blogging it real

Who 'stole' Don Brash's emails? Now Labour is joining the old philanderer in calling for the Police file to be released in full. Said philanderer is muttering darkly about "political bias".

Methinks the trail leads very, very close to the top indeed. Say, about one step down from the top.

Zero Tolerence indeed.

Labels: budget, national, police

Three years and three days ago, when Michael Cullen last delivered a pre-election budget, I wrote a blog post entitled "Opportunity Lost", criticizing the promise of modest tax bracket adjustments in three years time (i.e., April 2008). I asked:

What kind of election pledge is "vote for us and receive a very modest tax break in 35 months time"??

I still think those adjustments should have been implemented, but that's by-the-by for now. Cullen is considerably shrewder this year, even when he doesn't have a lot of room for maneuver. A rate cut that benefits everyone who earns a dollar, and relatively substantial bracket adjustments on top of that, beginning to take effect at the earliest (pre-election) opportunity.

As Vernon Small has observed:

...if anyone can think of a way to deliver significantly more to those on low pay AND deliver to the struggling households in the middle AND give relief to the $60,000 plus income earners that have been the crux of complaints about Cullen-the-reluctant-tax cutter … oh yes, and not blow the Budget even more … then I’m all ears.

However, the hard-to-please NRT has changed his tune. Compare his 2005 budget comments with his moan this afternoon.

2005: The tax change (adjusting tax brackets for inflation every three years from 2008) represents a lost opportunity - not to cripple the budget with huge tax cuts, but to undermine tax as an election issue. Bracket changes are relatively cheap compared to cuts in tax rates and are widely (and correctly, IMHO) seen as being fair; implementing them ASAP would have been a cheap and easy way of robbing National and ACT of a talking point without significantly undermining Labour's key contention that large-scale tax cuts are unaffordable without cuts in services. Instead, by delaying them, the government has provided yet another rod for their own back.

2008: So the centrepiece of Cullen's budget left me cold. ... All we get is a tax cut which at first glance at least favours the poor over the rich, but still buys into right-wing agenda that the solution to every problem is a tax cut. And this is supposed to inspire people to vote for them?

Needless to say, I agreed with him in 2005, and disagree today. Hopefully that means I'm the consistent one.

Labels: budget, taxes

Not too sure what I think so far ... there's not much doubt it will create a savings culture, so if that's what floats your boat.... The introduction of compulsory employer contributions will no doubt cause much whining, but my employer already contributes to my super plan (dollar for dollar up to 5%) and that definitely makes my position more appealing. It will also improve our ability to compete with Australia on that ground.

But removing the tax bracket adjustments scheduled for next year is just mean-spirited. I can't help but wonder that if inflation is such a problem, why not increase taxes to, say, 100%. That would fix it pretty damn smart.

And the regional fuel tax, intended largely (but not exclusively?) to fund trains has its drawbacks, as Yamis has noted. If trains go nowhere near your suburb (which they don't in my case, or in the case of, say, anyone living in the North Shore), you're going to have an uphill battle convincing people to pay for the damn things.

Let's face it, trains are fuck-all use unless you happen to live and work really close to the stations.

Labels: budget, travel