It’s incredible when you stop and think about it. The National Party:
- Campaigned on a promise to lower taxes for middle and upper income New Zealanders.
- Cut taxes for upper income New Zealanders as soon as they got into office.
- Cancelled the tax cuts for middle income New Zealanders in their first budget on the grounds that the country could not afford them.
- Will introduce a second budget giving upper income New Zealanders one of the largest tax cuts in history, paid for by a GST increase that breaks yet another election promise.
Surely any opposition leader worth the name would have a field day with this. So what was Phil Goff talking about on Q & A this Sunday?
GUYON Fruit and yoghurt – GST or not?
PHIL No fresh fruit and vegetables, it’s easily definable that’s why we’re doing it.
GUYON Well what about the example that Paul Holmes gave in the introduction about salted peanuts versus unsalted peanuts?
PHIL No, anything that’s processed is out.
Agree it’s incredible. If Labour can actually highlight this post budget, I’ll be interested to see if it gets any traction. My suspicion is that it won’t, because it was Labour’s overall culture in its last term (arrogant, out of touch with mainstream opinion, deals with Winston etc) that made it so unpopular, and until it has been punished for a while in opposition, people will pretty much ignore Labour as a credible govt in waiting.
Meanwhile, we’re left with a govt deliberately increasing inequality among its citizens. Grossly unfair and while I don’t usually buy into I/S’s “the nats paying off their rich mate voters” (I’m getting a tax cut and I didn’t vote for them), this really does look like it.
Comment by Eddie C — May 18, 2010 @ 9:01 am
I would be surprised if National reduces the 38%. Politically that doesn’t look smart. I would raise the thresholds massively. But it looks I will get a 50 cents tax cut per week. How much bubble gum is that?
But to Eddie C: 15% of the people here pay 50% of the taxes, so any tax cut is inevitably going to the people who pay the taxes, don’t you think?
And on ” deliberately increasing inequality”, really, that’s the ultra left stance: you have nothing, unless the government grants it to you. People can keep more of what THEY EARN, they don’t get extra benefits Eddy.
Comment by Berend de Boer — May 18, 2010 @ 9:09 am
I am really coming around to your perspective on Goff.
The oppposition has two jobs. The first is to hold the Government to account, the second is to advance an alternative agenda. Plenty of number twos, but it seems nooone – not the opposition, and surely not the fourth estate has had any success of number one.
Heh – number two.
Comment by taranaki — May 18, 2010 @ 9:16 am
Plenty of number twos [giggle] – but somewhat pertinent description of Goff’s productvity as Opposition…
Comment by Sam — May 18, 2010 @ 9:33 am
I would be surprised if National reduces the 38%. Politically that doesn’t look smart.
Journalists have been reporting this (from leaks?) for weeks if not months, and there have been a few articles defending such a measure with quotes from Key and English in the last few weeks, latest being: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3707735/Budget-gifts-for-the-rich
Seems likely!
Comment by Stephen — May 18, 2010 @ 9:42 am
Also read Bernard Hickey’s perspective on the housing bailout which are for a few few, which are quite likely National supporters.
Bailouts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, Labour should have a field day as they specialise in class war fare, don’t they?
But it might be a bit hypocritical from a party who bailed out finance companies and banks, and shuffled $650 million to Australia bailing out a rail way company.
Comment by Berend de Boer — May 18, 2010 @ 9:44 am
What about a salad of fresh fruit and vegetables? What if that salad has chicken in it? What if its sold at the supermarket next to the fresh fruit and vegetables? What if its prepackaged? What if you mix it yourself? What if Phil Goff puts unsalted peanuts in it for you?
Comment by deserthead — May 18, 2010 @ 9:54 am
really, that’s the ultra left stance
It’s a perspective relative to the status quo rather than to a world where there is no tax. I know which I think is more realistic.
Comment by lyndon — May 18, 2010 @ 10:02 am
…or maybe National’s cunning plan is to only cut the top one to say 35% and slash the bottom rate at the same time! Politically would nearly sweep the rug from under Labour’s feet, and perhaps they could sell it as an incremental step towards this 30/30/30 target. Sounds unlikely but just thought i’d get it in just in case.
Comment by Stephen — May 18, 2010 @ 10:27 am
How exactly do you ‘slash’ the lowest rate to bring the tax regime closer to a universal 30% rate…?
Comment by Sam — May 18, 2010 @ 11:06 am
The 30 number is the top rate only, National’s not talking about flat personal rates.
Comment by Stephen — May 18, 2010 @ 11:34 am
I think you’ll find that Goff’s speech tore into the government over exactly those issues.
Lots in there about the unfairness of what the government is doing, and alternative ideas about growing the economy.
The stupid comment about fruit in yoghurt came from a bernard Hickey column. Is it so bad to say that removing GST from fresh fruit and veg is a potential way to relieve some of the cost of increasing GST, as a good alternative idea, at the same time as growing the economy?
Imagine how you would howl, and Espiner would howl, if Labour didn’t come up with an alternative idea on GST, and didn’t come up with alternative ideas for growing the economy.
Comment by cowpat — May 18, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
…if Labour didn’t come up with an alternative idea on GST…
An alternative other than telling us what a bad idea it is to raise the rate of GST, immediately followed by a refusal to rule out keeping the raised rate when back in govt, immediately followed by an offer to complicate the administration of GST by adding further exemptions? I sure as hell would have preferred an alternative to that, yes.
Comment by Psycho Milt — May 18, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
Yeah, I don’t think the GST exemption on food is a bad idea, but (a) now is the time to attack, not formulate new policy and (b) having a nationwide campaign called ‘axe the tax’ without a policy on whether or not you would axe the tax is just flat out fucking retarded.
Comment by danylmc — May 18, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
Don’t blame Phil. The big sign on the bus wrapped around to other side. It read:
“Axe The Tax – On Bananas”
Comment by Pat — May 18, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
So it would have been better to have had a campaign called ‘oppose the GST increase’ without saying you are going to reverse the GST increase? Or should they have not opposed the GST increase? It’s not obvious why it is ‘fucking retarded’ to oppose the GST increase without saying how you’re going to put humpty dumpty back together again.
Comment by cowpat — May 18, 2010 @ 9:24 pm