I enjoy Mary Holm’s articles. Generally speaking, her advice is straightforward and focused on the long term (who else could conceive of a more appropriate book title than “Get Rich Slow”?)
Mary’s reputation for prudence and rational advice is well deserved.
I’ve just read her thoughts on Peter Dunne’s attempt to misdirect half a billion dollars of scarce taxpayer dollars in the name of ‘income splitting’. Mary’s article reinforced my view that while income sharing might sound fair at first blush, it’s a bad prioritisation of spending that will do nothing to help low, fixed and middle income kiwi families.
So not a Dunne deal then?
Well, we hope not anyway Spud.
Can also be seen as discrimination on the basis of relationship status. It is making those who choose to be single or not have children to pay more tax. Not sure I entirely agree with that though.
Policy Progress had a good post also on how it could be done in a progressive way in conjunction with tax increases if you have the time to read it.
I thought Peter Dunne was supposed to be the bastion of common sense. It appears not to be the case.
Get a rich bastard CEO and his dolly plastic hooker wive, you can divide up $500,000 in half and save some dosh and claim your poor.
Even a lawyer (the *#$#heads) could do the same thing, $80,000 in half is $40,000. Wow, hes now poor, yeah right, still has that new car, sod.
You need a limit, so only for those under $50,000 or something.
Or just follow my idea and put up taxes for any one who earns over $150,000, put it up to 40%.
For the top 10% who claims to own 38% of this country, I think they not paying your fair share, they only paying 33%!
The bottom 10% who doesn’t even own the 10% fair share ,it more like 1% or 2%, the EXPECTED to pay 19.5% tax!
Plus we must remember the rich do all that “creative accounting” so the don’t pay there fair share at all.
Over tax system is piss poor and a rip off. It need REAL reform.
Of course Key would never do the right thing and really reform our because he scared of the Business Round Table and there merchant banker mates, really, like I always point out, John Key is the biggest pussy Prime Minster since WWII.
At least Phil can stand up for himself, even if it was ONLY Chris Cater, that still more than what donKey capable of.
Well, all my post are done in humor, but really, we need some REAL Tax Reform.
As usual I don’t want to pay for SOCKs… Hopefully Dunne will be relegated to the politicial dustbin after the next election, he doesn’t have much of a margin in his electorate about 1,300 from memory…
instead of income splitting (which does have both positive and negative consequences) surely the much better idea is a flat tax structure. When Cullen brought in his envy tax in 1999 (a completely un-necessary and vindictive action typical of a socialist government) the issue had more traction and certainly would have been a better way to go than the very stupid WFF. However St Johnny has reversed the envy rich P***k tax and flattened the tax structure therefore the arguements for income splitting have largely disappeared.
This is an attempt by Peter Dunne to get his name in the paper as most people have forgotten who he is.
Ah Munty, can’t even agree with a post on here without bagging Labour…
You guys let Dunne do similar things in the exact same role less than 3 years ago.. I disagree I think it will help middle income families who may be able to get a far better deal and chunks of tax off for splitting there income in a way only divorce or similar could achieve
Yeah well if you truly want to focus this on middle income families its easy stephens, just limit the changes Dunne is proposing to effect only the first $70,000 (say) of household income per year.
So you’d be in favour of that then?
With 1.7B unexpectedly, well unexpected by the rest of us, being earmarked, just where do people think money comes from for tax splitting, that is another tax cut?
Monty, ST Johnny, I like that…
hehe
For you Monty,
The top 10% who claim ownership 38% of this country. Yet they only paying 33% tax. It hardly fair is it!
The bottom 10% who doesn’t even own the 10% fair share its 1%, and they are EXPECTED to pay 19.5% tax!
Plus the rich do all that “creative accounting” so they don’t even pay 33% sometimes and don’t give me that rubbish about they will invest in the economic cause a good part of there money is spent on overpriced rubbish, Big flash houses, cars and clothes and jet all over the planet. Alot of that money is spend on Flash Import.
If they could become millionaires under the old “socialist government” then the don’t need any help via tax cuts…
So before you start up with your “envy tax” and “socialist government” with you silly and contradictory right wing rhetoric, just think about how wealth the wealth are, and how did they get to be that wealth and think about how much it really cost for there upkeep.
Also nothing wrong with Aunty Helen and her “socialist government”, even if she was a “commie” hehe
You tell em Red
Tell em what..? Nonsensical ranting..?
top 10$ own or control over 50%
bottom 50$ own or control under 3% and falling.
20% have debt they can’t service.
Consumerism feeds the top.
Imports are a major problem
Monty you are becoming eligible to joint the whinging round table. Are profits down for the big players – hardly.
Progressive tax builds a better business environment.
Flat tax that the rich whingers keep parroting on about, promotes more boom for the finance sector and bust as their greed grows, with increased inequity that doesn’t heal. It is a well documented phenomenon if your care to do your research.
Parroting on about Douglas’s and Nact’s failed forays into milking the system shows a limited will to find out at best.
We are still paying big time for Douglas’s damage in the 80s.
Progressive tax is fundamental to any form of equity.
Flat tax for flat earnings could be a goer regardless of whether worked for or just collected. Lets flatten the earnings then that will flatten the taxes.
Splitting income may be attractive to many with double income but they probably need little relief in this age of institutionalised unemployment..
Those kids in families with one income will not benefit at all. Mums (or Dads) at home make families work.
Peter Dunne “for the families” ? – not a chance. Another smoke screen that will take a few in.
Jeremy M Harris,
“Tell em what..? Nonsensical ranting..?”
I give you three thumbs up
Opposable too
“Progressive tax is fundamental to any form of equity.”
The normal comment applies — Labour put those extra, progressive taxes on people earning $60k, then had to provide benefits for people earning in that top tax bracket, because as even Stuart Nash admits, people living in Auckland and supporting a family on $60k aren’t rich. Most of the desire for income splitting, even if that idea has it’s own problems, stems from this one misguided tax hike from Labour. The party seems unable to realize that it wasn’t equitable, and people knew it. Labour might still be in power now except for that policy.
Anyway, we need to move on from seeing tax as something we punish the rich with. Instead, I think we need to see a fair rate of tax that everybody pays, but only once people have enough to support themselves.
Yet again another labour polly who wants to screw families. So as your fellow Lab MP’s post 02 election, were happy to give assistance in the form of WFF based on family income irrespective of the breakdown. Family who qualifies for WFF earing $100k, if one income vs 2x$50k there is a $8,450 difference in disposable income, but thanks to govts policy both get the same WFF payouts, even thought 1 has to survive of this $8.45k less.
As long as welfare views gross income and the tax system views individuals we have this mis match. Perhaps this mis-match is too difficult for pollys to setup policies and implement them so as to take into consideration this.
It is very evident that Labour has not been totally supportive of the traditional family or extended family structure, and this just continues this biase.
Or can you, Charles put a case forward why a single income family has to survive re the case above on $8.45k less than a 2 family, and still both are poor enough to get WFF?