On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:40:34 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers Post by Rich80105
He has the sense not to talk of tax cuts, which Bridges apparently
still supports . . .
"They're spending a tremendous amount of money and it's appropriate that they're doing so, but the question is will they try and recoup that through higher taxes?
No problem, then, with spending up large just now, says Key. Again, presumably no problem raising taxes **provided** there has been a record of significant equivalent increases in the majority of New Zealand's real incomes due to increases in real per-capita productivity since 2007/2009.
So what **real** increases in these two critical economic factors have occurred, and how significant have they been?
What specific measures did Key and his team invoke during their nine years in office to put the nation on the road to achieving this, and which Ardern's government have been able further to build on since late 2017?
Productivity is one measure that is relevant, as is the impact of
differential changes to tax rates, and the extent to which borrowing
and asset sales were used to pay for tax cuts. There is also the
fairly deliberate ramping up of higher salaries while depressing the
minimum salaries and low level wages. and the extent to which many
work one or more part time jobs. In addition the introduction of
"Working for Families", introduced as a temporary measure by the Clark
Government (?) has become effectively a government subsidy for low
wages - institutionalised crony capitalism, while the increases to GST
early in Keys Government made our system more regressive. In all of
those areas, National has made the most changes, and most of them have
resulted in a much bigger share of national income going to the
wealthy - or as National put it, "hard working taxpayers", and
progressively less for those paid less. Then there are the shadowy
efforts of that early vision of Key's - to make New Zealand a
financial hub for shady tax avoidance trusts; to pander to cross
jurisdictions scams that reduce tax payable in multiple countries, and
the move to internet purchasing as someof those companies get an unfir
competitive advantage through not having to pay tax . . . Even now
many trusts are effectively at least partially tax avoidance vehicles.
An example iof the result is
Another example is what we saw when many companies took the government
money to support salaries and used that as the only pay they gave
workers (except for some supermarkets during level 4) - the effect was
a massive boost to those needing help from food banks - we have
reduced our lowest workers to subsistence wage, and still pay
beneficiaries less . . .
So there are a lot of areas where change is deisrable, but the
coalition, helped probably by the conservative instincts of NZ First,
have made little change in their first term. They did thankfully
reject Nationals proposed last ditch election bribe tax cuts, and
built up a reasonable level of reserves again after the depredations
of the Key/English governments.
There is no reason that I can see why we need to have 'lowest in the
world' tax rates for millionaires and very high earners, and work
needs to be done on companies shifting profits off-shore. But I think
we need to wean ourselves off Working for Families over time, bringing
our low paid wage rates up to the level where companies do not need
government assistance to enable "hard working taxpayers" to exist
without food banks and other assistance such as housing from
government; we should do something about the very high marginal rates
that result from abatement of benefits for many low to middle income
earners - we shoudl ask whether there is any reason anyone should pay
an effective rate higher than the top income tax rate . . .
So there are a lot of options. I favour a quick introduction of a tax
rate of 55% for incomes over $1 million - it will hit very few until
we stop a lot of the rorts that artificially reduce taxable income . .