NZIER tax cut tool
April 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am by David FarrarHidden away on the NZIER site is a excel spreadsheet which allows you to design your own tax cuts.
You can do the following sorts of adjustments:
- Change Thresholds
- Change Rates
- Change Thresholds and Rates
- Introduce a tax-free threshold
- Income Splitting
For each scenario, it will tell you have much less tax you will pay, and the approximate fiscal cost.
Related posts:
- NZIER tax calculator
- More on student loan calculators
- United Future tax policy
- My own student loan calculator
April 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Do they have a tool to factor in the effect of corresponding cuts to social services?
[DPF: That's the nice things with surpluses - you can cut tax and not cut social services
]
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Tane
Do you ever consider that there are many Kiwi’s that want to see a cut in social services ?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am
“Do they have a tool to factor in the effect of corresponding cuts to social services?”
That’s why we like organisations like the EPMU. They have lots of ‘tools’ to tell us these things.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Or a cut in social spending while retaining the same level of services?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Gee if only Cullen could use Excel.
Vote:Share this link around – proves that you can get the thresholds moved quite a bit for a modest few billion off the surplus. Doesn’t even factor in the reduced avoidance, productivity etc.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“[DPF: That’s the nice things with surpluses - you can cut tax and not cut social services
]”
What happens when those surpluses disappear? – i.e. when there’s a global credit crunch.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I thought the line in response to roger nome was supposed to be “tax cuts = increased prosperity for all”, so presumably the credit crunch doesn’t matter…
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
[Do they have a tool to factor in the effect of corresponding cuts to social services?]
Show me 100% improvement in social service outcomes for every additional tax dollar spent on them, and I’ll buy the reverse argument that reduces spending equates to reduced social services. You can’t have it both ways.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
RN – that’s when you cut services.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
“tax cuts = increased prosperity for all”
Well, for those who get tax cuts big enough to outweigh the cuts to social services (ie. the very rich). There’s no evidence that tax rates have a significant impact on economic wellbeing – take a look at the tax rates of some of the wealthier European countries.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I’m confused by your question, getstaffed, are you suggesting cutting social spending will improve social outcomes?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Roger Nome: What happens when those surpluses disappear?
Well fuck, you don’t give tax cuts then. Was that so difficult?
Tane: RN – that’s when you cut services.
There you go – you heard it from the mouthpiece of the Labour party
Remember to ask them how they’re going to afford these tax cuts they’re promising after they’ve fritted away the entire surplus in a last minute lolly scramble.
P.S. Tane – 4 out of 13 responses. Seems like having some objective information regarding the Labour party created bogeyman of tax cuts is worrying you a little bit
P.P.S. take a look at the tax rates of some of the wealthier European countries
Take a look at the tax rates of Hong Kong.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Tane, i didn’t ask a question. i said you can’t have it both ways. but in response to your question, let me suggest that one fewer $150k social policy analyst and TWO additional front-line social services delivery people at $70k each could achieve something better for nz.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Double post. Apologies.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
A web page where you can toy with your own fantasy tax cuts?
That would be like porn for the “The-answer-to-everything-is-a-tax-cut” brigade!
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Isn’t it typical of the socialists to counter every argument with “but what about social services”, what they fail to see (or more likely refuse to see or admit) is that in good times most Kiwi’s are not to bothered about the amount spent on social services, as a race of people we believe in giving everybody a fair go.
What we do not like is to see our money (we always need to remind socialists that it is OUR money) wasted or used by a corrupt govt to purchase votes (WFF), when we get the feeling that we are being ripped off or when we start to see good hard working middle class families suffering because they are working to pay for OTHER peoples kids then of course they start to ask why there is not a cut in social services.
The thing that Tane and co have not yet realised is that there is going to be a ever increasing number of people who feel that they want a cut in social services, many feel that they have done and paid enough and it is time for them to look after their own families, while Tane might champion working for families that same legislation will result in ever growing support for less social spending.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Pascal:
There you go – you heard it from the mouthpiece of the Labour party
I’m not a member of the Labour Party and I’ve never voted for them in my life. How that makes me a mouthpiece I’m not sure…
P.S. Tane – 4 out of 13 responses.
It’s polite to respond when asked a direct question.
Take a look at the tax rates of Hong Kong.
Take a look at the poverty and inequality in Hong Kong.
getstaffed:
Tane, i didn’t ask a question. i said you can’t have it both ways. but in response to your question, let me suggest that one fewer $150k social policy analyst and TWO additional front-line social services delivery people at $70k each could achieve something better for nz.
The idea that policy analysts sit around all day doing nothing and just take money from frontline services is absurd – are you suggesting prison officers should write corrections policy and senior doctors should organise hospital cleaning rosters?
Your argument simply isn’t backed up by facts. Our staffing levels are comparable to any other modern democracy, and reducing numbers in real terms will only make our public service less efficient.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Tane
Who do you vote for?
Can you also back up this statement “Our staffing levels are comparable to any other modern democracy, and reducing numbers in real terms will only make our public service less efficient”… or is it simply another lie?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Bruv, see this interview with PSA national secretary Richard Wagstaff: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1365
And who I vote for isn’t relevant to this conversation.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Tane, you are full of suggestions as to what others may quite possibly be suggesting. looks like you may have a touch of ‘longbowitus’
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Tane, remember this post : http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/the_growing_bureaucracy.html
- Labour has had education bureaucrats grow in number by 40% compared to 12% growth of teacher numbers
Vote:- Central Health bureaucrats up 51% while medical professionals up 28%
- MSD policy staff have increased 109% while MSD service staff only 23%
- Overall an increase in bureaucrats by 37%, and 1 in 50 employees in NZ is now a bureaucrat
- Salary costs for policy departments have increased 142%
- Government Administration has been the fastest growing sector of the economy
April 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Tane: I’m not a member of the Labour Party and I’ve never voted for them in my life. How that makes me a mouthpiece I’m not sure…
Of course there was that little hosting incident a while back … but no, you’re probably right. No connection between you and the Labour Party at all.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Tane
The standard is NOT a credible source to back up your claims, can you provide anything else?
Who you vote for is relevant, in your capacity as duty troll (no doubt funded by the Labour party) you often abuse those of us from the right, very few of us are afraid to say who we voted for yet you are not prepared to do so..why is that Tane?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Tane Rog et al Its all about QUALITY not QUANTITY of spending. IMHO and there has been plenty of evidence in the past just throwng more dollars at a problem like you Socialists do doesnt guarantee a result.
the civil service will gobble up all the dollars it gets thrown at it . Dont mean it produces a good result.
Give me and others who have successfully managed hundreds of millions of dollar budgets the chance and we would INCREASE services AND cut EXPENDITURE at the same time.
Being doing that for 30 years of a career Aint rocket science sunshine.
You need the following
The WILL Most important or nothing happens.
The CAPABILITY knowing what to do
The CAPACITY knowing how to do it.
In fact the bigger the Budget the easier the task The jobs Ive found the hardest is with smaller budgets and less room to move either side of over or under.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
gs: You can twist any statistic by talking only in percentages. Blindly repeating John Key’s lines doesn’t do your argument any credit.
Pascal: As was explained at the time, our tech guy’s use of donated resources that turned out to have originated from the Labour Party doesn’t amount to control, especially since I wasn’t even aware of it until I read about it on this blog. And of course I have connections to Labour Party people – I know plenty, and I get a lot of valuable information from them – but so what?
Bruv: My source was the PSA, not The Standard. Feel free to provide some alternative evidence. And no, my voting preferences are not relevant to the conversation. Care to address the issue now, or is misdirection all you’re capable of?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Tane: but so what?
I don’t know – you tell me. You are known as a mouthpiece of the Labour party, there was the hosting incident which severely damaged your credibility and then there is the general support of them to the degree that you can admit no wrongdoing. (See your comments regarding their EFA breaches thus far) You seem adamant to deny it when everything except your denials indicates the opposite.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Pascal -
“Well fuck, you don’t give tax cuts then. Was that so difficult?”
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/demerits
By my count that’s 40 points just for today (you’ve been caught out using abusive language on another thread as well).
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“Tane, remember this post : http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/the_growing_bureaucracy.html”
So we have better researched policy, which is also more effectively delivered, and lower unemployment to boot…. Labour ought to be shot!
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Using the word ‘fuck’ isn’t necessarily abusive language. Abusive language would be if someone called you a ‘fucking whiney nitpicking brainless hypocritical pinko idiot’, for example.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
gnomer nome, are you the full tin of biscuits?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Tane So you dont dispute the 3 tenents I outlined to getting good quality outcomes from any type of expenditure.
In the case of Local and Central government my observations as a supplier and reciever of services to both over a 30 year period is that at best over that time they rate a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being an acceptable quality.
Quite bluntly they piss money up against the wall like the drunken sailor.
Just yesterday I spent 2 hours at the Auckland City Council and observed some of the most pathetic low levels of customer service.
It was like a step back to the 1960s/70s. Lots of paper shufflers who managed to sned me to all the wrong people in all the wrong departments.
Left hand and right hand didnt know what was happening.Chaos in motion is the best way I can descibe it . I expected to see Manuel from Fawlty Towers appear at any moment
Sadly this is local and central government every day of every week of every month of every year.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Um Tane and nome, you guys do know that Clark and Cullen were dead set against any Tax Cuts while the country was enjoying rather large surpluses but now that the surpluses are disappearing they both seem rather keen ont he idea… So why do you fault the Nats for Tax Cuts on the grounds that it will see a cut to services but don’t fault labour for the same?
I take it the EPMU will be out protesting at Labour’s Tax Cut policy then?
So we have better researched policy, which is also more effectively delivered, and lower unemployment to boot…. Labour ought to be shot!
So which policy is that then? Cunliffe’s new health initiative stolen straight from National? Maybe they would have been better served from hiring 2-3 spies, then using the rest of the money they spend on paying the extra bureaucrats salaries could have been utilised to pay our Doctors and Nurses better….
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
‘I take it the EPMU will be out protesting at Labour’s Tax Cut policy then?’
Nice question Bevan. Hows your tongue Tane?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
GD, I’ve seen a lot of rhetoric from you about quality over quantity, but very little in the way of facts and evidence.
Bevan, in my opinion Labour are cutting taxes because it’s politically necessary, not because it’s a policy priority of theirs. To put it simply, they lost the debate and realised it far too late. Having said that, you could view WFF as quite a significant tax cut for working families, and they have cut corporate rates and taxes on retirement savings through Kiwisaver.
Personally I have no objection to reviewing tax levels, but I think if it’s done it should benefit the poor rather than the wealthy, and should not lead to a reduction in government spending as a proportion of GDP. I have no idea what positions the EPMU or other unions will take on tax cuts, though the unions’ general line (and one I share) is that the focus should be on higher wages and better public services.
Pascal, if you’ve never seen me criticise Labour then you’re obviously not paying attention.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Tane take a visit to the ACC and open your eyes and you will see what I experienced.
And it aint an isolated one. A culture of anticustomer behaviour pervades local and central government.
“If it wasnt for those bastards (the customers) my job would be great”is the ethos from the top to the bottom and the bottom to the top
But then people like you with their eyes and ears painted on dont see or hear the reality.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
GD, according to a recent independent report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, “The ACC under its current implementation structure performs as well or better than most other schemes we can observe around the world.”
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1561
You can find the original report at:
http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_communications/documents/news_article/prd_ctrb076534.pdf
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
[So we have better researched policy, which is also more effectively delivered, and lower unemployment to boot…. Labour ought to be shot!]
No roger, what we have is more busyness and less productivity. However I join with you and the majority of NZ voters in agreeing with the assertion that Labour should be shot.
[gs: You can twist any statistic by talking only in percentages. Blindly repeating John Key’s lines doesn’t do your argument any credit.]
Vote:Tane, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0710/S00346.htm. Bloated, self-serving bureaucracy. Pure and simple. The people who defend it are worse than the problem itself.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
gs, that’s not an analysis, it’s a one-sided bleat from Katherine Rich.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Bevan, in my opinion Labour are cutting taxes because it’s politically necessary, not because it’s a policy priority of theirs. To put it simply, they lost the debate and realised it far too late. Having said that, you could view WFF as quite a significant tax cut for working families, and they have cut corporate rates and taxes on retirement savings through Kiwisaver.
WFF and Kiwisaver are not Tax Cuts. to pass the off as such is rather disingenious.
Personally I have no objection to reviewing tax levels, but I think if it’s done it should benefit the poor rather than the wealthy, and should not lead to a reduction in government spending as a proportion of GDP.
So reward those that do not seek to better themselves or take risks to further themselves, rather damn them to funding lower wage earners increased pay packets? We need to reward people who strive to better their lot, not he other way around. Do you really want to see the amount of people leaving for Aussie increase?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Tane, Stop trying to discredit the author and/or channel. It’s just childish. Do you dispute the facts? Most thinking NZers would regard this as an example of Labour’s tragic waste of our tax money.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
But PWC werent at the ACC when I experienced very bad customer service. Having worked for one of the most highly regarded global customer service organisations Honda Motor Co I do know how to distinguish between a good and bad customer service organisation.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Bevan, they’re both tax credits administered through the IRD, but anyway, that wasn’t my point. I agree that income taxes are being cut because it’s politically necessary, not because it’s a policy priority.
You might think we need to reward the rich with even more money, but I think they’re getting more than their share already – and income inequality stats would tend to back me up. I’d also take issue with your implication that only those on high incomes ‘strive to better their lot’ as it’s simply not true, nor do I see how a tax cut will make the already wealthy any more productive. Your point about Australia is a non-sequitir.
gs, I’m not simply damning the source, I’m pointing out that a partisan press release is not an argument. What you’re giving me is carefully chosen and manipulated figures that only tell half the story. There may be good reasons why the number of MoE officials increased, but Katherine Rich gives no hint of what these are. The lesson here is simple – don’t take partisan statistics at face value.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
But PWC werent at the ACC when I experienced very bad customer service.
And they probably weren’t there when lots of people experienced very good customer service either. That’s why we commission studies rather than relying on anecdotal evidence.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
tane – your obsessed with the “rich” aint ya!
how anyone earning 60k can be considered rich is beyond me.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
[Tane said: There may be good reasons why the number of MoE officials increased, but Katherine Rich gives no hint of what these are]
Vote:Perhaps her counterpart in parliament might have. But he didn’t. Nor have you. So if no one is willing or able to present a defensible reason as to why my tax money is apparently being squandered… then I’m left with the unpalatable conclusion that the squandering continues. Labour is at the helm, and they are responsible for this waste.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
It’s a shorthand dime. If you’d prefer I can say “those on high incomes”, but that sounds a bit PC if you ask me.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
gs, it’s probably because Labour’s communications are dreadful, by and large. But one thing you should know about media releases is to treat them with a grain of salt. The Nats have played fast and loose with the facts and even made shit up to suit their agenda on more than one occasion. I suspect however that this isn’t something we’re going to solve on this blog.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Tane – I have to say you’ve got incredible patience with these idiots. Every time I come here, I encounter “my anecdotal evidence , that for all you know I’m making up, trumps your independent source of facts and figures”. But nothing will convince these moronic zealots. They’re like DPF’s own personal cyber army of right-wing zombie clones.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Tane, Perhaps. The other possibility, of course, is that their communications are just fine… and the ‘dreadfulness’ is actually comprised of :-
Vote:(a) The bloated, self-serving bureaucracy which taxes productive effort to sustain it’s own unproductive activity, and;
(b) The way some folks will defend (a) above as being good for NZ’s future
April 9th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
RN – cheers, I feel your pain.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Tane
So have I got this correct. National are bad because they want to cut taxes and let the wealth generated by individuals stay in productive hands yet Labour are good because they will do what is politically expedient to retain power….
Is this really the level of your integrity ?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Hey everybody, if we can spend a few million via a few registered third parties to convince the general public that flat taxes are a great idea and the most fair way to collect essential govt revenue then labour will campaign for flat taxes and Tane will be claiming it’s a good thing.
It’s easy being a political slut – just follow Tane!
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
There has been a huge increase in the number of policy analysts employed in Wellington (at least several thousand) and an increase in the salaries they are paid (which personally has been good for me). However, what are the extra benefits that have been gained? Have all those analysts at MED pontificating about economic growth actually achieved anything?
NZ has to be more efficient than other countries because of our small population and isolated position – so I don’t buy the argument we are no worse than elsewhere.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Roger Nome: By my count that’s 40 points just for today (you’ve been caught out using abusive language on another thread as well).
Poor dear. Can I suggest that you email DPF and request demerits for me? Or are you just being a bit sour because you copped some again for making some more of your usual, unsavoury remarks regarding DPF? Now go bother somebody who cares you unctuous little weasel.
Edit: P.S. If you would like to apply for your hall monitor badge and show your real socialist “watch your neighbours” tendencies, have a browse through this Google search. Lots of people saying “fuck”. And on Kiwiblog. That should keep you busy
P.P.S. You are really proving what a fuckwit you are. That’s three. Must be 60 demerits now, eh?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Oh woger gnome do come out to play?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I’m finding some of this salty language and taunting a little bit threatening – and yes, I’ll say it, a little bit scary – so I’m afraid I must away…
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
It can’t be that hard a job for Cullen.
I had
- tax free to $15K
- 21% to $60K
- 30% to $100K
- 39% for $100K plus
This would give my wife and I a nice little bit extra per week and cost less than 1/3 to 1/2 of the surplus Cullen has been running.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Southern Raider
I like you’re taxation scales.
Tane
It’s worse than that Tane, you are only counting income in the wealth divide, such a narrow perspective but predictable from a ‘workers rights’ person. Over a certain income you own a house (or three) under a certain income, you own didly. It’s that simple. The wealth chasm betwen the ‘have’ and the ‘have not’ of property owners has never been wider in NZ than it is now after almost 9 years of Labour govt. What are Labour going to do, everything they seem to have suggested or tried so far has turned to a crock of shit.
The answer seems simple, but almost 9 years of Labour being to scared to address it (as National were before them) has just let the situation get out of hand. Residential investment property attracts capital gains – simple as that, lets see if Labour have let the public suffer enough for them to fix the problem without it costing them an election. Do you think we are ready for it yet?
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Southern Raider
Actually I’d like them more if the 39% was 33%. It’s just a ‘one third’ thing. I can tolerate the govt endlessly taking one third of my income from me while I get zero return from the ‘extra’ I pay. It’s the cost of living in a civilised society. Furthermore 39% is stigmatised to that crazy bugger who thinks it’s valid to use 1999 wealth thresholds in 2008 for person taxation.
Vote:April 9th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
You’re quite right Burt that both National and Labour are too scared to fix the tax subsidies for landlords that has created a huge wealth gap. I don’t hear Tane et al bleating about that.
If the top rate of tax had been lowered to 30 percent, capital gains properly taxed and negative gearing stopped I’m sure we would now have much less inequality in wealth and less personal debt.
Vote:April 10th, 2008 at 9:00 am
tane – how bout instead of “rich” you refer to those people as “the middle class” which is what they are!
Vote:April 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
With a flat tax system most of those things would be irrelevant and we wouldn’t need online tax calculators.
Vote:April 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I think Dr. Cullen is completely mad, completely stupid – or both. Only in the rareified air of parliament would we say that eaning $15/hour makes you a low income earner (poor) and earning $30/Hour makes you rich. How can any sane person seek to redistribute income across such a small margin. No wonder people who have earning potential are leaving the country by the plane load.
The damage caused by keeping 1999 ‘rich prick’ thresholds in place for so long will takes years to recover. National will probably be talking about the failed tax policies of the past for the next 18n years!
$150K+ is rich, $60K is not rich – read my lips Dr. Cullen – You are a fool!
Vote: