(This got a bit longer than intended)Your title of half truths may apply to the articles you posted, but downright lies applies to the current excuse for an opposition.
Recently the Labour inclination side of the spectrum have expressed their >annoyance in conversation to me the fact that the Chris Luxon's mates have >been given all the tax cuts. I have got some concessions that it is not
*all* the cuts that are proposed.
So lets start by agreeing/assuming that Luxon's mates have an income of over >$180,000 per year. After all they are very rich.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
On page 8 we have,
"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled >out removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic >pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under >$78,100."
So those earning over $180,000 will pay exactly the same as those earning >$180,000.
The tax cuts are created from the threshold adjustments, which is really >about inflation creep. See top of page 8.
"National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
Costing
The cost of adjusting tax thresholds is based on IRD’s latest taxable income >distribution, adjusted to
reflect recent inflation, and forward-adjusted to reflect forecast wage growth.
"National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
Tax Threshold Adjustments
Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
$48,000 $53,500 30%
$70,000 $78,100 33%"
So as the over $78,100 income get no extra tax cuts, all the tax cuts are for >those under $78,100.
(Note that any income over $78,100 is taxed at the same rate as existing as >the $180,000 bracket is existing).
One could argue that these are tax brackets adjustments, and that the tax >collected is being put back to the relative levels of the past.
It could also be argued that the Government is doing the right thing, being >honset,fair and logical.
All this does not get the need for a wide raging tax review of the hook as >has been suggested.
(This got a bit longer than intended)
Recently the Labour inclination side of the spectrum have expressed their >annoyance in conversation to me the fact that the Chris Luxon's mates have >been given all the tax cuts. I have got some concessions that it is not
*all* the cuts that are proposed.
So lets start by agreeing/assuming that Luxon's mates have an income of over >$180,000 per year. After all they are very rich.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
On page 8 we have,
"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled >out removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and economic >pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as
they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under >$78,100."
So those earning over $180,000 will pay exactly the same as those earning >$180,000.No, any income over $180,000 will still be taxed at 39%, but they will
The tax cuts are created from the threshold adjustments, which is really >about inflation creep. See top of page 8.The dollar amount of tax cut for an income of $78,000 will apply to
"National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
Costing
The cost of adjusting tax thresholds is based on IRD’s latest taxable income distribution, adjusted to
reflect recent inflation, and forward-adjusted to reflect forecast wage growth.
"National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
Tax Threshold Adjustments
Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
$48,000 $53,500 30%
$70,000 $78,100 33%"
So as the over $78,100 income get no extra tax cuts, all the tax cuts are for >those under $78,100.
(Note that any income over $78,100 is taxed at the same rate as existing as >the $180,000 bracket is existing).One could argue a lot of things, but the paragraph under the table on
One could argue that these are tax brackets adjustments, and that the tax >collected is being put back to the relative levels of the past.
It could also be argued that the Government is doing the right thing, being >honset,fair and logical.Perhaps not entirely. Increasing NZ Super by AWE increases, but
All this does not get the need for a wide raging tax review of the hook as >has been suggested.
On 7 Jan 2024 22:05:17 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Yes they did according to the Minister of Finance and she is not the liar that you are so I believe her,
(This got a bit longer than intended)
Recently the Labour inclination side of the spectrum have expressed their >>annoyance in conversation to me the fact that the Chris Luxon's mates have >>been given all the tax cuts. I have got some concessions that it is not >>*all* the cuts that are proposed.
So lets start by agreeing/assuming that Luxon's mates have an income of over >>$180,000 per year. After all they are very rich.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
On page 8 we have,
"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled >>out removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and >>economic
pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as >>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under >>$78,100."
Thanks for that Gordon. I had heard that the change to the top tax
rate was being deferred, but had not seen it in writing - there is no
date of publication for the document the url leads to - and it does
not seem to be a url many would search for.
The opening "assurance of the plan" quotation from Castalia reads like
the one they used months ago in relation to just the also dropped
policy about the foreign buyer tax - which did not get through the
coalition process; they are now using the same words for the whole
suite of tax plans. Castalia may not be too happy about the unclear
scope of their advice.
The statement on page 3 that "profitable polluters receive government >subsidies" is not very clear as to who is being referred to - the
implication is that they may do something about that, which may not be >particularly welcome to some farmers for example.
On Page 4, the statement says "Our tax plan does not require borrowing
and will reduce pressure on inflation.
It has been designed to be self-funding, so that National can
guarantee tax reduction for working people, even if
Labour leaves the government books in a mess as is predicted."
Now they saw the pre-election fiscal update, and then the half-yearly
update before the coalition was formed, and they did not show that
Labour (or Treasury) were "leaving the government books in a mess as
is predicted"
, but I guess that is just a political slogan - arguablyWow - a government that considers many things - what a change from the past 6 years eh?
less than a half-truth . . .
No, any income over $180,000 will still be taxed at 39%, but they will
So those earning over $180,000 will pay exactly the same as those earning >>$180,000.
not receive a tax cut in relation to that portion of income.
The tax cuts are created from the threshold adjustments, which is really >>about inflation creep. See top of page 8.The dollar amount of tax cut for an income of $78,000 will apply to
"National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
Costing
The cost of adjusting tax thresholds is based on IRD’s latest taxable income >>distribution, adjusted to
reflect recent inflation, and forward-adjusted to reflect forecast wage >>growth.
"National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
Tax Threshold Adjustments
Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
$48,000 $53,500 30%
$70,000 $78,100 33%"
So as the over $78,100 income get no extra tax cuts, all the tax cuts are for >>those under $78,100.
all incomes over that figure. - someone on an income of over $78,000
will still get a tax cut - see page 8 above the table of tax
thresholds and rates.
One could argue a lot of things, but the paragraph under the table on
(Note that any income over $78,100 is taxed at the same rate as existing as >>the $180,000 bracket is existing).
One could argue that these are tax brackets adjustments, and that the tax >>collected is being put back to the relative levels of the past.
page 8 indicates that the current government will take a lot of other
things into account
What a nasty priock you are.Perhaps not entirely. Increasing NZ Super by AWE increases, but
It could also be argued that the Government is doing the right thing, being >>honset,fair and logical.
changing benefits to increase by CPI is costed to save money - why the >different rate?
Page 13: "Thousands of private rental properties are provided by
ordinary Kiwis – mums and dads who bought a second
property as an investment to help provide for their family or secure a
more comfortable retirement."
So what is the logic in not taxing them on selling an investment? If
they put money into Kiwisaver they pay tax on realised gains. If a
company buys a property and later sells it they pay tax on capital
gains - what is different about residential rental property? Is it
just because a lot of MPs have seen the tax distortion and don't want
to lose it for themselves?
And to imply this will keep rents low - if this increases the value ofCite? I doubt you have one.
a rental property, why would a purchaser of such a property not want
to get a good return on capital invested? Or a better return? They can
charge what the market will pay - or do National think the market is
not working?
And under that rental property change, they say "The cost of this
commitment is based on Treasury’s forecast revenue change from Budget
2021’s Summary of Initiatives. " There are a lot more rental
properties now than even back in early 2021; and prices have also
changed markedly - again why did they not get an updated costing - and
in any case nowhere in the paper do they give those costings . . .
All this does not get the need for a wide raging tax review of the hook as >>has been suggested.
Indeed that review is clearly needed, but the Government refusing to
release the report on the tax system that was due at 31 December 2023
is worrying - I heard the government may have wanted to change the law
in the last few days of parliament so they do not have to release it
under the Freedom of Information legislation, but I don't know if that >happened.
Thank you Gordon for posting this.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Jan 2024 22:05:17 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Yes they did according to the Minister of Finance and she is not the liar that >you are so I believe her,
(This got a bit longer than intended)
Recently the Labour inclination side of the spectrum have expressed their >>>annoyance in conversation to me the fact that the Chris Luxon's mates have >>>been given all the tax cuts. I have got some concessions that it is not >>>*all* the cuts that are proposed.
So lets start by agreeing/assuming that Luxon's mates have an income of over >>>$180,000 per year. After all they are very rich.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
On page 8 we have,
"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled >>>out removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and >>>economic
pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as >>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under >>>$78,100."
Thanks for that Gordon. I had heard that the change to the top tax
rate was being deferred, but had not seen it in writing - there is no
date of publication for the document the url leads to - and it does
not seem to be a url many would search for.
The opening "assurance of the plan" quotation from Castalia reads like
the one they used months ago in relation to just the also dropped
policy about the foreign buyer tax - which did not get through the >>coalition process; they are now using the same words for the whole
suite of tax plans. Castalia may not be too happy about the unclear
scope of their advice.
The statement on page 3 that "profitable polluters receive government >>subsidies" is not very clear as to who is being referred to - the >>implication is that they may do something about that, which may not be >>particularly welcome to some farmers for example.
On Page 4, the statement says "Our tax plan does not require borrowing
and will reduce pressure on inflation.
It has been designed to be self-funding, so that National can
guarantee tax reduction for working people, even if
Labour leaves the government books in a mess as is predicted."
Now they saw the pre-election fiscal update, and then the half-yearly >>update before the coalition was formed, and they did not show that
Labour (or Treasury) were "leaving the government books in a mess as
is predicted"
No change at all, Tony - changing tax rates is not a simple decision;, but I guess that is just a political slogan - arguablyWow - a government that considers many things - what a change from the past 6 >years eh?
less than a half-truth . . .
No, any income over $180,000 will still be taxed at 39%, but they will
So those earning over $180,000 will pay exactly the same as those earning >>>$180,000.
not receive a tax cut in relation to that portion of income.
The tax cuts are created from the threshold adjustments, which is really >>>about inflation creep. See top of page 8.The dollar amount of tax cut for an income of $78,000 will apply to
"National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
Costing
The cost of adjusting tax thresholds is based on IRD’s latest taxable income >>>distribution, adjusted to
reflect recent inflation, and forward-adjusted to reflect forecast wage >>>growth.
"National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
Tax Threshold Adjustments
Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
$48,000 $53,500 30%
$70,000 $78,100 33%"
So as the over $78,100 income get no extra tax cuts, all the tax cuts are for
those under $78,100.
all incomes over that figure. - someone on an income of over $78,000
will still get a tax cut - see page 8 above the table of tax
thresholds and rates.
One could argue a lot of things, but the paragraph under the table on
(Note that any income over $78,100 is taxed at the same rate as existing as >>>the $180,000 bracket is existing).
One could argue that these are tax brackets adjustments, and that the tax >>>collected is being put back to the relative levels of the past.
page 8 indicates that the current government will take a lot of other >>things into account
they did catch a lot more of the ''quick turnover for profit" sales.What a nasty priock you are.
Perhaps not entirely. Increasing NZ Super by AWE increases, but
It could also be argued that the Government is doing the right thing, being >>>honset,fair and logical.
changing benefits to increase by CPI is costed to save money - why the >>different rate?
Page 13: "Thousands of private rental properties are provided by
ordinary Kiwis – mums and dads who bought a second
property as an investment to help provide for their family or secure a
more comfortable retirement."
So what is the logic in not taxing them on selling an investment? If
they put money into Kiwisaver they pay tax on realised gains. If a
company buys a property and later sells it they pay tax on capital
gains - what is different about residential rental property? Is it
just because a lot of MPs have seen the tax distortion and don't want
to lose it for themselves?
Labour didn't tax the same investments either - maybe National worked out why? Labour moved the "bright line" test from 10 years to 2 years - so yes
Cite? I doubt you have one.
And to imply this will keep rents low - if this increases the value of
a rental property, why would a purchaser of such a property not want
to get a good return on capital invested? Or a better return? They can >>charge what the market will pay - or do National think the market is
not working?
And under that rental property change, they say "The cost of this >>commitment is based on Treasury’s forecast revenue change from Budget >>2021’s Summary of Initiatives. " There are a lot more rental
properties now than even back in early 2021; and prices have also
changed markedly - again why did they not get an updated costing - and
in any case nowhere in the paper do they give those costings . . .
All this does not get the need for a wide raging tax review of the hook as >>>has been suggested.
Indeed that review is clearly needed, but the Government refusing to >>release the report on the tax system that was due at 31 December 2023
is worrying - I heard the government may have wanted to change the law
in the last few days of parliament so they do not have to release it
under the Freedom of Information legislation, but I don't know if that >>happened.
Thank you Gordon for posting this.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your suggestion is laughable, Tony - clearly you know nothing of the
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 03:30:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am sure you find it funny, but many wiser than you find such bevaviour >typical of incompetent and frightened governments like the last one.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Jan 2024 22:05:17 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Yes they did according to the Minister of Finance and she is not the liar >>>that
(This got a bit longer than intended)
Recently the Labour inclination side of the spectrum have expressed their >>>>>annoyance in conversation to me the fact that the Chris Luxon's mates have >>>>>been given all the tax cuts. I have got some concessions that it is not >>>>>*all* the cuts that are proposed.
So lets start by agreeing/assuming that Luxon's mates have an income of over
$180,000 per year. After all they are very rich.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
On page 8 we have,
"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled
out removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and >>>>>economic
pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as >>>>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under >>>>>$78,100."
Thanks for that Gordon. I had heard that the change to the top tax
rate was being deferred, but had not seen it in writing - there is no >>>>date of publication for the document the url leads to - and it does
not seem to be a url many would search for.
The opening "assurance of the plan" quotation from Castalia reads like >>>>the one they used months ago in relation to just the also dropped >>>>policy about the foreign buyer tax - which did not get through the >>>>coalition process; they are now using the same words for the whole >>>>suite of tax plans. Castalia may not be too happy about the unclear >>>>scope of their advice.
The statement on page 3 that "profitable polluters receive government >>>>subsidies" is not very clear as to who is being referred to - the >>>>implication is that they may do something about that, which may not be >>>>particularly welcome to some farmers for example.
On Page 4, the statement says "Our tax plan does not require borrowing >>>>and will reduce pressure on inflation.
It has been designed to be self-funding, so that National can
guarantee tax reduction for working people, even if
Labour leaves the government books in a mess as is predicted."
Now they saw the pre-election fiscal update, and then the half-yearly >>>>update before the coalition was formed, and they did not show that >>>>Labour (or Treasury) were "leaving the government books in a mess as
is predicted"
you are so I believe her,
The ''books'' that you refer to showed that the financial position had
not changed much between budget 2023 and the Pre-election financial
update; the half-yearly update noted a small deterioration but nothing >>significant. The suggestion that Labour had instructed Treasury to lie
in their financial accounts is laughable.
I appreciate that to you very little is clear, Tony; while I havePolitical spin - no such thing is clear at all.
It is clear that Willis has changed her tune since the election
results - before everything the government had done or was doing was
wrong, and National would fix it all with tax cuts. That was >>electioneering; feeding the interests of major donors getting the vote
in. Once that was over, and the coalition agreement settled, she was
able to get briefings from Treasury, which would have made it clear
that in fact New Zealand has done well not to have gone into recession
as so many other countries had, but that we have some structural
problems with inequality, quite a bit of essential spending on >>infrastructure that cannot be avoided, a good capital position but not >>sufficient to meet National's promises. The reversal of smoking >>restrictions was purely about needing the excise tax - the long term
cost is double the extra income, but they had to put money before
lives again just to do the little they are doing on tax rates. So why
the u-turn? Because they cannot hide from the truth any more - you can
pick whether she was lying about being able to cut the top tax rate
before or lying now when she says they can't afford it.
Whatever that means . . .A total reversal of joral compass. So the change is obvious tgo all but fools >like you.
No change at all, Tony - changing tax rates is not a simple decision;, but I guess that is just a political slogan - arguablyWow - a government that considers many things - what a change from the past 6
less than a half-truth . . .
No, any income over $180,000 will still be taxed at 39%, but they will >>>>not receive a tax cut in relation to that portion of income.
So those earning over $180,000 will pay exactly the same as those earning >>>>>$180,000.
The tax cuts are created from the threshold adjustments, which is really >>>>>about inflation creep. See top of page 8.The dollar amount of tax cut for an income of $78,000 will apply to
"National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
Costing
The cost of adjusting tax thresholds is based on IRD’s latest taxable >>>>>income
distribution, adjusted to
reflect recent inflation, and forward-adjusted to reflect forecast wage >>>>>growth.
"National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
Tax Threshold Adjustments
Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
$48,000 $53,500 30%
$70,000 $78,100 33%"
So as the over $78,100 income get no extra tax cuts, all the tax cuts are >>>>>for
those under $78,100.
all incomes over that figure. - someone on an income of over $78,000 >>>>will still get a tax cut - see page 8 above the table of tax
thresholds and rates.
One could argue a lot of things, but the paragraph under the table on >>>>page 8 indicates that the current government will take a lot of other >>>>things into account
(Note that any income over $78,100 is taxed at the same rate as existing as
the $180,000 bracket is existing).
One could argue that these are tax brackets adjustments, and that the tax >>>>>collected is being put back to the relative levels of the past.
years eh?
it affects a lot of other things - including a lot of work for those >>running payroll systems; for departments involved in social welfare
and other payments and for IRD. Indexation of income tax thresholds
does not necessarily meet the desired direction of any government; it
is a simplistic answer to a very complex problem; indexation may well
make some problems worse; for much the same reasons that employers do
not want automatic indexation of workers pay. So no change from the
last 50 years, Tony; but perhaps that all went over your head as usual
From page 5 at the link above:. . .Cite
Labour moved the "bright line" test from 10 years to 2 years - so yesWhat a nasty priock you are.
Perhaps not entirely. Increasing NZ Super by AWE increases, but >>>>changing benefits to increase by CPI is costed to save money - why the >>>>different rate?
It could also be argued that the Government is doing the right thing, being
honset,fair and logical.
Page 13: "Thousands of private rental properties are provided by >>>>ordinary Kiwis – mums and dads who bought a second
property as an investment to help provide for their family or secure a >>>>more comfortable retirement."
So what is the logic in not taxing them on selling an investment? If >>>>they put money into Kiwisaver they pay tax on realised gains. If a >>>>company buys a property and later sells it they pay tax on capital >>>>gains - what is different about residential rental property? Is it >>>>just because a lot of MPs have seen the tax distortion and don't want >>>>to lose it for themselves?
Labour didn't tax the same investments either - maybe National worked out why?
they did catch a lot more of the ''quick turnover for profit" sales. >>National are putting that tax advantage for residential property back
again . . .
My apologies, it is Jessica Mutch McKay; I put an extra letter in herNonsense.
The current government will lose income from this change; and that
will fuel the attraction of residential property investments - at the >>continued expense to other forms of investment. Ever wondered why New >>Zealand companies cannot get share capital from New Zealanders? It is >>because property investment has such a significant tax advantage; and
that is part of the reason we send billions of dollars out of New
Zealand each year from our major banks. But that is National for you - >>looking after the wealthy, not ordinary New Zealanders and New Zealand >>companies . . .
Who? No such person so far as I know.
We should congratulate Jessica Mutch Mackay for her new job -
undoubtedly a reward for a job well done . . .
Cite? I doubt you have one.
And to imply this will keep rents low - if this increases the value of >>>>a rental property, why would a purchaser of such a property not want
to get a good return on capital invested? Or a better return? They can >>>>charge what the market will pay - or do National think the market is >>>>not working?
And under that rental property change, they say "The cost of this >>>>commitment is based on Treasury’s forecast revenue change from Budget >>>>2021’s Summary of Initiatives. " There are a lot more rental >>>>properties now than even back in early 2021; and prices have also >>>>changed markedly - again why did they not get an updated costing - and >>>>in any case nowhere in the paper do they give those costings . . .
All this does not get the need for a wide raging tax review of the hook as >>>>>has been suggested.
Indeed that review is clearly needed, but the Government refusing to >>>>release the report on the tax system that was due at 31 December 2023 >>>>is worrying - I heard the government may have wanted to change the law >>>>in the last few days of parliament so they do not have to release it >>>>under the Freedom of Information legislation, but I don't know if that >>>>happened.
Thank you Gordon for posting this.
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 03:30:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am sure you find it funny, but many wiser than you find such bevaviour typical of incompetent and frightened governments like the last one.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Jan 2024 22:05:17 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Yes they did according to the Minister of Finance and she is not the liar >>that
(This got a bit longer than intended)
Recently the Labour inclination side of the spectrum have expressed their >>>>annoyance in conversation to me the fact that the Chris Luxon's mates have >>>>been given all the tax cuts. I have got some concessions that it is not >>>>*all* the cuts that are proposed.
So lets start by agreeing/assuming that Luxon's mates have an income of over
$180,000 per year. After all they are very rich.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
On page 8 we have,
"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has ruled >>>>out removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and >>>>economic
pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as >>>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under >>>>$78,100."
Thanks for that Gordon. I had heard that the change to the top tax
rate was being deferred, but had not seen it in writing - there is no >>>date of publication for the document the url leads to - and it does
not seem to be a url many would search for.
The opening "assurance of the plan" quotation from Castalia reads like >>>the one they used months ago in relation to just the also dropped
policy about the foreign buyer tax - which did not get through the >>>coalition process; they are now using the same words for the whole
suite of tax plans. Castalia may not be too happy about the unclear
scope of their advice.
The statement on page 3 that "profitable polluters receive government >>>subsidies" is not very clear as to who is being referred to - the >>>implication is that they may do something about that, which may not be >>>particularly welcome to some farmers for example.
On Page 4, the statement says "Our tax plan does not require borrowing >>>and will reduce pressure on inflation.
It has been designed to be self-funding, so that National can
guarantee tax reduction for working people, even if
Labour leaves the government books in a mess as is predicted."
Now they saw the pre-election fiscal update, and then the half-yearly >>>update before the coalition was formed, and they did not show that
Labour (or Treasury) were "leaving the government books in a mess as
is predicted"
you are so I believe her,
The ''books'' that you refer to showed that the financial position had
not changed much between budget 2023 and the Pre-election financial
update; the half-yearly update noted a small deterioration but nothing >significant. The suggestion that Labour had instructed Treasury to lie
in their financial accounts is laughable.
It is clear that Willis has changed her tune since the electionPolitical spin - no such thing is clear at all.
results - before everything the government had done or was doing was
wrong, and National would fix it all with tax cuts. That was
electioneering; feeding the interests of major donors getting the vote
in. Once that was over, and the coalition agreement settled, she was
able to get briefings from Treasury, which would have made it clear
that in fact New Zealand has done well not to have gone into recession
as so many other countries had, but that we have some structural
problems with inequality, quite a bit of essential spending on
infrastructure that cannot be avoided, a good capital position but not >sufficient to meet National's promises. The reversal of smoking
restrictions was purely about needing the excise tax - the long term
cost is double the extra income, but they had to put money before
lives again just to do the little they are doing on tax rates. So why
the u-turn? Because they cannot hide from the truth any more - you can
pick whether she was lying about being able to cut the top tax rate
before or lying now when she says they can't afford it.
A total reversal of joral compass. So the change is obvious tgo all but fools like you.No change at all, Tony - changing tax rates is not a simple decision;, but I guess that is just a political slogan - arguablyWow - a government that considers many things - what a change from the past 6 >>years eh?
less than a half-truth . . .
No, any income over $180,000 will still be taxed at 39%, but they will >>>not receive a tax cut in relation to that portion of income.
So those earning over $180,000 will pay exactly the same as those earning >>>>$180,000.
The tax cuts are created from the threshold adjustments, which is really >>>>about inflation creep. See top of page 8.The dollar amount of tax cut for an income of $78,000 will apply to
"National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
Costing
The cost of adjusting tax thresholds is based on IRD’s latest taxable >>>>income
distribution, adjusted to
reflect recent inflation, and forward-adjusted to reflect forecast wage >>>>growth.
"National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
Tax Threshold Adjustments
Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
$48,000 $53,500 30%
$70,000 $78,100 33%"
So as the over $78,100 income get no extra tax cuts, all the tax cuts are >>>>for
those under $78,100.
all incomes over that figure. - someone on an income of over $78,000 >>>will still get a tax cut - see page 8 above the table of tax
thresholds and rates.
One could argue a lot of things, but the paragraph under the table on >>>page 8 indicates that the current government will take a lot of other >>>things into account
(Note that any income over $78,100 is taxed at the same rate as existing as >>>>the $180,000 bracket is existing).
One could argue that these are tax brackets adjustments, and that the tax >>>>collected is being put back to the relative levels of the past.
it affects a lot of other things - including a lot of work for those
running payroll systems; for departments involved in social welfare
and other payments and for IRD. Indexation of income tax thresholds
does not necessarily meet the desired direction of any government; it
is a simplistic answer to a very complex problem; indexation may well
make some problems worse; for much the same reasons that employers do
not want automatic indexation of workers pay. So no change from the
last 50 years, Tony; but perhaps that all went over your head as usual
. . .Cite
Labour moved the "bright line" test from 10 years to 2 years - so yesWhat a nasty priock you are.
Perhaps not entirely. Increasing NZ Super by AWE increases, but
It could also be argued that the Government is doing the right thing, being >>>>honset,fair and logical.
changing benefits to increase by CPI is costed to save money - why the >>>different rate?
Page 13: "Thousands of private rental properties are provided by
ordinary Kiwis – mums and dads who bought a second
property as an investment to help provide for their family or secure a >>>more comfortable retirement."
So what is the logic in not taxing them on selling an investment? If
they put money into Kiwisaver they pay tax on realised gains. If a >>>company buys a property and later sells it they pay tax on capital
gains - what is different about residential rental property? Is it
just because a lot of MPs have seen the tax distortion and don't want
to lose it for themselves?
Labour didn't tax the same investments either - maybe National worked out why?
they did catch a lot more of the ''quick turnover for profit" sales.
National are putting that tax advantage for residential property back
again . . .
The current government will lose income from this change; and thatNonsense.
will fuel the attraction of residential property investments - at the >continued expense to other forms of investment. Ever wondered why New
Zealand companies cannot get share capital from New Zealanders? It is
because property investment has such a significant tax advantage; and
that is part of the reason we send billions of dollars out of New
Zealand each year from our major banks. But that is National for you - >looking after the wealthy, not ordinary New Zealanders and New Zealand >companies . . .
We should congratulate Jessica Mutch Mackay for her new job -Who? No such person so far as I know.
undoubtedly a reward for a job well done . . .
Cite? I doubt you have one.
And to imply this will keep rents low - if this increases the value of
a rental property, why would a purchaser of such a property not want
to get a good return on capital invested? Or a better return? They can >>>charge what the market will pay - or do National think the market is
not working?
And under that rental property change, they say "The cost of this >>>commitment is based on Treasury’s forecast revenue change from Budget >>>2021’s Summary of Initiatives. " There are a lot more rental
properties now than even back in early 2021; and prices have also
changed markedly - again why did they not get an updated costing - and
in any case nowhere in the paper do they give those costings . . .
All this does not get the need for a wide raging tax review of the hook as >>>>has been suggested.
Indeed that review is clearly needed, but the Government refusing to >>>release the report on the tax system that was due at 31 December 2023
is worrying - I heard the government may have wanted to change the law
in the last few days of parliament so they do not have to release it >>>under the Freedom of Information legislation, but I don't know if that >>>happened.
Thank you Gordon for posting this.
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 00:17:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are laughable and this thread is not and never has been about treasury.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your suggestion is laughable, Tony - clearly you know nothing of the
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 03:30:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am sure you find it funny, but many wiser than you find such bevaviour >>typical of incompetent and frightened governments like the last one.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Jan 2024 22:05:17 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Yes they did according to the Minister of Finance and she is not the liar >>>>that
(This got a bit longer than intended)
Recently the Labour inclination side of the spectrum have expressed their >>>>>>annoyance in conversation to me the fact that the Chris Luxon's mates >>>>>>have
been given all the tax cuts. I have got some concessions that it is not >>>>>>*all* the cuts that are proposed.
So lets start by agreeing/assuming that Luxon's mates have an income of >>>>>>over
$180,000 per year. After all they are very rich.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/17859/attachments/original/1693346887/Back_Pocket_Boost.pdf?1693346887
On page 8 we have,
"The $180,000 income tax threshold will remain in place. National has >>>>>>ruled
out removing the 39% top tax rate in our first term due to fiscal and >>>>>>economic
pressures. However, higher-income earners will benefit from our plan as >>>>>>they, like other taxpayers, will pay less tax on their earnings under >>>>>>$78,100."
Thanks for that Gordon. I had heard that the change to the top tax >>>>>rate was being deferred, but had not seen it in writing - there is no >>>>>date of publication for the document the url leads to - and it does >>>>>not seem to be a url many would search for.
The opening "assurance of the plan" quotation from Castalia reads like >>>>>the one they used months ago in relation to just the also dropped >>>>>policy about the foreign buyer tax - which did not get through the >>>>>coalition process; they are now using the same words for the whole >>>>>suite of tax plans. Castalia may not be too happy about the unclear >>>>>scope of their advice.
The statement on page 3 that "profitable polluters receive government >>>>>subsidies" is not very clear as to who is being referred to - the >>>>>implication is that they may do something about that, which may not be >>>>>particularly welcome to some farmers for example.
On Page 4, the statement says "Our tax plan does not require borrowing >>>>>and will reduce pressure on inflation.
It has been designed to be self-funding, so that National can >>>>>guarantee tax reduction for working people, even if
Labour leaves the government books in a mess as is predicted."
Now they saw the pre-election fiscal update, and then the half-yearly >>>>>update before the coalition was formed, and they did not show that >>>>>Labour (or Treasury) were "leaving the government books in a mess as >>>>>is predicted"
you are so I believe her,
The ''books'' that you refer to showed that the financial position had >>>not changed much between budget 2023 and the Pre-election financial >>>update; the half-yearly update noted a small deterioration but nothing >>>significant. The suggestion that Labour had instructed Treasury to lie
in their financial accounts is laughable.
sensible laws that prevent government interference in professional
opinions by Treasury.
Can you ever post without abuse?I appreciate that to you very little is clear, Tony; while I havePolitical spin - no such thing is clear at all.
It is clear that Willis has changed her tune since the election
results - before everything the government had done or was doing was >>>wrong, and National would fix it all with tax cuts. That was >>>electioneering; feeding the interests of major donors getting the vote >>>in. Once that was over, and the coalition agreement settled, she was
able to get briefings from Treasury, which would have made it clear
that in fact New Zealand has done well not to have gone into recession
as so many other countries had, but that we have some structural
problems with inequality, quite a bit of essential spending on >>>infrastructure that cannot be avoided, a good capital position but not >>>sufficient to meet National's promises. The reversal of smoking >>>restrictions was purely about needing the excise tax - the long term
cost is double the extra income, but they had to put money before
lives again just to do the little they are doing on tax rates. So why
the u-turn? Because they cannot hide from the truth any more - you can >>>pick whether she was lying about being able to cut the top tax rate >>>before or lying now when she says they can't afford it.
tried to explain simple matters to you a minimal level of
comprehension is required - perhaps you should look to yourself for
the difficulties you are having.
Sorry you are so incompetent, ask a 5 year old to helpWhatever that means . . .A total reversal of joral compass. So the change is obvious tgo all but fools >>like you.
No change at all, Tony - changing tax rates is not a simple decision;, but I guess that is just a political slogan - arguablyWow - a government that considers many things - what a change from the past >>>>6
less than a half-truth . . .
No, any income over $180,000 will still be taxed at 39%, but they will >>>>>not receive a tax cut in relation to that portion of income.
So those earning over $180,000 will pay exactly the same as those earning >>>>>>$180,000.
The tax cuts are created from the threshold adjustments, which is really >>>>>>about inflation creep. See top of page 8.The dollar amount of tax cut for an income of $78,000 will apply to >>>>>all incomes over that figure. - someone on an income of over $78,000 >>>>>will still get a tax cut - see page 8 above the table of tax >>>>>thresholds and rates.
"National will make the following adjustments to tax thresholds:
Costing
The cost of adjusting tax thresholds is based on IRD’s latest taxable >>>>>>income
distribution, adjusted to
reflect recent inflation, and forward-adjusted to reflect forecast wage >>>>>>growth.
"National’s Back Pocket Boost: Tax Relief for the Squeezed Middle
Tax Threshold Adjustments
Existing Threshold Proposed Threshold Threshold Rate
$14,000 $15,600 17.50%
$48,000 $53,500 30%
$70,000 $78,100 33%"
So as the over $78,100 income get no extra tax cuts, all the tax cuts are >>>>>>for
those under $78,100.
One could argue a lot of things, but the paragraph under the table on >>>>>page 8 indicates that the current government will take a lot of other >>>>>things into account
(Note that any income over $78,100 is taxed at the same rate as existing >>>>>>as
the $180,000 bracket is existing).
One could argue that these are tax brackets adjustments, and that the tax >>>>>>collected is being put back to the relative levels of the past.
years eh?
it affects a lot of other things - including a lot of work for those >>>running payroll systems; for departments involved in social welfare
and other payments and for IRD. Indexation of income tax thresholds
does not necessarily meet the desired direction of any government; it
is a simplistic answer to a very complex problem; indexation may well >>>make some problems worse; for much the same reasons that employers do
not want automatic indexation of workers pay. So no change from the
last 50 years, Tony; but perhaps that all went over your head as usual
Who helped you find that? And what relevance does it have?From page 5 at the link above:. . .Cite
Labour moved the "bright line" test from 10 years to 2 years - so yes >>>they did catch a lot more of the ''quick turnover for profit" sales. >>>National are putting that tax advantage for residential property back >>>again . . .What a nasty priock you are.
Perhaps not entirely. Increasing NZ Super by AWE increases, but >>>>>changing benefits to increase by CPI is costed to save money - why the >>>>>different rate?
It could also be argued that the Government is doing the right thing, >>>>>>being
honset,fair and logical.
Page 13: "Thousands of private rental properties are provided by >>>>>ordinary Kiwis – mums and dads who bought a second
property as an investment to help provide for their family or secure a >>>>>more comfortable retirement."
So what is the logic in not taxing them on selling an investment? If >>>>>they put money into Kiwisaver they pay tax on realised gains. If a >>>>>company buys a property and later sells it they pay tax on capital >>>>>gains - what is different about residential rental property? Is it >>>>>just because a lot of MPs have seen the tax distortion and don't want >>>>>to lose it for themselves?
Labour didn't tax the same investments either - maybe National worked out >>>>why?
"National will remove Labour’s taxes that are increasing the cost of
living, including canceling landlord
taxes that have put pressure on rents. We will:
o Fully restore interest deductibility for rental properties
o Bring the brightline test back to two years"
The Bright line test was at two years under the previous National-led >government; but was moved to ten years under Labour. I leave it to you
to discover the magic thinking behind the assertion that either of
these measures will do anything to reduce the cost of living for
tenants . . .
Ah, so an irrelevant off topic bit of garbage again.My apologies, it is Jessica Mutch McKay; I put an extra letter in her >surname. >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/political-editor-jessica-mutch-mckay-quits-tvnz-for-top-anz-bank-corporate-role-media-insider/GUOWYFRQIRGYDMARNGFXD2S4WA/Nonsense.
The current government will lose income from this change; and that
will fuel the attraction of residential property investments - at the >>>continued expense to other forms of investment. Ever wondered why New >>>Zealand companies cannot get share capital from New Zealanders? It is >>>because property investment has such a significant tax advantage; and >>>that is part of the reason we send billions of dollars out of New
Zealand each year from our major banks. But that is National for you - >>>looking after the wealthy, not ordinary New Zealanders and New Zealand >>>companies . . .
Who? No such person so far as I know.
We should congratulate Jessica Mutch Mackay for her new job -
undoubtedly a reward for a job well done . . .
Cite? I doubt you have one.
And to imply this will keep rents low - if this increases the value of >>>>>a rental property, why would a purchaser of such a property not want >>>>>to get a good return on capital invested? Or a better return? They can >>>>>charge what the market will pay - or do National think the market is >>>>>not working?
And under that rental property change, they say "The cost of this >>>>>commitment is based on Treasury’s forecast revenue change from Budget >>>>>2021’s Summary of Initiatives. " There are a lot more rental >>>>>properties now than even back in early 2021; and prices have also >>>>>changed markedly - again why did they not get an updated costing - and >>>>>in any case nowhere in the paper do they give those costings . . .
All this does not get the need for a wide raging tax review of the hook as
has been suggested.
Indeed that review is clearly needed, but the Government refusing to >>>>>release the report on the tax system that was due at 31 December 2023 >>>>>is worrying - I heard the government may have wanted to change the law >>>>>in the last few days of parliament so they do not have to release it >>>>>under the Freedom of Information legislation, but I don't know if that >>>>>happened.
Thank you Gordon for posting this.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 122:38:21 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,631 |