1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. NZ.GENERAL

  • Damian O'Connor: 'We probably dont have enough tax in this country'

    From Crash@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 8 20:32:08 2023
    https://tinyurl.com/3btv99ym

    Does this mean Labour are looking to increase tax revenue if
    re-elected? If not, why did he make such a clumsy mistake?


    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Bowes@21:1/5 to Crash on Tue Aug 8 02:25:26 2023
    On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 8:31:48 PM UTC+12, Crash wrote:
    https://tinyurl.com/3btv99ym

    Does this mean Labour are looking to increase tax revenue if
    re-elected? If not, why did he make such a clumsy mistake?


    --
    Crash McBash
    Labour loves tax and fees and anything that'll destroy New Zealanders! What he realy meant was Labour is such a profligate and useless bunch of fiscal cretins that they need every cewnt they can squeeze out of our desiccated bodies ;)

    To think Rich loves to claim National are spend and pray. Labour is the spend and pray on any money we have....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 8 22:26:11 2023
    On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 20:32:08 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
    wrote:

    https://tinyurl.com/3btv99ym

    Does this mean Labour are looking to increase tax revenue if
    re-elected? If not, why did he make such a clumsy mistake?


    He was probably referring to the reality that New Zealand is the 3rd
    most competitive country regarding tax - see: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/2022-international-tax-competitiveness-index/

    NZ is 3rd, Australia is 11th (yes their taxes are higher than ours),
    the USA at 22, UK at 26.

    Labour has of course increased tax take considerably merely through
    excellent handling of the economy that increased company profits and
    kept us with very low unemployment - with increasing wages and profits
    bring in more tax money! Costs have risen however due to external
    factors such as oil costs, and the expense of storms and flooding -
    what would National do for people not allowed to rebuild where their
    houses used to be? There are likely to be further extreme weather
    events next year . . .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Crash@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 9 07:46:55 2023
    On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 22:26:11 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 20:32:08 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
    wrote:

    https://tinyurl.com/3btv99ym

    Does this mean Labour are looking to increase tax revenue if
    re-elected? If not, why did he make such a clumsy mistake?


    He was probably referring to the reality that New Zealand is the 3rd
    most competitive country regarding tax - see: >https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/2022-international-tax-competitiveness-index/

    NZ is 3rd, Australia is 11th (yes their taxes are higher than ours),
    the USA at 22, UK at 26.

    You are wrong - O'Connor made no reference to anything like this. He
    was trying to make out that we don't have enough taxation revenue to
    deal with climate change.

    Labour has of course increased tax take considerably merely through
    excellent handling of the economy that increased company profits and
    kept us with very low unemployment - with increasing wages and profits
    bring in more tax money!

    So why did O'Connor admit this was not enough? He is saying that
    Labour have failed to lift taxation revenue at required levels,
    despite the substantial increases they have presided over and the
    substantial increase in Government debt.

    Costs have risen however due to external
    factors such as oil costs, and the expense of storms and flooding -
    what would National do for people not allowed to rebuild where their
    houses used to be? There are likely to be further extreme weather
    events next year . . .

    Off-topic. This is about taxation revenue being too low. As usual
    you go off-topic or surmise what was not said in your desperation to
    defend this Government.



    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Bowes@21:1/5 to Crash on Tue Aug 8 14:28:52 2023
    On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:46:34 AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:
    On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 22:26:11 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 20:32:08 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >wrote:

    https://tinyurl.com/3btv99ym

    Does this mean Labour are looking to increase tax revenue if
    re-elected? If not, why did he make such a clumsy mistake?


    He was probably referring to the reality that New Zealand is the 3rd
    most competitive country regarding tax - see: >https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/2022-international-tax-competitiveness-index/

    NZ is 3rd, Australia is 11th (yes their taxes are higher than ours),
    the USA at 22, UK at 26.

    You are wrong - O'Connor made no reference to anything like this. He
    was trying to make out that we don't have enough taxation revenue to
    deal with climate change.
    Labour has of course increased tax take considerably merely through >excellent handling of the economy that increased company profits and
    kept us with very low unemployment - with increasing wages and profits >bring in more tax money!
    So why did O'Connor admit this was not enough? He is saying that
    Labour have failed to lift taxation revenue at required levels,
    despite the substantial increases they have presided over and the substantial increase in Government debt.
    Costs have risen however due to external
    factors such as oil costs, and the expense of storms and flooding -
    what would National do for people not allowed to rebuild where their >houses used to be? There are likely to be further extreme weather
    events next year . . .
    Off-topic. This is about taxation revenue being too low. As usual
    you go off-topic or surmise what was not said in your desperation to
    defend this Government.



    --
    Crash McBash
    In reality the costs have risen because Labour is incapable of fiscal responsibility!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gordon@21:1/5 to Crash on Tue Aug 8 22:40:45 2023
    On 2023-08-08, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://tinyurl.com/3btv99ym

    Does this mean Labour are looking to increase tax revenue if
    re-elected? If not, why did he make such a clumsy mistake?

    Gettin to NET ZERO is going to require huge amounts of money. At the end of
    the day this has to be paid for by the people. Call it a tax if you like,
    but is the expression go woke, go broke needs to be in ones mind.

    So new taxes are needed to supply the more taxes. The people want net zero
    but not the increase in tax. Can not have both.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Gordon on Tue Aug 8 23:20:23 2023
    Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
    On 2023-08-08, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://tinyurl.com/3btv99ym

    Does this mean Labour are looking to increase tax revenue if
    re-elected? If not, why did he make such a clumsy mistake?

    Gettin to NET ZERO is going to require huge amounts of money. At the end of >the day this has to be paid for by the people. Call it a tax if you like,
    but is the expression go woke, go broke needs to be in ones mind.

    So new taxes are needed to supply the more taxes. The people want net zero >but not the increase in tax. Can not have both.
    We don't need net zero so we don't need to fund it. Net zero is part of the climate emergency scam.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)