A change of subject, for now.
Wow, its been a while since my last post, thats for sure! A lot has happened in the mobile world in New Zealand with the much anticipated and several times delayed launch of Vodafone's 3G network, along with a new batch of high end mobiles to complement it. But this post I'm focusing on something else: Politics!
Urgh . . . I hear you say, that's a dirty word. And I sort of agree, but now more than ever in our little country it is time for the topic to spring to the forefronts of news media and blogs all over, as we decide our nation's future with an orange permanent marker on September 17. I choose now to start because both of the major parties have no officially launched their campaigns, but perhaps what has caught my attention the most is on monday we finally saw the steaming guts of National's eagerly awaited tax policy (or should that be tax CUT policy). My reaction to this was certainly positive. Here's why: Money matters! I may earn a measly amount right now, and be quickly racking up debt in the form of a gross student loan, but in a little over a year I will have (finally) graduated and got a REAL job (maybe even with weekends off). If all things remain the same I would expect to be earning $40,000 a year salary, and my student loan will be in the vicinity of $30,000. Now, this loan will of course require paying off, and I will also of course hope to be indulging my appetites for electronic gadgets and snowboarding, so how much money I have to throw around is top of my mind. So a comparison had to be done.
Using National's tax cut calculator on their website, I discovered that, with the above figures, I would be saving $2100 a year under labour (due to their interest wiping policy) and $1400 a year under National (due to both their tax cut policy and student loan rebate scheme). Hmmm . . . strike one for Helen in red. But, looking a little further ahead, I figure that I would be climbing the corporate ladder, getting head hunted and generally making the most of my abilities, so lets say I earn $50,000 a year (25% more, but still a reasonable figure). Suddenly, I am saving $2800 under National, while Labour stays the same. Food for thought!
Ultimately, my view on National's policy is better than Labour's 'Working for Families' policy. The guts of what Labour is telling me is that they will tax those without kids, and distribute their money to those with kids. I have no problems with this for low income earners or those on the DPB, but what grates on me is that someone earning more money than me could end up getting more tax relief because they choose to have kids. Money to the breeders!
But my biggest gripe with Labour's election campaign so far is how they chose to attack National's tax policy. They claim it is a 'hand-out to the rich'. This has got to be the most misleading, misinforming and mathematically spun-out bullshit that they have chosen to present to an impressionable public! Tax is something THE TAXPAYERS give to THE GOVERNMENT. When tax cuts occur, this in no way means THE GOVERNMENT are giving to THE TAXPAYERS. It means THE TAXPAYERS are now giving less to THE GOVERNMENT.
In a nutshell, National would not be giving more money to the rich. They would in fact be taking less money from the rich. In fact, they would be taking less money from everyone. Just because the rich notice it more does not make it bad. Tax works on a percentage.
If you tax some earning $30,000 at 20% then they end up with $24,000.
Tax someone earning $100,00 at 40% and they end up with $60,000.
Now apply some tax cuts.
Reduce the tax on the $30,000 earner to 10%. They are now $3,000 better of a year.
Reduce the tax on the $100,000 earner to 35%. They are now $5,000 better of a year.
"But wait!" the lefties cry, "You're giving more money to the rich!"
No, we're not. We are taking LESS money FROM the rich. Are they so blind as to see that we have given a reduction in tax of 10% to the lower income earner, while giving only a 5% reduction to the higher income earner? What do you want to see, a flat dollar tax amount? Everyone pays tax of 100% for every dollar they earn over $30,000? Why would anyone want to succeed? Where is the point in striving to earn more money and do well in life if the taxman comes along and swipes you back down to make you even with those who aren't trying as hard?
Of course National's tax cuts look better if you are rich. Everything looks better if you are rich!!! Thats the whole bloody point in being rich!!! People need to want to be rich, because my $100,000 dollar earner, even after tax cuts, is still providing $35,000 a year to fund the government's public services! That's worth more to the public than the tax paid by 11 $30,000 earners.
My call is for Labour, National and all the rest of them to stop saying that tax cuts and tax relief packages are 'giving' people MORE money. Lets tell it like it is in mathematical and logical truth: They are taking LESS of their earned money.
And with that, let the flaming begin. ;-)
Urgh . . . I hear you say, that's a dirty word. And I sort of agree, but now more than ever in our little country it is time for the topic to spring to the forefronts of news media and blogs all over, as we decide our nation's future with an orange permanent marker on September 17. I choose now to start because both of the major parties have no officially launched their campaigns, but perhaps what has caught my attention the most is on monday we finally saw the steaming guts of National's eagerly awaited tax policy (or should that be tax CUT policy). My reaction to this was certainly positive. Here's why: Money matters! I may earn a measly amount right now, and be quickly racking up debt in the form of a gross student loan, but in a little over a year I will have (finally) graduated and got a REAL job (maybe even with weekends off). If all things remain the same I would expect to be earning $40,000 a year salary, and my student loan will be in the vicinity of $30,000. Now, this loan will of course require paying off, and I will also of course hope to be indulging my appetites for electronic gadgets and snowboarding, so how much money I have to throw around is top of my mind. So a comparison had to be done.
Using National's tax cut calculator on their website, I discovered that, with the above figures, I would be saving $2100 a year under labour (due to their interest wiping policy) and $1400 a year under National (due to both their tax cut policy and student loan rebate scheme). Hmmm . . . strike one for Helen in red. But, looking a little further ahead, I figure that I would be climbing the corporate ladder, getting head hunted and generally making the most of my abilities, so lets say I earn $50,000 a year (25% more, but still a reasonable figure). Suddenly, I am saving $2800 under National, while Labour stays the same. Food for thought!
Ultimately, my view on National's policy is better than Labour's 'Working for Families' policy. The guts of what Labour is telling me is that they will tax those without kids, and distribute their money to those with kids. I have no problems with this for low income earners or those on the DPB, but what grates on me is that someone earning more money than me could end up getting more tax relief because they choose to have kids. Money to the breeders!
But my biggest gripe with Labour's election campaign so far is how they chose to attack National's tax policy. They claim it is a 'hand-out to the rich'. This has got to be the most misleading, misinforming and mathematically spun-out bullshit that they have chosen to present to an impressionable public! Tax is something THE TAXPAYERS give to THE GOVERNMENT. When tax cuts occur, this in no way means THE GOVERNMENT are giving to THE TAXPAYERS. It means THE TAXPAYERS are now giving less to THE GOVERNMENT.
In a nutshell, National would not be giving more money to the rich. They would in fact be taking less money from the rich. In fact, they would be taking less money from everyone. Just because the rich notice it more does not make it bad. Tax works on a percentage.
If you tax some earning $30,000 at 20% then they end up with $24,000.
Tax someone earning $100,00 at 40% and they end up with $60,000.
Now apply some tax cuts.
Reduce the tax on the $30,000 earner to 10%. They are now $3,000 better of a year.
Reduce the tax on the $100,000 earner to 35%. They are now $5,000 better of a year.
"But wait!" the lefties cry, "You're giving more money to the rich!"
No, we're not. We are taking LESS money FROM the rich. Are they so blind as to see that we have given a reduction in tax of 10% to the lower income earner, while giving only a 5% reduction to the higher income earner? What do you want to see, a flat dollar tax amount? Everyone pays tax of 100% for every dollar they earn over $30,000? Why would anyone want to succeed? Where is the point in striving to earn more money and do well in life if the taxman comes along and swipes you back down to make you even with those who aren't trying as hard?
Of course National's tax cuts look better if you are rich. Everything looks better if you are rich!!! Thats the whole bloody point in being rich!!! People need to want to be rich, because my $100,000 dollar earner, even after tax cuts, is still providing $35,000 a year to fund the government's public services! That's worth more to the public than the tax paid by 11 $30,000 earners.
My call is for Labour, National and all the rest of them to stop saying that tax cuts and tax relief packages are 'giving' people MORE money. Lets tell it like it is in mathematical and logical truth: They are taking LESS of their earned money.
And with that, let the flaming begin. ;-)
posted by bartong at 5:59 PM
1 comments
