Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Indeed Christopher - If the tax take is forecast in three years time to be $5.2billion more than it is today (surprised it's that high) then not taking in $3b of that money (i.e. tax cut) is not necessarily that big a deal. I'm not convinced that central Government needs a lot more money per person than they currently receive to deliver on services.
There's a broader argument about should the Government increase the levels of welfare and state-provided services as general income levels rise vs should they be a net that simply ensures a minimum level of wellbeing for all citizens. Of course as general incomes rise, the concept of "minimum level of wellbeing" tends to rise with it...
-
Nice post Christopher but I just want to point out one thing: a reduction in the tax take can't be "spread" over years, although it can be phased in over a few years. The cost is the difference in annual take under the old regime compared to the new.
As such, I would think a $3-4b package is pretty steep, even if it's phased in to get us there. The reduced tax take would need to see some pretty big cuts in government provided services...
-
That means changes, at the least, to WFF.
It strikes me that National have often made negative noises about WFF - I wouldn't be that surprised if they promised significant tax cuts in place of it to "give everyone a fair go" etc etc...
-
While it's hard to identify the new tax curve that Key had in mind, his comment of $200-$300 a month for the average worker (which I've taken as $40k) means that he is at least going to drop the low tax rate from 19.5% to 12% (based on the midpoint of $250/month giving $3000 more a year, so your tax burden must go from $7,800 to $4,800 which represents a 12% tax rate)
Given that the IRD site I/S linked to suggests that a 1% move in the bottom tax rate costs the Govt $220m, then we are looking at $1.65billion a year just from the change to that rate.
That's just the cost of dropping that bottom rate, National would never let the tax rate differentials expand so everything else would have to come down too - basically $250 a month to someone on the average wage ain't going to happen.
-
It doesn't matter though does it now, National don't have to say or do anything, best thing they could do is keep they're heads down and watch Labour self destruct trying to achieve the impossible in October.
You could well be right - but what a truly appalling way to select the leaders of the country. "Damn the actual legislative program they'll put in place or their policy intent - let's just let them cage-fight it over pointless and irrelevant soundbites"
-
the elecotrate may be ripe for the taking by just about anybody. It's similar in the US elections. Obama could just about say anything to some and get the nod
Partly agree, and this is why I'm not sure the Key-Obama meme is the most fatuous of last year - there are similarities in the riding an unpopular administration by making generic points and promises to all without broadly communicated policy backing or experience. Yes Obama has the policy standing but he doesn't rely on it in campaigning.
Of course, the fact that they most likely differ quite substantially on key policy points overrides that (there was this whole "Key is the beneficiary of the shift to Rudd and Obama" discussion that seemed to gloss over the fact that Oz and the US were moving quite quickly away from Mr Key's political flavour) -
Does anyone else on this forum support Samuel? If so, please state if you are a parent.
I'll put my hand up (in the face of your aggressive demanding attitude) to support the comments made regarding complexity, particularly the complexity associated with exactly what good comes from charging these people. I agree that the mother and the father-of-the-baby seem to have been highly, highly questionable in their conduct here and at least the father-of-the-baby has clearly broken the law (I'm not sure what law the mother may have broken).
But an outright, insistent demand that charges are laid, when the police clearly think it may be counter-productive for the people involved is just blind ideology.
It seems some very questionable things went down here, and I would in general course expect charges to be laid but can see that sometimes laying charges may not serve any end. And soothing the moral outrage of people entirely unconnected is not an end the police should put a lot of weight on.Oh, and I'm not going to comment at all on my parental status - you have no right to demand the information, and it doesn't have a bearing on the validity of my argument. You will undoubtedly take that as "proof" that I am not a parent...
-
Gareth
Working for Families has had that effect though.
Partly, but that is because it is about the threshold where you doing no work to receive a benefit vs working for money and losing that benefit.
Effectively it becomes a significant amplifier (do I go from doing "no" work and getting $100/day to working eight hours with the attendant family-raising difficulties and earn $125 a day).
It is a good example of how it works at extremes, but:
1. I still don't think it applies at the levels in overall tax differences that get mooted, and
2. Even if it did, all studies have held that our productivity issue is not about more hours out of the workforce but about greater capital investment so that those hours are spent on more valuable tasks. -
No matter what tax rate you are on, if you do more hours, you get more money, which is yours
Precisely - yet it is continuously held up as the "personal tax cuts inspire greater productivity" argument. Yet finding ONE person that actually think it makes a difference personally is impossible - sure, it holds theoretically at the "80% tax vs 10% tax" level but at the 32% - 28% level I really doubt it has any impact.
It would have to involve this discussion: "Sorry boss, not going to do those extra hours/take that better job because I only get $6,800 a year of that $10,000 increase. If it was $7,200 a year then sure, let's talk. But for now I'll stay where I am"
-
I have seven days left at work, and if I never have to approach another dead child's parents and ask them to postpone –or better yet, display– their grief so the nation can watch, it'll be too soon.
Well I applaud you for it - I had the unfortunate occurence of a family member dying in a "media-attracting" manner (a cousin killed on honeymoon by a shark).
The ghoulish nature of these people appalled us all - the only media person who impressed us in the whole thing was Havoc, who pulled a significant episode of that NZ Tour show he did at the last minute because it contained footage of them swimming with sharks. Someone called him on breakfast the next morning saying "oi, what happened to the big return to Gore episode" and he just said "it had shark footage in it and we didn't want that poor guy's wife accidentally watching the show and getting upset" - as it turns out I had been sitting, blissfully unaware, watching the different episode that was aired the previous evening with aforementioned wife...
Never have met the guy to say "cheers" but he certainly deserved it - both as an individual act and as a stark comparison to his compatriots across a variety of media.