Your views, August 22

Reaction to National reveals tax cuts [link at bottom of page]

You: It's the start of our financial year. Can I have a pay rise?
Your employer: No, National's tax cut has already given you one.
You: Doh, I'm back to square one.
- Chris Keall

* * *

National has today made a small conservative step towards providing tax relief for all Kiwis who aspire to be in control of their own financial destiny. If only National were bold enough to substantially reverse the greedy tax, redistribute and waste policies of this Labour government. A bold National Party with a hunger to govern should have set tax rates at 0 per cent on first $10,000, 17 per cent from $10,000 to $65,000, then 30 per cent thereafter.
- Grant

* * *

Why is it that when tax cuts are unveiled, some whiner always complains that it gives more to those on higher incomes than on smaller incomes? The fact that those on higher incomes are paying more tax in the first place should be obvious. Obvious except to those who have been trained by successive Labour governments that they deserve money for nothing.
- A.G.

* * *

I still think National's tax cuts will only please us in the short term. National has not considered how the government will make up for the loss in revenue. I am not convinced by National and I still support Labour and the Greens' policies on tax etc.
- Mark Harvey (Auckland)

* * *

In your article there are not many samples given who gets how much, but with the two samples of income at $38,000 and $50,000 and the tax savings of $690 versus $2370 respectively in 2007 (3.4 times more tax cut for an extra $12,000 income), how much bigger will the tax 'cake' slice be for incomes of $100,000 and above with this progression? This tax policy looks exactly as I expected from a possible National government, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" (much faster than under any other possible government).
- Heinz

* * *

Apparently, the "mainstream" New Zealand that National wants to help is considerably better off than most of the people I know. A person on $50,000 per annum will benefit by more than twice as much from National's proposed cuts than will a person on $38,000 p/a. National's spots - helping the rich get richer, while blaming and punishing the poor - haven't changed since the days of Ruth Richardson.
- Barry

* * *

I think they sound too good to be true - what's it going to cost us to get these cuts? Is it really going to be worth it for us in the end - I hate to think what the education, health and housing systems will look like with 3.9 billion cut out of them - not to mention roading, the environment and any chance of future superannuation and if they plan to cover it with debt then what does that mean to our kids, they will end up paying for it in the future.
- Annalise

* * *

Let's see, ceding sovereignty of foreign and nuclear policy to US, inevitable cuts to health and education services, sale of national assets, burden of deficit to our children, sending our children to fight illegal, bloody wars for other people's profits. All for an extra twenty dollars a week when the current "peace and prosperity" government is offering me sixty. Hmmm. Tough choice.
- Peter Franks

* * *

I think National's new tax policy has some merit, in changing the lowest tax bracket for income tax up from $9000 to $12,500. But personally I would have liked it raised a little higher to $15,000 as some families I know survive on many part-time incomes, and a $15,000 tax level would be more benefit to them. However the other changes I am not overly in favour of either way. As a former student with a large student loan, the savings I would make under National's new tax policy, effective from April 2006, would still be less than the amount of money I would save under Labour's interest-free student debt policy. That is taking into account National's policy on student debt also.
- Dagan

* * *

Say goodbye to the economic sea anchor (government excess tax income) and hello to improving NZ's productivity. The Nat tax package will greatly assist NZ employers and all employees, it will take some of the heat out of the wage increases demanded and provide a better cost structure for NZ business to compete and thereby raise all NZers' standard of living.
- Shane

* * *

As someone who has struggled out of the hard times as a student solo parent into a well-paying job, I appreciate that some support is needed for people while they upskill, raise young children, etc. However Labour's welfare package for the middle classes makes me sick to the stomach. Where is the incentive to get ahead? I have two children but earn too much to qualify for any rebates and must simply see a huge portion of my hard-earned money go to others earning slightly less. I feel penalised for having made the effort to get into a job that pays well and, I might add, means long working days and heavy responsibility. Traditionally a Labour voter I'll be voting National this time around.
- Kate

* * *

The tax policy that released from National today is unfriendly for ones in mid to high income. It should be a same rate for all workers regardless of the income bracket. People need to work harder and smarter to earn more. It is unfair to their harder and smarter work effort.
- Albert

* * *

Hooray for National. It's about time families on a single income with one child get a break instead of paying for all the other families. This is fair.
- Tom Stone

* * *

Way to go Dr Brash! During Labour's tenure the amount of money stripped from the average worker's pay (either by direct taxation or increased tariffs) has steadily increased. All the time we were told that this taxation level was an absolute necessity and there was no possibility of being able to afford tax cuts. Then lo and behold, "look folks we've just found an extra couple of billion we didn't know about!" What utterly cynical hogwash from Labour. Putting the money directly back into people's pockets makes far more sense than increasing benefits: less administration costs and less welfare dependence.
- Richard Rutherford

* * *

I think it is great. Every one gets a slice of the cake as every one will benefit; even the so called high income earners as they too have families and expenses to pay and should not bear the brunt of full taxes and getting nothing in return. Three cheers for National. I definitely will be voting for them.
- KC

* * *

At last a policy for all NZers, not just just those targeted by Labour for their vote. Has anybody else noticed how Labour's policies are divisive and split the country?
- David Parker

* * *

Dr Brash's tax cuts for someone on the average wage are miniscule when you compare what he is going to abolish from Labour's social reforms. The National party have an exceedingly bad reputation for robbing from the poor to give to the rich. This tax break only provides for an elitist social class mentality where altruism is a 'bad' thing. Targeted tax relief helps those who cannot necessarily help themselves. Families can be reassured that they are looked after. If we do not invest in our future - the people of this country, then who will? It certainly won't be rich corporate fat-cats who are sipping champagne in Ponsonby. People sould look at the big picture. People must realise that if they want to go down that path they'll be voting for an ex-governor of the reseve bank and an ex-stock broker as his financial spokesperson. Do they really have ordinary New Zealanders' best interests at heart? This is one voter who thinks not.
- Luke

* * *

I get more money given to me under Labour's proposal as an average wage earner [52k] with two kids. This release from National lines the pockets of those who do NOT need a tax cut. Labour's is better for the average family. At the end of the day Labour will be back in again.
- Murray King

* * *

Re: National tax cuts. Finally a package that assists everyone...even (God forbid) those that actually want to help themselves; and by removing the economic lunacy of the dead-weight loss created in the welfare system money go round, we are starting to see the emergence of a common sense strategy. Adequate tax for adequate services is fair, Labour's tax policy is theft.
- Andrew

* * *

This is a much fairer tax system - moving the threshholds so they are more realistic in terms of what people actually earn. Also, tax cuts put the money back in your own pocket as opposed to applying for a handout (Labour's Working for Families package). A well thought out tax package. I'll also be interested to see what the family tax packages will offer.
- Nikki Brown

* * *

Re National's "tax cuts":
Why have Brash and co been telling everyone that NZ is miles behind Australia with personal tax differences? (From $5000 to $9000 now). All they can offer is a miserable $630p.a. ($12 a week.)for someone on $38000, I was expecting at least $100 a week ($5200p.a.)to try to keep up with Australia. If this is Brash being generous I'd hate to see him being tight. Brash is worst than Scrooge.
- Trevor Doar

* * *

Does not help me one little bit. My husband and I are looking at our retirement years in the not too distant future (3 yrs for hubby and 9 yrs for me) and I can see no advantage for us in this budget. As always, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
- Pam

* * *

Good to see political parties reducing the burden on working New Zealanders. The fixing of tax thresholds have being effectively yearly tax increases ever since Labour came into government.
- David

* * *

Very good, plenty of thought gone into giving people back what they have already paid in tax, for them to decide what to spend it on, unlike Helens mob!
- Max Kofoed

* * *

It's about time. All Labour does is hand out welfare which. They will never see that money yield any sort of growth or productivity. Tax cuts are more of an investment rather than pure expenditure. It encourages people to work and keeps big companies in NZ due to the lowering of our company tax. The money spent on these tax cuts will be returned back in the form of more business and more employment.
- Tom

* * *

Finally something for me. All of Labours policies exclude me and most of my work colleagues. I'm sick of Labour taking my money and giving it to others. Tax cuts give money back to everyone that is working, that has to be fair.
- Gareth

* * *

A great chance blown. Should have gone for the 30/30/30 option, i.e. 30% max tax rate for personal and company, and tax free threshold of $30K. Should also split traffic from real police, scrap Kyoto, call for RFP's for small nuclear power stations.
- Jim Neville

* * *

Great to see that the National Party are recognising hard working New Zealanders alike and offering Tax Cuts across the board.
- Sarah

* * *

Absolutely brilliant! More money in my pocket will enable me to expand our family business. We should be in a position to take on more staff now. National you have my vote for sure.
- Richard

* * *

Don Brash's tax cuts signal a slash in services in health, education, housing, welfare, family assistance, law and order and the list goes on. The cuts treat families the same as single people. Effectively making it financially wiser to never have children. Labour's policy seems to allow for people to have choice and not face financial wreak when they have children. I'll be voting against Brash's dangerous cuts.
- Greg Stephens

* * *

So its not a tax cut? Just a move in limits on what rate applies to who? Guess Labour surely has a hold on this year's election unless National comes up with something else.
- Chris

* * *

Why will National take so long to phase in their tax changes: will they really offset other extra costs that will flow through to taxpayers from their other policies? Why will the upper income earners get the most benefit, yet need the 'benefit' the least? Seems like social welfare for the rich.
- Oakleaf

* * *

It would be great good for the development of NewZealand. I like it because they encourage people work hardder and I am going to give my vote to National Party.
- Jimhe

* * *

Not worth the cost.
- Evan

* * *

Finally somebody comes up with a policy that delivers to everybody. This is a step in the right direction as New Zealand once more heads towards rewarding hard work. I am ecstatic as it means that for middle income families there is now an opportunity to take care of themselves without having to suck on the state teat for a benefit. At the same time, people who require assistance are still receiving this. Well done!
- Pascal

* * *

These tax cuts are long overdue. Labour has neglected to revise the rates as wages and salaries have increased for far too long. Letting people keep their wages rather than forcing them to apply for rebates or benefits is a simpler solution.
- Sarah W

* * *By the time everything else goes up under a National Govt my 28 dollars a week is going to mean nothing.
- Chris Shepherd

* * *

Fantastic! - I'm single, earn around $38k and $50 per week extra is meaningful and hard to pass up. National have my tick as a result of this. Would naturally vote Labour but with their plan I get nothing!
- Kerry

* * *

Great for business.
- Murray

* * *

Excellent, excellent policy. Has got them my vote.
- James Christmas


Reaction to Pledge record puts integrity to the test [link at bottom of page]

While Labour may have fulfilled its previous election promises I am concerned that the latest ones are now out of line with achieving or sustaining the quality of life for all New Zealanders. The latest spate of promises all point to divide-and-conquer politics with each promise aimed at bribing specific demographics within the electorate - low to middle income families, persons buying their first home and the elderly. Further, none of Labour's new promises do me or anyone who worked to pay for their education themselves (or who had parents that sacrificed to help them along) any good.
- Rory Kyte

* * *

I am so over Labour. They may have "fulfilled" their pledges by twisting and putting conditions on it, i.e. not included in the unemployment rate people on those dodgy courses and the growing people on sickness benefits. The pledges are a ploy. Why is no one talking about the smacking law or the hate speech bill? If Labour get in they will probably do what they pledged to. But what about all the other things they're planning, but they aren't pushing? I'd be much more impressed if Labour pledged to listen to the people of New Zealand, rather then setting the agenda themselves.
- Cate

* * *

Pledge 7 - No rise in income tax for 95 per cent of taxpayers earning under $60,000. This pledge has not been kept because over 15 per cent of people earn over $60,000.
- Nik Artemiev

* * *

Labour has provided more teachers for schools, dropping classroom sizes, 23 per cent increase in teachers' and principals' salaries over the past 6 years as well as 15 per cent more money given in operations grants to run schools over and above inflation over past 6 years. Not bad in sticking to pledges in this sector. They just need to cut down on bureaucratic garbage so we can really focus on teaching and learning!
- Shawn Gielen

* * *

I consider that Labour has not made it easier for small businesses. In fact, I think it has made it more difficult with increasing compliancy costs and other associated costs. The Resource Management Act is hindering progress and is being used flippantly by people with private agendas that do not necessarily consider the environment. Law and Order is in a shocking state. Labour is under-resourcing the Police who have become ineffective and grossly understaffed. Education is in a bind. Senseless and whimsical "courses" and "degrees" have made a mockery of the education system. NCEA is sham and there is no real emphasis on educating those with the skills to achieve to a high standard.
- Greg Power

* * *

It's great to see Labour's promises commented on. Too often the media focus on personalities and "favourites" when bringing us political news. As to whether all they [Labour] pledged is all that anyone wanted may or may not be a moot point. I do know that the news media gave longer and more in-depth coverage of the motorcade story than to the apparent cosying up by National to Republican US senators. Perhaps run a poll on US foreign policy (like or dislike, agree or disagree) and on America's administration generally, so we an see just how much NZers would relish being run by them, in any way, no matter how small.
- Tracey

* * *

I do not believe Labour has done anything good for this country over the last two terms. Firstly the government is taking away any opportunity for the public to have referenda on what are big issues with most people, ie the civil liberties bill The higher the cost of petrol the higher the tax take for Labour. We are definitely becoming a "Brorocracy" with countless millions of hard-working taxpayers' dollars being poured into the bottomless black hole called the Treaty of Waitangi. If we weren't we could have had the health, education and superannuation system the tax payers deserve.
- J. Reid

* * *

Pledge 1: Fails to mention the 300,000 people formerly unemployed, now on sickness benefits.
Pledge 2: 1999: 180,000 people on hospital waiting lists. 2005: Still 180,000.
Pledge 6: Blatant crap. As someone who lived literally around the corner from George Hawkins for three years, the man couldn't cut crime in his own neighbourhood. Our street (Rathmar Drive) was getting hit at least once a week in late 2002-2003, we moved because of the crime as did most of our neighbours. Number of the burglaries resolved in our street? Zero.
Pledge 7: "1999: No rise in income tax for the 95 per cent of taxpayers" fails to mention the (then 5 per cent, now 11 per cent) of taxpayers paying more income tax.
- Vincent Cross

* * *

Labour has not delivered on education, they have created uncertainty with funding and have rural districts live in fear of school closures. Labour has hidden the true numbers of those on waiting lists while closing 24-hour surgical services. Labour again has failed to deliver on policing issues now they claim to increase police numbers by 250 over the next year [are they going to do that by cutting public servants or are Labour MPS going to join the police for employment after they lose this election.
- Des Mahoney

* * *

I believe Labour has kept its pledges. It has made NZ a fairer society, and has repaired some of the damage done by the previous National Governments. NZ has had unprecedented economic growth because of the wealth distribution policies of Labour. Even though this can be annoying for us taxpayers, in the long run we al benefit. Under a National Governent the rich will become richer, the poor will become poorer, and the economy will stagnate. The social fabric will be damaged, as well as the national infrastructure.
- j.o.d.

* * *

Labour are GONE. Too many PC correct LAW's Passed. Civil Unions Bill (chuck it out). Prostitutes Law (chuck it out). Smoking Ban (chuck it out). Taxes in General. Fuel Taxes (just a rort by this Labour Government).
- Carl Forster


Reaction to Election Blog [link at bottom of page]

Quote from Ms Harre: "Do the Nats really think we're either that greedy or that needy?" and "We already manage a tropical holiday and a snowboarding trip most years, and we've booked our central heating installation already. It's grotesque that we are seen as deserving of this largesse."

How can it be a bribe when it is some of your own money being returned to you? And what about people who are in a difficult financial situation? Any tax relief would benefit my family, and this package goes a long way towards helping my family reduce our debt and provide some sort of life for my sick daughter and her children (who is an adult, but I am obliged to financially help). You are so lucky, Ms Harre that you can go on holidays. There are some of us who can't because of various mitigating circumstances - like high taxation for a starter.

You can voluntarily give your tax cut back to the Government, Ms Harre, if you feel you don't need it. Just don't force all the rest of us to.
- Michael Taylor

* * *

If Laila Harre is going to make statements that NZ per capita income has dropped from 1986-2003 then can she back it up with facts? Statistics NZ clearly shows it has risen since 1986. Only in 3 years did GDP per capita not grow from 1986. Before anyone calls me a loony of the right, I would also like to point out that this "big government" claim versus small is rubbish. If you look at Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP it is smaller now (34.9 per cent) than it was during under National (37 per cent). It has only increased very marginally in the last couple of years. This is due a lot to Michael Cullen's fiscal conservativeness. Labour under him have shown themselves not to be the spendthrift looneys.

However, I do not like many of Labour's policies this election, they are more filling in the gaps, or trying to, rather than looking for maintaining that 4 per cent average economic growth they harped on about. National's policies will be no better. While many economists do not think tax cuts will exaggerate the currently atrocious current account deficit, anything that could even possibly make it worse should generally be avoided. We should be looking at tax policies that will encourage saving, investment and research. While National may say the income tax cuts will encourage saving and investment, it is business, not private individuals who make these decisions. Also considering how bad our current account deficit is, it is unlikely many individuals will save or invest. Tax cuts should be for business, especially anything that will lift our anaemic funding in research and productivity growth. If I had to support any income tax cuts at all, it would be to make the first $10,000 of income tax free. At the same time they could cut benefits so they still received the same net amount.

The only thing in the arena of managing the economy that I like from either party is National's idea of an infrastructure minister. Hopefully that will stop this stupidity of undercapacity and waiting until the last minute to fix it in areas from electricity generation and distribution to our roads.

- Garrett King