I'm wondering how people can blindly support the National Party without actually knowing what their policies are. Silliness like that gives democracy a bad name. Key has said the tax cuts National wants will be for the top wage-earners. People under $60,000 will have to hope the higher wage earners let their money "trickle down".
Your comment appears to assume that unless you're on $60,000 or more, you're lazy and doing nothing. That is a silly thing to say. Most wage earners make less than $60,000 and they pretty damn hard. Your (apparent) arrogant ignorance does neither you nor the party you support any credit.
Indeed, linuxluver, they do work hard yet slartybardfast has a point - most low income employed NZers don't pay tax because of Welfare For Families and other redistributions so tax cuts are meaningless for them.
Cullen and Clark so hate people who earn good money in the marketplace [as opposed to sucking at the public tit] that they have no intention of giving tax cuts to them. If they could find a way to give tax cuts only to people that vote Labour they would do so.
I'm not interested in poisonous rhetoric like that. It's as wrong as all any other sort of bigotry. It can just as easily be argued that family support is "targeted tax cuts". Either way, irrelevant. Cutting taxes at the top doesn't help the folks at the bottom. Ideally, the first $5000 or $10000 would be made tax exempt. Then everyone gets the same amount with the folks at the bottom seeing the most improvement relative to earnings.
Oh, I'm not saying that earning under $60,000 means you are lazy. What I am saying is that taking from the "rich" and giving to the lazy is Labour party policy.
I would, however, consider someone lazy if they expect other people to pay for their needs and wants.
Labour is generous, but they are generous with other peoples money; and people who support this kind of generosity are acting out of jealousy.
BTW: I earn under $60,000 and thanks to this government I have probably paid no tax over the past several years and I wouldn't be surprised if I made a nett profit. Thanks Helen. (She still won't be getting my vote.)
How then do you see interest rate increases? Nominally intended to control inflation, they effectively "tax" money from debtors and redistribute it to someone else who didn't earn it. Similarly exchange rate fluctuations. Your buying power shrinks or grows every hour of every day, no matter how hard you work. Compared to taxes, the impact of these other redistributions of income is much greater. Tax is almost a red herring. If the NZ$ falls 20%, as forecast, that's a powerful redistribution.
No linuxluver, monetary policy settings and exchange rate fluctuations are the red herring in the discussion on tax.
While I accept that tax is the entry price for living in a complex civilised society - Labour has put the price up to the point that those of us who are paying are starting to resent the lazy and feckless who run the Labour Party, lead it in Parliament, and are its primary constituency.
You may be too young. I paid 66 cents / 1$ for half my income under a National Government. Labour changed that by simplifying income tax and introducing GST. The last National government vastly increased student fees, forcing young Kiwis overseas. Lockwood Smith wiped apprenticeships and left us without skilled builders, plumbers, etc. Max Bradford confiscated half of my power trusts profits and sent them to the US. They ran down schools and hospitals. Labour still looks good by comparison.
66 cents was the top rate under Muldoon but it affected much less than those who pay the current top rate.
Roger Douglas drove the tax changes you refer to. Clark fought it.
Clark & Cullen, benefited from Rogernomics yet deny it worked by continued references to failed policies of the past.
Yes Labour have done many good things.
So I'll confess - the reason I won't vote for them is that they've made it clear that people who don't vote Labour are hateful & I'm sick of being viewed that way.
I don't listen to emotive rhetoric about what's hateful. I look at the policies. For 25 years National has tended to favour the well off by undermining wages and labour laws. Multinationals are catered for by degrading services (health, education, etc) and making people buy expensive insurance for "maybe" services that aren't better than simply providing real services. Stripping NZ of industrial capacity over a generation will be seen as a stealth disaster and both are guilty of it.
While National in particular has been strong on defense, both major parties policies have placed NZ in a strategic position where would would struggle to serve even our basic daily needs if we were ever isolated by war or catastrophe. What good is a frigate if you can't even can your own food for storage? You can't make medicines, machines or clothing? We are terribly vulnerable at a time when competition for resources will be heating up as populations continue to grow.
No, I personally cannot can my own food nor can I make medicine, machines, or clothing. However Watties are able to can, freeze and dehydrate food, Douglas Pharmaceuticals can manufacture drugs, Scott Techology can manufacture production lines, and there are many clothing manufacturers. I'm not sure what you are driving at but NZs vulnerability seems pretty low to me.
I don't like Labour, so for me Phil Goff has been the best thing that has happened in my opinion. Long may Labour keep him as leader....
daggyz1959 11 months ago
Goff is no fool....
I'm wondering how people can blindly support the National Party without actually knowing what their policies are. Silliness like that gives democracy a bad name. Key has said the tax cuts National wants will be for the top wage-earners. People under $60,000 will have to hope the higher wage earners let their money "trickle down".
linuxluver 3 years ago
You can only give a tax cut to people who actually pay tax.
Money from those making over $60000 shouldn't "trickle down" to the lazy - they should earn their money.
"Sillyness" is to support this corrupt government.
slartybardfast7 3 years ago
Your comment appears to assume that unless you're on $60,000 or more, you're lazy and doing nothing. That is a silly thing to say. Most wage earners make less than $60,000 and they pretty damn hard. Your (apparent) arrogant ignorance does neither you nor the party you support any credit.
linuxluver 3 years ago
They work pretty damn hard....
linuxluver 3 years ago
Indeed, linuxluver, they do work hard yet slartybardfast has a point - most low income employed NZers don't pay tax because of Welfare For Families and other redistributions so tax cuts are meaningless for them.
Cullen and Clark so hate people who earn good money in the marketplace [as opposed to sucking at the public tit] that they have no intention of giving tax cuts to them. If they could find a way to give tax cuts only to people that vote Labour they would do so.
socialismispoison 3 years ago
I'm not interested in poisonous rhetoric like that. It's as wrong as all any other sort of bigotry. It can just as easily be argued that family support is "targeted tax cuts". Either way, irrelevant. Cutting taxes at the top doesn't help the folks at the bottom. Ideally, the first $5000 or $10000 would be made tax exempt. Then everyone gets the same amount with the folks at the bottom seeing the most improvement relative to earnings.
linuxluver 3 years ago
Oh, I'm not saying that earning under $60,000 means you are lazy. What I am saying is that taking from the "rich" and giving to the lazy is Labour party policy.
I would, however, consider someone lazy if they expect other people to pay for their needs and wants.
Labour is generous, but they are generous with other peoples money; and people who support this kind of generosity are acting out of jealousy.
Labour's voting base is the jealous and the lazy.
slartybardfast7 3 years ago
BTW: I earn under $60,000 and thanks to this government I have probably paid no tax over the past several years and I wouldn't be surprised if I made a nett profit. Thanks Helen. (She still won't be getting my vote.)
slartybardfast7 3 years ago
So "socialism" hasn't hurt you any. You're just grumpy. :-)
linuxluver 3 years ago
How then do you see interest rate increases? Nominally intended to control inflation, they effectively "tax" money from debtors and redistribute it to someone else who didn't earn it. Similarly exchange rate fluctuations. Your buying power shrinks or grows every hour of every day, no matter how hard you work. Compared to taxes, the impact of these other redistributions of income is much greater. Tax is almost a red herring. If the NZ$ falls 20%, as forecast, that's a powerful redistribution.
linuxluver 3 years ago
No linuxluver, monetary policy settings and exchange rate fluctuations are the red herring in the discussion on tax.
While I accept that tax is the entry price for living in a complex civilised society - Labour has put the price up to the point that those of us who are paying are starting to resent the lazy and feckless who run the Labour Party, lead it in Parliament, and are its primary constituency.
socialismispoison 3 years ago
You may be too young. I paid 66 cents / 1$ for half my income under a National Government. Labour changed that by simplifying income tax and introducing GST. The last National government vastly increased student fees, forcing young Kiwis overseas. Lockwood Smith wiped apprenticeships and left us without skilled builders, plumbers, etc. Max Bradford confiscated half of my power trusts profits and sent them to the US. They ran down schools and hospitals. Labour still looks good by comparison.
linuxluver 3 years ago
66 cents was the top rate under Muldoon but it affected much less than those who pay the current top rate.
Roger Douglas drove the tax changes you refer to. Clark fought it.
Clark & Cullen, benefited from Rogernomics yet deny it worked by continued references to failed policies of the past.
Yes Labour have done many good things.
So I'll confess - the reason I won't vote for them is that they've made it clear that people who don't vote Labour are hateful & I'm sick of being viewed that way.
socialismispoison 3 years ago
I don't listen to emotive rhetoric about what's hateful. I look at the policies. For 25 years National has tended to favour the well off by undermining wages and labour laws. Multinationals are catered for by degrading services (health, education, etc) and making people buy expensive insurance for "maybe" services that aren't better than simply providing real services. Stripping NZ of industrial capacity over a generation will be seen as a stealth disaster and both are guilty of it.
linuxluver 3 years ago
Oh but you do listen and respond because it enables you to take the holier than thou position that you love so much.
socialismispoison 3 years ago
While National in particular has been strong on defense, both major parties policies have placed NZ in a strategic position where would would struggle to serve even our basic daily needs if we were ever isolated by war or catastrophe. What good is a frigate if you can't even can your own food for storage? You can't make medicines, machines or clothing? We are terribly vulnerable at a time when competition for resources will be heating up as populations continue to grow.
linuxluver 3 years ago
No, I personally cannot can my own food nor can I make medicine, machines, or clothing. However Watties are able to can, freeze and dehydrate food, Douglas Pharmaceuticals can manufacture drugs, Scott Techology can manufacture production lines, and there are many clothing manufacturers. I'm not sure what you are driving at but NZs vulnerability seems pretty low to me.
socialismispoison 3 years ago