Similar Posts

6 Comments

  1. Well stated there Bryan 100% correct. I couldn’t say it any better than that. “Trickle down” was a evil lie and just another Neo-Liberal nasty ‘trick’

  2. I think TOP’s proposed equity tax would face the same problem that Capital Gains taxes face, i.e. it would not be popular with owners of family homes; the same thing may apply also to alternatives such as land taxes. However, Socred’s idea of replacing GST with a transactions tax sounds like a good idea.

    TOP is also proposing a switch to a flat income tax of 33 cents in the dollar. With a UBI of $13,000 per year everybody would gain from this since that amount would always exceed the loss from the change in the taxation method; though special arrangements would need to be made for beneficiaries and superannuitants. The only problem would be knowing how to pay for it.

    1. No-one is suggesting CGT should be on family homes. Just on speculative investment rentals which are purely for capital gain.

  3. And for the most part income is aligned with status. How many in the top echelon of incomes pay for lunch, have company vehicles or general perks? Because as you rightly mention they don’t spend the tax relief, because they don’t have too.
    The reality is ” tax break” is the worst pork barrel of them all. A bribe to appeal to a person’s senses. Remember Nationals tax cuts in 2008 were eroded immediately by Key’s rise in GST.
    National nor ACT are a friend of the vast majority, they are the friend of about 1%

  4. Interesting post Bryan. At the risk of getting lynched on this blog site, National’s policy is not totally daft. The idea of freeing up money so that people spend more and help get the economy moving has merit. The problem with any tax cuts under the present system, as you rightly point out, is that the people who need the money least get more and they will likely save or invest that money rather than return it to the economy.

    Even though, as you state, those earning between $20K and $40K a year would only receive roughly an extra $8.0 a week that is more than what Labour is promising. So how do you change this?

    The present tax rates are:
    Income up to $14,000 10.50%
    Income over $14,000 and up to $48,000 17.50%
    Income over $48,000 and up to $70,000 30%
    Income over $70,000 33%

    So consider this scenario:
    Income up to $14,000 0%
    Income over $14,000 and up to $30,000 10%
    Income over $30,000 and up to $48,000 17.50%
    Income over $48,000 and up to $70,000 30%
    Income over $70,000 and up to $120,000 33%
    Income over $120,000 and up to $180,000 35%
    Income over $180,000 39%

    By my calculations that would mean someone earning $40,000 would end up with approximately $43 per week extra in their hand which would almost certainly all be spent and help stimulate the economy. But here’s the kicker:
    Those earning more than $120,000 would continue to have their income up to $48,000 taxed at the present levels. So that would remove the tax cuts for higher incomes that a blunt instrument approach of across the board tax cuts always results in. Those on lower incomes would get more and that money would be recycled into the economy. Those on higher incomes would pay a bit more that should offset the lower income cuts. It may result in more tax overall but I haven’t done the sums.

    Would that be too hard to administer? Why do we keep tinkering and doing the same thing when it obviously doesn’t work or delivers the results that we are trying to avoid? Just a thought.

Comments are closed.