Josie Pagani mounted an absolute denial saying (from 9.30) that low and middle income people pay more tax than wealthier people relative to their income.
Time to remind ourselves that
...households earning under $60,000 a year – which is half of all households – are expected to pay 11 per cent of income tax. “When we take income support payments into account, as a group they will actually pay no net income tax at all,” Mr English says.
But what about GST?
Any low income household spending half of its income on GST-attracting expenditure pays 7.5 percent of their total income.
Hard to mount a case that 7.5% is higher than the percentage of their income 'wealthy' households pay in tax.
5 comments:
So we should increase taxes for low income earners and slash those for the wealthy in the interests of fairness. Right, thanks.
Oh and how much income tax did Slater pay on all the backhanders he was getting from Carrick Graham and friends? And was he on a benefit at the same time? He's demonstrates the moral superiority of the right doesn't he?
Most Kiwis are bludgers. 10% of nett taxpayers pay for everything for everyone.
That's apparently a Kiwi "fair go" under National.
The point is it's not just enough to count all the direct welfare benefits, Welfare For Families, Housing Slushfund and all the rest - the really big benefits a Health, Education, and the "old whites" benefit - super.
Oh and how much income tax did Slater pay on all the backhanders he was getting from Carrick Graham and friends?
Lindsay - this is libellous and Cam is (rightly) starting to sue.
He's demonstrates the moral superiority of the right doesn't he?
His personal email was hacked by Labour/Green/Union eco/economic terrorists in a coordinated campaign with the Union's "Vote Positive" strategy with the direct aims of stealing the election and banning the blog that provides Cam's livelihood.
So yes - Cam does demonstrate the moral superiority of the Right.
Judge Holden said, "So we should increase taxes for low income earners and slash those for the wealthy in the interests of fairness. Right, thanks."
Where did I say that?
But cutting income tax rates on incomes that partially comprise means-tested tax credits isn't going to assist.
Here's an idea.
For every $10,000 income, 10% flat income tax.
No gst.
Now the low income family is only 2.5% worse off by my example. (Chances are they would be no worse off if consuming slightly less.) But they would be free of the horrible hassles associated with WFF/IWTC like overpayments/debt and killer EMTRs, etc. Employers would no longer be subsidised for the labour THEY benefit from.
The government would be free of the economic dead weight of ultra-complex taxation and the bureaucracy required to administrate it, along with all the inherent negative incentives. The armies of workers tied up in collecting or dodging - accountants, tax lawyers, public servants - could do something productive.
Maybe I am naive but read the history of Hong Kong. Look back into this country's history not that far to find simpler taxation and greater egalitariansim.
And if a tax free treshold of maybe $10,000 could be added into the mix, I would be delighted.
Given NZ's existing attractiveness to overseas investors and would-be residents this country could collect the same or more tax with the increased economic activity such a regime would bring (unless you object to foreign investment and immigration?)
That's my ideal. That's how I see making the lowest earners better off and improving their lives.
Flat tax in the manner which you describe is my ideal too. It cuts down on administration and is so simple.
Unfortunately the only party that is in favour of this would be Act so it is a lost cause (possibly NZ First might move in that direction).
Post a Comment