Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Means-testing of super would have to kick in only after Kiwisaver had been made compulsory for long enough that reasonable nesteggs could be assumed. But it's a little absurd IMO that we are creating all these lovely Kiwisaver self-sufficient retirement savings and then continuing to just pay everyone the same universal pension even if they will have accumulated $1m in their Kiwisaver fund. It's unnecessary and economically crippling.
-
I mean the outlay at the end - as per Aus, retain a universal super payment but it's mean tested, primarily against the amount you have in that compulsory super account... One of our problems as it currently stands is that KS does nothing about keeping the Govt's super bill down (as they still have to pay as they always did).
This is (surely, right?!) an inevitability...
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to BenWilson,
Compulsory super contributions is the solution to our super problem. It won't harm anyone on super, but it can reign in the cost of national super really, really fast.
Has to come with means-testing as well of course...
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Sean Maitland,
you conveniently forget that Labour have stated that the $5000 tax free applies to all beneficiaries as well.
WTF? That number is in Labour's $1.3b cost - Joyce has invented this huge influx of people from somewhere to suddenly have the cost almost doubling in 10 years. You can argue that Keith should have said workers and beneficiaries but it doesn't change the underlying point. Good of you to then ignore every single other point made though.
-
Hang on, I went on that Monteith's brewery tour and they themselves explained the whole historical radler cyclist story. Themselves. On their premises. About that beer.
-
Half of me is thinking "damn, National's partisan kneejerkery means they have to attack this excellent idea, and odds on it's them back in charge of Government this time around".
However the other half is thinking "at least now we have one of the major parties supporting it and so long as it becomes a cornerstone policy for them we'll see it at some point in the next couple of electoral cycles". This half is currently winning as I think that's a big deal - sometime in the next 6 (?) years a CGT will likely be part of our taxation mix and is then unlikely to be removed (as they all know it's a good idea, just nobody wants to be the first to do it). -
OnPoint: Why Rightwingers Should Support…, in reply to Keith Ng,
Doh! Humbly amended.
Sorry!
Although correction is actually more powerful and someone would probably have suggested the entire argument was invalid due to that one line... -
If a CGT was truly universal, across the board, applying to all gains in capital, and was balanced with reductions in all other taxes, I think there'd be much less "right-wing" resistance, just the usual complaints by "interest groups".
Hence why I think a good way of launching this would be to describe an all-encompassing, CGT to broaden the base and remove distortion. And THEN describe the "positive influencing" exceptions you've made to it :)
-
Excellent post, all great points but the Tax Working Group did not, in the end, support it (falling back on that useless "it's a bit hard excuse"):
Most members of the TWG have significant concerns over the practical challenges arising from a comprehensive CGT and the potential distortions and other efficiency implications that may arise from a partial CGT.
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr/pdf/tax-report-website.pdf
-
Speaker: John and Phil meet Bob, in reply to recordari,
Umm, yes I saw the news report. I was wondering if they have any political connections or lobbying power.
Outside of who they are? They are not funded by nor aligned with any political party (they state that fact quite clearly) and it looks like they're just putting an organisation around their ideas to lobby Govt as well as business and be a hub for discussion - another KEA, NZ Institute etc type deal by the looks of it.