be coming but it doesn’t change the fact that your type don’t care for the vulnerable whether you like it or not. Failure left Winston going with Labour in 2017 because of the rights abject failures,whether you like it or not.
What and your type does?
This government has overseen the greatest transfer of wealth in a generation. Exploded the social housing waiting list and increased inequality like never before. Oh but you’re the party of kindness right?
You keep bitching about what National might do, whilst the party you support is recognized by commentators and people like Winston Peters, as the worst in our history.
Anyone still supporting Ardern is a delusional moron.
Anyone who think National and ACT will do better is certifiably stupid.
Yes that would be MickeyBoyle certifiably insane. His broken record rhetoric should have Labours polling in the teens. Obviously they are not ” the worst govt in history” but I guess if moron MickeyBoyle says it often enough? His constant whining must be an embarrassment to all those in his life, he and his dog.
Anyone who still cites Winston as an authority is not .so bright
Can’t you see the reason. Donations are tax deductible. Luxon can donate a couple of grand from his $18000 and get 33% of it back. So he looks good, feels happy and has screwed the bottom feeders again.
A problem the National Party has, as I see it, is their Christian roots.
Charity is part of Christian teaching and I think well meaning charitable intentions have got us into the mess we’re in.
You want brown people to succeed? Then let them stand on their own two feet and battle like the rest of us.
In the long term all charity (= welfare) has achieved is to infantilise them. Otherwise known as ‘paternal racism’
Wow Andrew that is a f’ing massive assumption. What makes you think it’s only “brown people” who are struggling? Are you also suggesting it’s only “brown people” who are getting government help….unlike “the rest of us”?
You must have missed the saying that “there is nothing more unequal than equal treatment of unequal people”
Starting from birth a large section of the country is at a significant disadvantage and relying on people’s honesty to support the poor has never worked which is why we need a working tax system, yes they need to do a lot better than currently and some people just make poor choices but expecting everyone to survive without state support is only going to create conditions for a repeat of the French revolution.
Already 40% of the lower end of income earners effectively pay negative tax. Just how much more progressive do you want it to get?
The tories and right wingers better watch out or Jesus will come down and “flip their tables” of their market place riches.
Willis talks up a big game, but really… so much airy fairy bullshit….she’s going to the election with a policy of lowering taxes and asking rich people to contribute to a fund, but will not give any detail on how it will work, or a cost benefit analysis on the likely outcomes until….wait for it…until the books are opened….
That’s a huge ‘out’ she’s given herself…no mention of what the books would need to look like for said policies to be enacted upon…no detail on anything.. and this is their main election policy plank. WTF!!!
It will be interesting to see if we have a single journalist in the country who will put the acid on her and Luxona and demand fully costed details. i mean they should drill the living daylights out of them.
It’s got to be either put up ,or shut up!!
It is a year out from the election .The full story will come out closer to that time so it can be tailored to the situation then. It is apparent that the policies being followed at the moment is getting us nowhere.
Well Trevor the policies of the last National Govt got us into the massive infrastructure deficit we are now tackling; and evidence so far is they would continue from where Key/English left off. Objections to current policies seem to be from those wanting that to happen.
If they can’t fully articulate exactly how it will be implemented and lay out a costed spreadsheet right now, so the public can get a vision of how the train-wreck of an idea will stack up, then it’s not a policy…
That’s commonly known as a pipedream or a deception.
They are talking it up like it will be equal to the 2nd coming of Christ…
However, they will need all the divine intervention that God can provide for that naive proposition, so i guess Luxona is your man when it comes to that.
Get the happy clappys to save National…. now there’s a policy worthy of thought… Could be applied across all portfolios.
The problem is that NZ has fallen hook, line and sinker for not making sure that the first and best line of support should be the state and charities are funded by donations that the public gives them not taxpayer money.
For example in the tragic case of Malachi Subecz’s abuse and murder by his caregiver while his mother was in jail, it would be pretty normal to assume that OT automatically checks on on these children of jailed children (especially if there are complaints and not family) and as suggested by the
“A solution put forward by Children’s Commissioner Judge Frances Eivers is when a parent is likely to go to prison there should be “an automatic referral to Oranga Tamariki”.”
But now charities like Pillars are denigrating the role that the state plays and instead expecting more money and resources for charities that are not transparent and not part of the state ….. so far that approach of the state getting less funds while business/charities get more public money that has become normalised in the last 30 years, doesn’t seem to be working out very well for NZ kids. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2022/10/advocates-despair-at-lack-of-support-for-kids-with-imprisoned-parents-in-wake-of-malachi-subecz-s-death.html
Fund the state and make the state more transparent, and stop wasting taxpayers money on charities fighting each other for funding, that doesn’t seem to be working that well for kids.
I do not think family income of $180k makes someone ultra rich. Today a couple, who are teachers, nurses, IT grads could easily earn $180k together after 4-5years with overtime & penal rates.
However, it seems we have a big problem when a single person earns $180k, who may have a non earning partner.
In the previous case they pay $44k in total tax and in the later scenario they pay $8k more on the same income and given the label “rich prick”.
Any tax cut at the higher levels would benefit the later more, and that is fair.
NZ should allow income splitting, which is allowed in Australia, to be fair to families where earnings are unbalanced. Else, we should get rid of the 39% tax at $180k.
I agree, everything in NZ is designed to try and split families up as you tend to be financially better off at certain income brackets to pretend that one is a single parent and the other works. Seriously know of two families doing this so that they can get the benefit – it would be easier if tax rules supported two parent families – the gang violence and mental health issues could be easier solved if there were better supports for nuclear families.
Agree, we are in that boat on one income. We dont mind paying the extra tax as we know that we can afford it more than others although keeping it would be nice. But we do mind that we have various neighbours who both work, most 1 part time and 1 full time and that they are better off than us to the tune of up to $500+ net? per month.
But I guess its a bit like this ‘tyranny of the majority’ stuff, in every system there are winners and losers. I would still vote for the higher rate tax to remain and would vote for increased GST on luxury items as well.
Well spare a thought for the single parent families raising kids and juggling responsibilies and paying exorbitant rents, power and food bills Fantail, almost always deserted by a useless feck of a father, while you’re comparing your comfortable life with the Joneses over the fence. Many people have real existential problems despite their best efforts right now.
Hence why I have voted Labour my entire life whilst always being a well above average earner and marrying one too.
So what, we vote Labour/Greens as that seems to have had what sort of impact again? The thing I see is, no one actually gives a genuine sh*t about those struggling no matter your political leanings. Most voting Labour/Green would sh*t the bed if a struggling brother or sister knocked at their door
Wah, wah, wah,
Everyday we have a MSM article crying about NZ’s hard done by business people, trying to lower wages that are already lower than Singapore and Sydney, (not mentioning what is going up much faster, which is business rents (residential rents are lower than most other countries), interest rates, cost of food and petrol)….
Too many people have got residency in NZ off the basis of a fake or poorly performing job or loss making sunset takeout/tourism/forestry business (essentially foreign land banking) and now everyone has to support their business. We attract failures and exploiters (billionaires to liquor kings to drug smugglers) into NZ and then everyone else has to support them going forward.
When you lower wages but increase prices, you get London, which is a basket case – due to similar policies to NZ in terms of attracting masses amounts of low skilled people thinking it would help the economy, but instead lowered wages while increasing prices, then reacting and politicising the situation, and pushing out the professional and smarter people making them pay the taxes needed and having loopholes for those with foreign trusts attracting more to come. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1500603/tony-blair-stamp-duty-pandora-papers-evg
If we want to work out where NZ is dysfunctional to other countries it seems that high interest rates and high food and low wages are the big problem. Residential rents which the woke and right wingers has been saying is the issue, is the opposite – as usual NZ barks up the wrong tree for decades making things worse.
Rent Prices in Auckland are 24.80% LOWER than in Sydney.
Monthly salaries after tax are 27% lower in Auckland than Sydney.
Bank interest rates in Auckland are 37% higher than Sydney.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=New+Zealand&country2=Australia&city1=Auckland&city2=Sydney&tracking=getDispatchComparison
Rent Prices in Auckland are 38% LOWER than in London.
Monthly salaries after tax are 2% higher in Auckland than London.
Bank interest rates in Auckland are 61% higher than London.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=New+Zealand&city1=London&city2=Auckland&tracking=getDispatchComparison
Rent Prices in Auckland are 47.38% lower than in Singapore
Monthly salaries after tax are 25% lower in Auckland than Singapore.
Bank interest rates in Auckland are 107% higher than Singapore.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Singapore&city1=Singapore&country2=New+Zealand&city2=Auckland&displayCurrency=NZD
SNZ, I dont know about Singapore but I have worked in both Sydney and London but take home pay especially in London, is only part of the package. I used to get petrol disounts, fully expensed car when I didnt need it for my work, full health insurance, a good, tax empt contributary pension and life insurance. Got occasional free shares as well as share options Its a while ago but I think that when you work for a corporate the other benefits can make up about 1/3rd of your package
Australia is less generous than London but they have a great payment in kind scheme where you can move your benefits into your pay (like get your employer to pay your rent or a car) and then from what I gather, pay less tax on your take home.
So the comparisons aren’t apples with apples. Also the transport costs and spend may well vary a fair bit too in each of those places.
Its purely guess work based on nothing except having lived and worked in a handful of other countries but I do get the impression that the average man in the street seems to live a lot poorer here in NZ overall to other places I have lived.
When taxes are raised —– by Labour, who else —- the top earners pay far higher taxes than the average worker. So when taxes are reduced —- by Nats, of course, those same people gain the most, both in absolute terms. And, of course Labour hasn’t raised tax brackets in 5 years they have been in government. Tax take has incfreased for all because of tax creep.
If the idea is to tax the high earners even harder, then one needs a higher tax rate for the high earners only.
Good point Frank Sharp. Robertson is losing the tax bracket adjustment argument as the non adjustment of brackets is hitting the the lower earners really hard and we are seeing very little for the extra 40% in tax collected by Labour since they came to power. I can see Robertson agreeing to lift all but the highest tax bracket before next election. It is the right thing to do and it may preserve some votes that would otherwise switch to National.
We have that already Frank. Labour brought in 39% for income over $180K for YE 31.3.2022. Keep up. The tax brackets do need adjusting, but only the lower three tiers of 10.5% $14,000; 17.5% $48,000 and 30% $70,000. Currently the over $70K to $180K is 33% so the bands are all far too low now. Labour will no doubt campaign on this because it is widely known the bands are so far out of date. In fact I’d wager all parties will campaign on this in various ways. Last change was 2010 I think. Company rate of 28% is too low and should be aligned with the trust rate of 33%. Too many rich pricks (receiving pensions paid for by the actual working classes) legally siphoning profits off to trusts etc and then through to various individuals at lower tax bands. I see it every day. It’s criminal from an ethical and moral view point.
I have noticed over so many years that when in government National does a Copy and Paste of the failed policies of overseas governments. For example in the 80s Ronald Reagan coined and advocated the Trickle Down Effect.
This Trickle Down Effect Theory was of the belief(goodness knows where that started)that money started at the Top Income Earners would eventually trickle down to the lower income workers. The theory however was doomed for failure because whatever money that was made at the top income earners remained firmly at the top.
During the Bolger years of the 90s Jim Bolger advocated the Trickle Down Effect here in NZ. He learnt absolutely nothing from the failed policies of Reagan and thought we gullible and naive NZers would believe in such a theory. But like-wise with America for NZ the “Trickle Down Effect” was one that ensured the rich remained rich and the poor became what Luxon now calls Bottom Feeders.
The Nicola Trickle Down Effect highlights to me that her theory of Trickle Down Effect is still alive and well in National. She implies the rich are ‘only too happy’ to ‘donate’ some of their wealth to those on Social Welfare.
To me and though I am no economist or accountant I can hardly see the rich being “only too happy” to part with their wealth unless they can get something out of it for themselves eg major tax cuts or ability to ‘claim back’ the amount donated through a tax refund.
If Luxon donated a portion of his wealth to the poor so as to appear a Plastic Christian would he be able to claim it back in tax and perhaps getting a bigger refund than if he had a tax cut? Meaning instead of him getting $18k per financial year due to a tax cut would he be likely to get say $23k each financial year due to ‘donations’?
It’s abit like asking multi millionaire Luxon or Key to donate to the poor when both have lowly opinions of the poor anyway.
Could there be prerequisites that anyone on a low income would need to go through in order to claim ‘assistance’ to satisfy those that will be holding the purse strings?
I am a low income worker and am grateful for this government with the Cost of Living Payments. But if by some misfortune we had a National government I and many others wouldn’t have that sort of payment. Luxon has indicated that he would make things more bureaucratic and that could well mean we low income NZers having to prove to some Little Hitler(so to speak)our financial situation and that person would have the power to say Yay or Nay.
Comments are closed.