by frog
The Government will have to look to the National Party to support its Emissions Trading legislation if it is watered down to the point where it provides no significant environmental benefit.
“We are not in this game just so some can make money speculating on carbon prices. Emissions reductions need to be real and soon, or it is not worth doing it,? Green Party Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says.
Labour and National appear to be dancing towards a close embrace on an increasing range of policies, but, as their courante continues towards the election, let’s hope they don’t forget to act with gallantry towards Gaia.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Parliament | Video by frog on Tue, May 6th, 2008
Tags: Carbon, climate change, emissions trading, Jeanette Fitzsimons, labour party, national party
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“it is not worth doing it”
Hear, hear….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Emissions reductions need to be real and soon, or it is not worth doing it…”
The Greens only failure in ETS has been to acknowledge that ETS does nothing directly and very little indirectly to reduce emissions, whilst dumping a lot of cost on consumers, so perhaps now the Greens will get on board with dumping the whole thing. So yes, Jeanette, forget the gauntlet, get on with the backpedaling. Its not only the right thing to do, but electorally sensible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Emission taxes are a great thing but only if balanced by cuts in taxes elsewhere. Make it more profitable to not emit and people will change their habits rapidly.
I support cuts in income tax, thus encouraging people to earn and discouraging them from spending.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
vote green or we will force you to watch the above video over and over and over again
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It should be real anyhow – carbon charging.
Trading in this and that is simply a hymn to the role of middle men in the market place. The faceless rich p.. who enrich themselves providing services we dont need or want.
The Greens should say that anything as genetically corrupted as this needs the MAP before it sees the light of day.
Campaign to bring back carbon charging.
Offer the public – no GST on power (or lower 5-10% GST on power) when carbon charging is introduced. Some power – hydro and wind is renewable but supply and consumption of this faces 12.5% GST along with other power sources. That should change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for GST – praise of it is on Kiwiblog.
Don Brash chaired the committee that established GST in the 1980s, so is pretty much an expert in this area. He labels any move to remove GST on food as a “seriously stupid thing to do?.
“… we gave serious consideration to exempting food from GST at that time, and decided for three reasons not to do so. Those reasons are still absolutely valid today.
First, it is clear that every exemption from GST adds greatly to the compliance costs imposed on businesses collecting the tax. …
Secondly, abolishing GST on food would be a very inefficient way of helping those low-income families who most need help with their food bills in terms of the amount of government revenue foregone.
While it is certainly true that low-income families spend a disproportionately large part of their income on food, most of the money spent on food across the whole community, and therefore most of the revenue which would be lost if GST on food were abolished, is paid by middle and high-income families. If the Government sees a need to help those families most adversely affected by rising food bills, then the best way of doing that is by reducing the income tax levied on low-income families, or adjusting the Working for Families policy to help those on low incomes.
Thirdly, if GST is abolished on food, why not on other “essentials?, like children’s clothing, doctor’s bills, books, and the like? In no time at all, political pressures would build up to exempt other goods and services.
Compliance costs would go through the roof. Revenue from GST would fall, with the result that the GST rate of tax would need to rise on the goods and services still subject to the tax (as has happened in most European countries). Or income tax rates would need to be higher than would otherwise be necessary.
New Zealand has one of the best GST systems in the world. Don’t succumb to short-term pressures to bastardise it.”
All excellent arguments. Luckily Labour are not showing signs of panic and are not looking likely to give in to the calls to do so.
———————————————————————————-
The problem with Brash’s inadequate arguement is that it is inconsequential and irrelevant. It reminds me of his opposition to higher minimum wages back in the 1990′s (he called for a lower than the then already low minimum wage for the unemployed, so that they would not be priced out of work). And the campaign against Labour’s 2000 reform of the ECA because this would cause rising unemploymen. All of which shows how much the “expertise” of some is worth on these issues.
If we had not increased the minimum wage from the 7 dollars to 12 dollars, one wonders how it would have been possible for people to feed themselves even before the recent price increases. And which speaks to the real response to rising fuel and food and power prices and rent/mortgage costs being to ensure the minimum wage continues to rise by a dollar a year until it reaches the level in Australia. And for the state sector to commit to Australasian wage levels over time (10% pa increases for doctors nurses and teachers and scientists and defence force staff).
The bleated about “productivity increases first” line is nonsense – it’s the higher wages which provide the incentive to improve labour productivity. And in terms of paying wages out of profits profits, this only applies to the private sector (we do have a budget surplus to pay state sector workers) – and even there the services sector can pass on cost increases in prices.
As for Brash on GST in particular.
He completely ignores the fact that it is not possible to give people tax credits if they already pay no tax (WFF may already mean some people receive more than they pay in tax).
Or that people on benefits do not receive much of WFF. Or they might not have any children.
And obviously – it’s hard to provide people with a tax cut equal to the extra costs on either food or fuel or power ior rent/mortgage let alone all of them. Well its easy for those on the higher incomes who do not need any help paying for them in the first place (unless they bought an overpriced status home on a high borrowings).
The only tax cut of any worth is to establish a zero rate of tax on income zone – the first $6000 (about $15 a week across the board). This is the only form of tax cut which includes all those in need.
The irony here or is it the hypocrisy – while Brash prefers tax cuts to GST change – he would oppose such a tax change focused on help to those in real need – for across the board changes which meant little for those on lower incomes. Which is saying that “expertise in the system design” means “apologist for elite class interest”. It’s the area where the old order maintains it’s control of democracy – via the two party protection of the system of rule design.
On top of this WFF adjustment and inclusion of expansion of the parts which also go those on benefits (including the $15 across the board).
And also review of allowances to students (moving all onto the over 25 rate). And a review of housing policy (public investment in insulation and energy efficient heating capital plant for homeowners and not just landlords) – a capital (windfall profits tax) gains tax could fund this.
But in the end – the future of taxation is in sustainable development. That means carbon charging and GST on power at 10% (short term then going to zero as carbon charging increases).
And the same for food – first going to 10% then going to zero – with the wider GST rate going up to 20% – for the more discretionary purchases (imported cars, TV’s, electronics).
By doing this – we take the regression out of GST. Low income taxes and flat-rate GST on food and power is a system designed by some but it is not designed for the many.
It’s a tragedy that the costs faced by those on low incomes go up 10%, while their incomes only go up 5%. And appalling that our CPI says their costs only went up 3% thus according to the economic statistics we all (barring those on fixed incomes) all better off. This because disretionary spending items like TV”s electronics and cars are not rising in price (only some can make these discretionary spending choices).
Our CPI reflects the world of those who can buy everything, not those who can only buy the necessities.
I guess people like Brash designed that as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for GST – praise of it is on Kiwiblog.
———————————————————————————–
Don Brash chaired the committee that established GST in the 1980s, so is pretty much an expert in this area. He labels any move to remove GST on food as a “seriously stupid thing to do?.
“… we gave serious consideration to exempting food from GST at that time, and decided for three reasons not to do so. Those reasons are still absolutely valid today.
First, it is clear that every exemption from GST adds greatly to the compliance costs imposed on businesses collecting the tax. …
Secondly, abolishing GST on food would be a very inefficient way of helping those low-income families who most need help with their food bills in terms of the amount of government revenue foregone.
While it is certainly true that low-income families spend a disproportionately large part of their income on food, most of the money spent on food across the whole community, and therefore most of the revenue which would be lost if GST on food were abolished, is paid by middle and high-income families. If the Government sees a need to help those families most adversely affected by rising food bills, then the best way of doing that is by reducing the income tax levied on low-income families, or adjusting the Working for Families policy to help those on low incomes.
Thirdly, if GST is abolished on food, why not on other “essentials?, like children’s clothing, doctor’s bills, books, and the like? In no time at all, political pressures would build up to exempt other goods and services.
Compliance costs would go through the roof. Revenue from GST would fall, with the result that the GST rate of tax would need to rise on the goods and services still subject to the tax (as has happened in most European countries). Or income tax rates would need to be higher than would otherwise be necessary.
New Zealand has one of the best GST systems in the world. Don’t succumb to short-term pressures to bastardise it.?
All excellent arguments. Luckily Labour are not showing signs of panic and are not looking likely to give in to the calls to do so.
———————————————————————————-
The problem with Brash’s inadequate arguement is that it is inconsequential and irrelevant. It reminds me of his opposition to higher minimum wages back in the 1990’s (he called for a lower than the then already low minimum wage for the unemployed, so that they would not be priced out of work). And the campaign against Labour’s 2000 reform of the ECA because this would cause rising unemploymen. All of which shows how much the “expertise? of some is worth on these issues.
If we had not increased the minimum wage from the 7 dollars to 12 dollars, one wonders how it would have been possible for people to feed themselves even before the recent price increases. And which speaks to the real response to rising fuel and food and power prices and rent/mortgage costs being to ensure the minimum wage continues to rise by a dollar a year until it reaches the level in Australia. And for the state sector to commit to Australasian wage levels over time (10% pa increases for doctors nurses and teachers and scientists and defence force staff).
The bleated about “productivity increases first? line is nonsense – it’s the higher wages which provide the incentive to improve labour productivity. And in terms of paying wages out of profits profits, this only applies to the private sector (we do have a budget surplus to pay state sector workers) – and even there the services sector can pass on cost increases in prices.
As for Brash on GST in particular.
He completely ignores the fact that it is not possible to give people tax credits if they already pay no tax (WFF may already mean some people receive more than they pay in tax).
Or that people on benefits do not receive much of WFF. Or they might not have any children.
And obviously – it’s hard to provide people with a tax cut equal to the extra costs on either food or fuel or power ior rent/mortgage let alone all of them. Well its easy for those on the higher incomes who do not need any help paying for them in the first place (unless they bought an overpriced status home on a high borrowings).
The only tax cut of any worth is to establish a zero rate of tax on income zone – the first $6000 (about $15 a week across the board). This is the only form of tax cut which includes all those in need.
The irony here or is it the hypocrisy – while Brash prefers tax cuts to GST change – he would oppose such a tax change focused on help to those in real need – for across the board changes which meant little for those on lower incomes. Which is saying that “expertise in the system design? means “apologist for elite class interest?. It’s the area where the old order maintains it’s control of democracy – via the two party protection of the system of rule design.
On top of this WFF adjustment and inclusion of expansion of the parts which also go those on benefits (including the $15 across the board).
And also review of allowances to students (moving all onto the over 25 rate). And a review of housing policy (public investment in insulation and energy efficient heating capital plant for homeowners and not just landlords) – a capital (windfall profits tax) gains tax could fund this.
But in the end – the future of taxation is in sustainable development. That means carbon charging and GST on power at 10% (short term then going to zero as carbon charging increases).
And the same for food – first going to 10% then going to zero – with the wider GST rate going up to 20% – for the more discretionary purchases (imported cars, TV’s, electronics).
By doing this – we take the regression out of GST. Low income taxes and flat-rate GST on food and power is a system designed by some but it is not designed for the many.
It’s a tragedy that the costs faced by those on low incomes go up 10%, while their incomes only go up 5%. And appalling that our CPI says their costs only went up 3% thus according to the economic statistics we all (barring those on fixed incomes) all better off. This because disretionary spending items like TV’s electronics and cars are not rising in price (only some can make these discretionary spending choices).
Our CPI system reflects the world of those who can buy everything, not those who can only buy the necessities.
I guess people like Brash designed that as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ahh, brash’s arguments seem very similar to those which i raised here recently: http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2008/04/29/gst-on-food/
i always suspected that guy knows economics. he just doesn’t always seek to put this knowledge to good use for the benefit of nz: http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2008/03/21/trade-and-debt/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
a straightforward handout would be best & would solve that problem, though brash’s comments may have encompassed this option. ” adjusting the Working for Families policy to help those on low incomes.” is probably deliberately vague (given the right-wing preference to talk up tax cuts at every oportunity) but could mean handouts, and could also mean extending it to poor people with no children.
uh-uh, you’re losing me there. if you follow the link to my previous comments above (& follow the links in my posts there too) you’ll see that gst is not regressive.
that’s a good point, but isn’t it true that benefits are linked to wage inflation, not cpi? if not then it should be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Only super is linked to wages – benefits are linked to the CPI – the CPI including iterms they cannot afford to buy on a benefit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
god knows why they don’t link benefits to wages too then
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# SPC Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 12:50 am
> As for Brash on GST in particular.
> He completely ignores the fact that it is not possible to give people tax credits if they already pay no tax
yes it is. In some cases WFF already does that.
> Or that people on benefits do not receive much of WFF.
True. that should probably be changed.
> Or they might not have any children.
people without children don’t need as much money, as they don’t need to buy food for children.
> The only tax cut of any worth is to establish a zero rate of tax on income zone – the first $6000 (about $15 a week across the board). This is the only form of tax cut which includes all those in need.
> But in the end – the future of taxation is in sustainable development. That means carbon charging and GST on power at 10% (short term then going to zero as carbon charging increases).
I think the argument against that it valid. Adding complexity to the GST system leads to small shopkeepers spending all their time in the back room calculating their tax returns rather than being at the till to serve their customers. And it means lots of office workers shuffling paper when they could be doing something productive or something enjoyable.
> It’s a tragedy that the costs faced by those on low incomes go up 10%, while their incomes only go up 5%. And appalling that our CPI says their costs only went up 3% thus according to the economic statistics we all (barring those on fixed incomes) all better off. This because disretionary spending items like TV’s electronics and cars are not rising in price (only some can make these discretionary spending choices).
Indeed. we need a new CPI that only takes into account things like food, power, petrol etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would be very surprised if National or Brash is proposing to increase WFF in their tax plans for 2008-2011.
And even more surprised if they propose tax credits or tax cuts to include beneficiaries or those without children on low incomes.
This can only really be done by ending the low rate 15 cents on the first 6000 of the 9500 band – providing $15 dollars a week to everyone). They will more likely offer moving the thresholds upwards and abolishing the top rate (costing 1/3rd of their 3 billion in cuts to the top 5-15% from this alone) so that with the threshold movements half the 3 billion will go to the top 20%). Far from helping those facing the rising costs – those on low wages or those in families – these will get some chewing gum per head (which will not pay for the food, let alone the fuel or power or rent increases).
From 1996 to 1999 there was not even an inflation adjustment to Family Support by National (it took Labour a few years to do anything about this – WFF was a targeted to non beneficiary families catch up – meaning the real level of benefits to families has been falling for a decade).
For all the compliancy problems overseas with no GST on food – they still continue to be better places to get paid for work than here.
Why not increase company tax back up to 33% and use the money to hire workers to do the GST and other tax returns of businesses and with the money left over pay young doctors their 10% wage increase over the next three years and increase funding to schools (given free schools are not sustainable if parents cannot afford to pay for activity charges and GST on their food and power).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>people without children don’t need as much money, as they don’t need to buy food for children.
It’s not your money. It is theirs.
If someone chooses to not have kids, why should they be forced to subsidise those who do, yet can’t afford them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What we are facing in 2008-2011 is a lack of funding for public provision as the budget tries to swallow an upper class designed tax cut while real poverty returns to the levels not seen since the decade with 10% unemployment – because we will be becoming a low wage poor underclass majority country – going banana republic.
The problem is that if those who profess to lead the underclass are no more than ciphers for the system designed in the interests of profit making (adding shareholder value) in their empathy for the concerns with business over costs (carbon or tax compliancy) we will simply accept this as our lot – accept this order of rule over us – because we trust that our masters know what is best for us.
People called experts who said we needed low minmum wages to help the unemployed into work – that amending the ECA would cause unemployment, that buying AIr NZ was wrong and we should find foreign owners like SAL or Qantas … starting up Kiwi Bank was wrong and of course … Rail can only work with private owners …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter
The companies people work for operate here because of government services and the rule of law.
The money exchange system is also run/regulated by government – only those who work for no money but in exchange have their own form of money and this form of money is not taxed.
Such ignorance the two year old tantrums that its “our” money. Develop your own money and it will not be taxed.
If you cannot, you operate within the government economy and are liable to the accept the terms and condition of its operation – including government being funded by taxation on their money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS As for tax cuts one final point – if Labour focuses on WFF alone – beneficiaries, students and low income singles and those on Super miss out. Meaning National is certain to win the election by saying WFF are not real tax cuts and most still don’t get anything or very little.
Whereas with no tax on the first $6000 ($1.5 billion cost) most people will get a larger tax cut than offered by National (even though the cost/tax revenue loss would be more with National c $3 billion) and there is still some left over for top up of of WFF (and inclusion of beneficiaries and establishing a universal rate in student allowance – paid or in borrowing on the loan – at the adult over 25 dole rate) within about say 2.25billion. Which leaves some $750 million more available each year for education and health.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# SPC Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
> I would be very surprised if National or Brash is proposing to increase WFF in their tax plans for 2008-2011.
> And even more surprised if they propose tax credits or tax cuts to include beneficiaries or those without children on low incomes.
No, I don’t think National are planning to do those things either. Labour may do the first one, and the Greens are in favour of the others.
> This can only really be done by ending the low rate 15 cents on the first 6000 of the 9500 band – providing $15 dollars a week to everyone).
Indeed. That’s how I would do it, too.
> Why not increase company tax back up to 33% and use the money to hire workers to do the GST and other tax returns of businesses
I think you’d achieve more for alleviating poverty by increasing the business tax rate back to 33% and using the money to reduce taxes on the bottom tier of income tax – something like the first $6000 tax-free that you described. The GST version is just an inefficient way of doing it.
I think you and I are broadly in agreement about every aspect of the tax and benefit system except GST.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
How many kids do would you, personally and directly, like to fund your – really rather religious – neighbors to have? 5? 10? 20?
At what point would you say “enough”?
>>Such ignorance the two year old tantrums that its “our? money.
I’d like to reply to that needless slur in an honest way, but it would never get past the frog free speech filter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it’s silly to import people to fill jobs because local people cannot afford to have and feed children.
Those who retire without children are receiving their Super funded from the taxes on the work of the children of those who did.
Thus paying to support the raising of children is simply retirement income insurance.
If you have no arguement beyond its “our money” – then it is a two year old tantrum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Locals can afford to have and feed children.
Some locals have five children when they can’t afford one, simply because others are forced to fund that choice.
If you have no argument beyond the utilitarian “caring for old people” – then your argument is infantile .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Really. Not ENOUGH people (to regenerate the population and support the old) can afford to have and feed children without WFF – which is why we have it.
I doubt you can name one OECD country which does not provide some form of tax relief or subsidy for those raising families. This because this societal transfer of help to those raising children is the premise of the survival of any species.
So your objection is to the practice of western society to help people when they have obligations to others/dependents, or to help people when they need help (old and or sick) with “your money”. Tax is simply the form of support our society built around government law and government money uses to perpetuate historic transfer to support child rearing.
You have yet to defend your assertion that it is “your money”, so you remain dependent on your undefended assertion for any subsequent arguement.
As for your concluding “IF … THEN” claim – you are making an assertion (again unsupported) as if it is a fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You might note that undeveloped society resorts to economically limiting subsistence farming and urbanised grandparenting mutual care arreangmenets to cope with child rearing. Something our developed society enables via government money taxation transfer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
“You might note that undeveloped society resorts to economically limiting subsistence farming and urbanised grandparenting mutual care arreangmenets to cope with child rearing. Something our developed society enables via government money taxation transfer”
That just sounds like a flash way of saying that I have to pay for the raising of other peoples kids.
Because I exercise a bit of personal responsibility and do not have more than I can afford you seem to be suggesting that I should pay MY MONEY to those who keep banging away safe in the knowledge that mugs like me will have money stolen from us on a weekly basis to pay for other peoples kids.
Great!…another generation of Kiwis raised to believe that “our wonderful government” will look after us come what may, look at the crap that type of thinking has got us into in the past.
It is NOT my problem if somebody else has more kids than they can afford.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for past thinking and what it got us into.
Before there were mortgages, how many people could afford to buy homes or land while women partners were in their child bearing age? Does this mean mortgages were wrong because they enabled people without their own capital to own housing?
Land owning and property owning was once the heritage of the aristocratic and the landed gentry and otherwise only the most successful businessmen of the age.
You seem to be proposing that a substantial number of people forgo home ownership if they wish to have children, or forgo children if they want to own housing.
In the 19thC men delayed marriage into their 30′s or 40′s and married aging spinsters or their younger sisters when they could provide a home.
This left little time for child rearing.
Mortgages and now income tax redistribution has changed that. It resulted in the property owning nuclear family unit of the 20thC. Income tax allowed redistribution of income across the lifetime of a working person (to them when they are raising families and in retirement and from them when working singles/couples and then empty nesters). This made raising a family in a home affordable for people.
There was probably more support for families in the 1950′s and 60′s and 70′s from family benefit and mortgage rebates and family tax rebates then than now – to ensure this was the standard for the modern OECD democracy.
The Rogernomics era proposed the time of ending support for others and taking more money for immediate personal gratification to one’s own back pocket (support was reduced down to just the more politicised means tested Family Support which National stopped indexing to inflation back in the 1990′s). WFF ended that and this has offended some on the right. But it is bi-paritisan policy in every OECD country to support the family from income tax redistribution.
Most people need some help to afford raising up families. And if most people do not have children the society is not sustainable. Thus all forms of society have worked to provide help in some way.
Can you name any human society in history which was not based around providing for those who care for the children to continue the group/people/nation/species?
And is government society money your money? If you want your own money, I suggest you get paid in your money and spend your money, then it will not be taxed as part of the government money economy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In the end the politicisation of support for the family – Family Support – targeted help to families based on income levels, has led to attacks on support for the families of poorer people.
Attacks which are not made on Super or the former Family Benefit system – because they were/are universal.
The language of it’s “our money” is not made in the matter of police and law and defence spending, but only in the matter of redistribution – paying for the education of poor people, paying for the health care of poor people via graduated income tax. It is the language of class warfare and given our changing demographics, one presumes the overclass and underclass aspect of this will one day result in this language, its our white money being used to raise up their kids.
This naturally results in the south Auckland vote being hunted by the religious right just as the poor southern white vote was hunted in the USA,
this as a service to money and the political primacy of those who have it. This speaks to the need to keep the underclass from realising that democracy empowers them and allows them to be part of an order of rule that provides for them and their families.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
on the other hand, if we have the electoral clout to force a change in gst to give the needy more spending power, we have the electoral clout to do it via the efficient method of increased transfer payments. if ignore this option & bloody-mindedly choose the inefficient method of adjusting gst, we’ve moved into the realm of being profligate with other people’s money (with apology to those who consider anything beyond a poll tax to be profligacy with other people’s money).
wiping income tax below a certain threshhold will give poor people some more money, but it’s a once-off solution. if the problem persists (rising food prices), we’ll eventually have to talk about direct handouts, so why not just do that now, a “cost of living” benefit paid to everyone below a certain income & rising as the cost of living (necessities only) rises.
why stop at raising corporate tax to 33%? corporate tax lower than the top personal tax rate is daft.
i don’t think so. green dollars, barter & payment in kind are all subject to taxation in some circumstances
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea
We might agree, but apparently Cullen is not convinced by a no income threshold (I would suggest up to $6000, for a $15 tax cut to everyone) even though Australia has this ($6000) rate. IMO our incomes policy should be to increase our minimum wage by $1 pa until they reach the Australian level and our public sector wage levels to this level also and ASAP. A no income threshold is consistent with this sort of policy. We are now all too clearly in a Tasman labour market.
He might offer some form of dividend instead – but the only reason for this is if we cannot spend it now when many people need the money (it gains in credibility as an idea if people can spend the money on heat pumps now to reduce their power bills and reduce our energy demand).
The logic for this, is that it is one way to disperse the surplus by giving an equal share to all – and yet still limit immediate access to money to spend now to those with families facing the greatest cost increases.
It is the sort of “common sense restraint” which Cullen would wish to be remembered for and which Treasury, which opposes (tax relief for those on benefits and) the idea of a no income threshold, would no doubt have played like a violin.
Apparently we can expect Cullen to enable a move of the top rate of threshold from $60,000 to $75,000 while denying the possibility of any indexed no income tax threshold. If one can do one without the other, one has no heart.
It hardly mobilises anyone to care about their fate in November. This is a bit like our CPI assessment (while there is a real difference between a CPI based only on necessities and one based on the totality of spending which only a small proportion of the population can consider and while I realise the poor, and in the end most families, will suffer more under National) there is the chance of Labour leaders looking at the economic and societal issues properly from outside the buildings they currently work in. My initial reaction to the news, that he had rejected the no income tax threshold, was that if Labour does not reject him I will them. So it seems the second red rose is also now dead in all but name.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew
The problem with a social wage payment premised on matching increases in the cost of living is that it does not allow for differing changes in the income circumstances of the individuals receiving it.
How do you see that problem being resolved?
Whereas the no tax threshold can be increased with the CPI at the necessties rate (rather than the lower overall CPI rate) – similarly adjusting WFF by this CPI necessities level.
I have proposed no GST on food and power for some time (the momentum of concern about rising prices was obvious last year – mortgages, power and fuel alone and now rents and food months back – my objective was a no tax threshold. A 10% level GST on food and power (moving to carbon charging) and 20% on more discretionary spending would allow a top rate of tax and a company tax at 33 cents (with even more generous depreciation writeoffs and R and D incentives). I have no objection to lowering the top rate of income tax with an increase in GST to 20% on discretionary items. But otherwise I would cite every family living in poverty as those who were sacrificed to finance such a tax cut.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
simply have the handout directed to anyone who is eligible for it, just like dole i guess – you become eligible or inelegible as your circumstances change, e.g. by losing your job, getting a job etc.
alternatively give everyone a flat handout including the rich, whichever solution you like best.
yeah but that doesn’t help anyone whose income was already below the old threshhold.
different gst percentages would remove significant simplicity from the tax regime.
a straightforward handout to everyone who needs it (or simply to everyone) is just the most efficient way to accomplish what you want.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)