Ah, Tax. Bugbear of the left. Idiot/Savant opens up yet again with his own brand of hype mixed with desperation and a little chardonnay.
But this isn’t just true of Labour supporters, but of New Zealand as a whole. To point out an inconvenient truth, the vast majority of New Zealanders are completely unaffected by the top tax rate.
Ignoring the fact that many, many more are affected that Labour promised.
Hell, the majority of us aren’t even affected by the middle one. We pay 19.5% (or nothing, thanks to Working For Families),
I suggest you check the payslip of someone who gets Working for Families.
and the difference a tax cut would make to our lives is far less than the difference made by free schools,
which are really expensive to those who pay for their kids to be educated, not indoctrinated
which are unbelievably expensive to those living without income and in pain for years while waiting for surgery
which the government is effectively doing away with through kiwisaver
and the security provided by a social welfare system.
“Security” is a grand choice of words, considering who ends up in court more often than not.
Our sole interest in the tax system is whether it collects enough revenue
…and we don’t care about any damage that may cause the country as long as we get our money!
to fund the public services which insure all New Zealanders, rich and poor alike,
us on the right would rather the rich paid their own way, and they would too.
against the vagaries of life.
…increasing state costs exponentially through people no longer having to take responsibility for their own lives. But don’t worry, those who still do will carry the burden!
And we regard it as only fair that those with greater means pay more.
Hm, he used to trot out the straw men much earlier than this…
To us, tax cuts are an explicit threat to government revenue, and an explicit threat to the core public services we depend upon.
Which is, of course complete bollocks – tax cuts often increase revenue. It can certainly reduce costs as people have more money to pay their own way.
And given that those services still have not been fully restored since the 90’s (hospitals still have long waiting lists,
Note he doesn’t complain about funding, just the poor results you get from pouring millions of dollars into public health…
schools want higher and higher “donations”,
Perhaps they should stick to teaching? That would save money!
benefits, while adjusted for inflation, are still at the sub-subsistence levels set by Ruth Richardson),
Yea, turns out those levels were ok – they’ve now been unofficially endorsed by the left for 9 years and no one is seriously complaining. One would think if the cuts were as bad as all that someone might have jumped up and down in the years since 1991.
cutting that revenue seems to be a fundamentally stupid idea.
Given there’s $10B/yr that the government can’t
spend waste on vote buying, less revenue is not going to hurt. But of course, this idea is premised on the assumption that tax rate cuts will lead to tax revenue reductions – which does not necessarily follow as we have said earlier.
Instead, if anything, we should be raising taxes on the rich, not lowering them.
Yes, because that’ll stop them moving to Australia! One is constantly amazed at the left – the expound the disadvantages of being poor on instinct and at every occasion, but not once do they consider the advantages of being rich with regard to tax!
Against this, Labour’s promise of tax cuts seems like a betrayal, a pandering to the rich which actively undermines its core principles
Three words – “Closing the Gaps”. Labour’s first principle is staying in power, even if it means cutting core agenda items.
and the interests of its core voters.
The poor middle classes who are funding increasing surpluses, having their income eroded by inflation, and moving ever closer to the top tax rate?
But then, when the media reflects only the views of the rich,
middle classes, and principled poor
and refuse to acknowledge that most of us
even exist, it’s no wonder they have a
increasingly true, if still slightly
distorted picture of electoral demand.