Thursday, August 18, 2005
Steee-rike
Labour finally knocked over most of the 10 pins at the end of the bowling alley with this one ... massive tax relief for families with children. Hell, it's time for the likes of Yamis to get into the business of procreation. My only regret is they didn't announce this during the darn budget.
Labour seems to be making "surprise" announcements (student loans and now the working for families expansion) ... whereas National is pinning everything on it's one, long, long, long-awaited tax policy (now scheduled for Monday, last I heard).
Labour seems to be making "surprise" announcements (student loans and now the working for families expansion) ... whereas National is pinning everything on it's one, long, long, long-awaited tax policy (now scheduled for Monday, last I heard).
Comments:
Doesn't mention anything about parents with ONE child.
We will hope for twins.
Now for the sex part...
We will hope for twins.
Now for the sex part...
If I am too believe what Cullen has been saying up until now, there was no money for tax relief and giving tax relief would raise interest rates and be bad for the economy Perhaps, Mr Cullen might want to say where all this money is coming from? Oh wait, maybe it is only when National plans to give tax relief it is bad for the economy.
One problem with this kind of tax relief (I haven't read all the details as I have an exam in 2 hours!) is that it will create high marginal tax rates for a couple, this particularly affects couples where one spouse is working and the other spouse wants to work. An overall drop in taxation doesn't have that effect.
-Dinkas
P.S I know I said I would have a post on National's policy when it is released and I will do that next weekend once my mid-semester exams are over.
One problem with this kind of tax relief (I haven't read all the details as I have an exam in 2 hours!) is that it will create high marginal tax rates for a couple, this particularly affects couples where one spouse is working and the other spouse wants to work. An overall drop in taxation doesn't have that effect.
-Dinkas
P.S I know I said I would have a post on National's policy when it is released and I will do that next weekend once my mid-semester exams are over.
# posted by 
: 18 August 2005 at 18:25
: 18 August 2005 at 18:25
dinkas, I really can't be arsed sticking to self appointed deadlines so I extend the same leniency to you and yours too.
I think the point of these tax cuts is that families will get them, thus helping out those who claim hardship (and rightfully so)continuously.
Situation A
Couple with two kids on an income of 40,000 (wife is at home looking after the whipper snappers).
Situation B
Couple with no kids on combined income (since neither needs or wants to stay home) of 60,000.
Under National who gets more from tax cuts?
Who needs the money more?
Fuck more money for those who already have more money.
National will need to run a completely flawless campaign from now on in to win this one.
I'm quietly confident that they are fucked.
I think the point of these tax cuts is that families will get them, thus helping out those who claim hardship (and rightfully so)continuously.
Situation A
Couple with two kids on an income of 40,000 (wife is at home looking after the whipper snappers).
Situation B
Couple with no kids on combined income (since neither needs or wants to stay home) of 60,000.
Under National who gets more from tax cuts?
Who needs the money more?
Fuck more money for those who already have more money.
National will need to run a completely flawless campaign from now on in to win this one.
I'm quietly confident that they are fucked.
Dinkas, you are dead right about the high marginal tax rates of course ... I just ran the sums for my household and even moderate increases in our income would decimate our savings.
Still, I take Yamis' point too.
Still, I take Yamis' point too.
One exam out of the way!
Perhaps, the couple on 60,000 are 2 recent graduates looking to save money so they are comfortable when they have children. Tough luck then.
I just disagree with Labour's way of returning money back to taxpayers and only taxpayers with children getting tax relief.
I know you will say the family earning $40,000 *needs* the money more, but I think everyone who pays tax also *deserves* to get some tax relief and that relief should be shared more equally.
As we have a current family tax benefit which is already paid to a couple with children they will usually pay less tax than a couple with no children which I have no problem with. I just don't think it should be to the extent that Labour is proposing. As DC has also pointed out for his current situation, the marginal tax rates are very high and this is really my major problem with Labour's policy.
We obviously have different views about this
P.S A prediction for National's tax policy. 15% and 30% will be the 2 new rates. Couples will be able to pool their income and to be treated as one tax entity for income purposes - an example here.
-Dinkas
Perhaps, the couple on 60,000 are 2 recent graduates looking to save money so they are comfortable when they have children. Tough luck then.
I just disagree with Labour's way of returning money back to taxpayers and only taxpayers with children getting tax relief.
I know you will say the family earning $40,000 *needs* the money more, but I think everyone who pays tax also *deserves* to get some tax relief and that relief should be shared more equally.
As we have a current family tax benefit which is already paid to a couple with children they will usually pay less tax than a couple with no children which I have no problem with. I just don't think it should be to the extent that Labour is proposing. As DC has also pointed out for his current situation, the marginal tax rates are very high and this is really my major problem with Labour's policy.
We obviously have different views about this
P.S A prediction for National's tax policy. 15% and 30% will be the 2 new rates. Couples will be able to pool their income and to be treated as one tax entity for income purposes - an example here.
-Dinkas
# posted by : 19 August 2005 at 04:31
: 19 August 2005 at 04:31
When the couple have children they will then enjoy tax breaks. When they need them most.
If they choose not to have children then I expect they will still be better off than those families earning less with more mouths to feed, bodies to clothe and look after.
just my opine e on
If they choose not to have children then I expect they will still be better off than those families earning less with more mouths to feed, bodies to clothe and look after.
just my opine e on
Yamis
Ok, since you are into comparisions (in your 1st post) what about a couple with 4 children where one of them earns $100,000. Labour will still give them money tax relief. At $110,000 they still get money. At that income, do they really *need* the money to survive, I would say no.
But, if you are a single person who earns $25,000 or $30,000 a year. What did you get? Nothing.
I have no problem with someone earning $100,000 getting a tax cut. I just don't get why *only* taxpayers with children get money.
-Dinkas
Ok, since you are into comparisions (in your 1st post) what about a couple with 4 children where one of them earns $100,000. Labour will still give them money tax relief. At $110,000 they still get money. At that income, do they really *need* the money to survive, I would say no.
But, if you are a single person who earns $25,000 or $30,000 a year. What did you get? Nothing.
I have no problem with someone earning $100,000 getting a tax cut. I just don't get why *only* taxpayers with children get money.
-Dinkas
# posted by : 20 August 2005 at 01:20
: 20 August 2005 at 01:20
"But, if you are a single person who earns $25,000 or $30,000 a year. What did you get?"
Freedom from having to look after, care and love four children.
Unless of course you have just graduated from University with a student loan, in which case you will do quite well under Labour.
And of course if you just came from a house where your parents were given tax breaks which helped them bring you and your siblings up you'll also probably be better off. Though you couldn't put a monetary figure on that very easily.
Freedom from having to look after, care and love four children.
Unless of course you have just graduated from University with a student loan, in which case you will do quite well under Labour.
And of course if you just came from a house where your parents were given tax breaks which helped them bring you and your siblings up you'll also probably be better off. Though you couldn't put a monetary figure on that very easily.
Natioals tax breaks are equally targeted, if not more, than Labours. Assuming they are as the sexperts are predicting.
They are for those who traditionally vote for National plus a few in the middle ground who they need to sway their way.
For that single person on 25,000-30,000 under National what will they get from tax cuts?
We will find out, but if you don't pay much tax then tax cuts don't mean that much too you.
They are for those who traditionally vote for National plus a few in the middle ground who they need to sway their way.
For that single person on 25,000-30,000 under National what will they get from tax cuts?
We will find out, but if you don't pay much tax then tax cuts don't mean that much too you.
Post a Comment