Comments on: Labour lines on tax cuts

By: Pascal

Pascal — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:42:40 +0000

Paul: a shame that the majority of people aren’t rational beings

A shame that I am being punished for their stupidity.

Paul: at the very least keeping those interest rates high.

As opposed to government spending my money? Doesn’t wash mate, doesn’t wash.

By: colinm

colinm — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:13:55 +0000

Paul,
Several threads ago, you slipped this into one of your posts.
You wrote “National is about to borrow to pay for tax cuts…”.
Where did you get this little snippet of information?
Could you cite some links or similar to show that this assertion is true please?

By: Duxton

Duxton — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:12:10 +0000

Paul: “The client was labour? Didn’t the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development conduct more or less the same poll? Besides we all know the answer to that one….”

What a joke. The NZBCSD is the best example of a push-polling organisation in NZ. All their surveys – and the questions therein – are designed to support/justify the Labour position.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:14:29 +0000

I wouldn’t answer such a poll. The questions are loaded. Also simplified short questions and answers make it impossible to take alternatives into account or even examine the subject in any depth.

Generally speaking what annoys me about Labour is the fact that they appeal to ignorant emotion rather than rational analysis of a policy. They know they have to put forward a good argument to business leaders but any good sounding crap will go down well in South Auckland. Incidentally Peters follows the same pattern.

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:10:10 +0000

How come almost every poll question you see in this country is loaded from a left wing political perspective. Where the hell are the pollsters asking objective or right wing based questions???? I guess that means there’s nobody left in NZ who thinks outside the left wing paradigm.

By: Spam

Spam — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:47:35 +0000

Paul,

You acknowledge a good point: People using money for mortgages etc is LESS inflationary that letting the government spend it.

Pity Cullen won’t acknowledge it.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:30:27 +0000

The client was labour? Didn’t the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development conduct more or less the same poll? Besides we all know the answer to that one, most Kiwi’s (and that in no way assumes anyone from the right in this blog) will accept a tax cut if it doesn’t erode the values and services that they see define NZ, that is high investment in the Social welfare fabric of NZ, and that conclusion can be tracked over many many years and is more or less consistently the same.

Besides any poll that tests just the 3000 or so registered people, whom are then invited to take part in polls is hardly representative.

There is no doubt that a tax cut would have been afforded in years gone by, but anyone stupid enough to play that game in the next 2 years would need lynching.

Pascal congratulations for being such a rational being with regard to what you would have done with your tax cuts, it’s a shame that the majority of people aren’t rational beings, and as signaled by treasury, any tax cut will quite possible be inflationary, and thus resulting in if not higher interest rates, at the very least keeping those interest rates high.

So isn’t it nice to have more money in our pockets to pay for the increased mortgages eh Pascal!

By: dime

dime — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:03:02 +0000

borrow for capital expenditure??? how could you want such a thing? hahaha that would almost make sense.

i havent heard it yet, but we all know we are gonna hear the fuhrer scream “loss of jobs” at national for a few months like a rabid dog.

By: Pascal

Pascal — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:49:29 +0000

tim barclay: And then ask this question “have I got value for money for the thousands of dollars this Labour Government has cost me?” and “could I have made better use of that money?”

No, I have not. Despite wage increases my purchasing power has decreased under the Labour government. And yes, I could have made better use of that money. Either through investment, ploughing it into our homeloan or using it to boost the money we’re trying to save for our daughter.

Of course, after 9 years of ideological opposition to tax cuts, the Labour Party is now changing their tune for an election year. The only problem? Unless they put it into a legal document it is nothing but an empty promise. They’ve lied too many times before for anybody with half a braincell to be suckered by them.

By: Spam

Spam — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:47:42 +0000

Yes, I would like to take option 2, please.

I would like cuts to government “services” – the services that tell us what to eat, where to go to school, how to heat our homes, where to shop etc etc.

By: tim barclay

tim barclay — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:46:32 +0000

This small tax cut could have been afforded way back in the year 2000. Multiply that by 9 for the average household and you will then realise what the Labour Government has cost the average household. Add in the envy tax of 39c and those people will count the cost of a Labour Government in many many thousands of dollars. And these are not wealthy people at all. They are struggling middle income earners for which tax is a real burdon to pay. And then ask this question “have I got value for money for the thousands of dollars this Labour Government has cost me?” and “could I have made better use of that money?”

By: ele

ele — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:38:18 +0000

Every report on cutting the tax rate assumes there will be a corresponding drop in the tax take. This isn’t necessarily the case – lower tax rates can increase productivity and so the tax take goes up.

By: tim barclay

tim barclay — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:14:09 +0000

I would like more borrowing to fund capital projects and there is fraud and waste in Government departments everywhere. So I would like a bigger tax cut funded partly out of the Government borrowing to fund long term investment and also from a reduction in the waste in the public service. There has to be 2-3 Billion there easily.

By: dad4justice

dad4justice — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:03:14 +0000

Surely linking two posts to your demented blog Tane is worthy of demerits?

By: Tane

Tane — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:53:19 +0000

David, Bill English’s line that Cullen will ‘borrow for tax cuts’ has already been debunked here:

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1350

Bill English, however, is on the record saying he would borrow for tax cuts:

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1322

[DPF: Your so called debunking is based on old data - the HYEFU. Cullen in Parliament has confirmed gross debt will rise to 20% of GDP]