What happened to Axe the Tax?

Labour spent a great deal of our money running around in a bright red bus telling us all how they were going to “Axe the Tax”.

Today Phil Goff was supposed to deliver Labour’s vision for the future in a key note speech. Since they spent thousands of our tax dollars pushing their own policy you would have thought that axing the tax would have featured heavily. I have read his speech so you don’t have to. I fell asleep twice and it took me ages to actually work out what he said.

The increase in GST will raise around two billion dollars.

There are fairer ways than National’s to transfer that back to the taxpayer.

Instead of using the extra revenue from increasing GST to cut the top tax rate, we could give bigger tax cuts to middle and low income earners. That’s what I am committed to do.

Riiight, Phil Goff has just said he is “committed to” using the extra revenue from increasing GST to give bigger tax cuts to middle and low income earners. Apart from the fact that thanks to WFF these people are largely net tax takers rather than payers he has now committed Labour to retaining the GST increase, or has he? Can we have the money back for the tour now please?

Labour hasn’t yet ruled out reversing the GST increase.

Oh dear! Not even three sentences apart and he is contradicting his “commitment”. Then he tells a little porkie.

I have always supported a low rate GST without exemptions.

I suppose it is true, a little bit. He of course sat in the Labour cabinet that raised GST from 10% to 12.5%. What’s a little obfuscation between voters?

Phil then let’s loose a string of utter falsehoods, half-truths and lies by ommission.

National got elected by calling for tax cuts we couldn’t afford.

But having called for tax cuts in Opposition, their record in government will tell a different story:

An increase in Goods and Services Tax.

An increase in property tax, feeding into higher rents.

A tax on innovation, through the axing of the R&D tax credit.

They’ve increased ACC tax.

Last week they increased tobacco tax.

Now they’re putting a new tax on student loans.

And Aucklanders are facing higher rates taxes to pay for the Super City.

Line by line they are: Sort of true, true, not yet, lie, lie, you broke it – now they have to fix it, you voted for it, bullshit, it was Helen’s grand idea to control Auckland.

Phil is so crooked he can’t lie straight anymore. Then he delivers the Big Envy Lie to top all that off.

All this to pay for tax cuts at the top.

Fuck off Phil, you aren’t credible after that raft of falsehood.

One sentence later he is still lying like a flatfish.

ational says cutting the top tax rate will help to keep people in New Zealand instead of emigrating.

But the reason talented New Zealanders are emigrating to Australia is not tax.

Australia’s top tax rate is 45 cents in the dollar – much higher than New Zealand’s.

He lies on immigration statistics and doesn’t seem to connect his statement about Australia’s top tax rate with his statement about 4 paragraphs before about raising tax thresholds. Goff and Labour are talking about raising the top rate threshold in new Zealand to $70,000. Remember that Clark when elected in 1999 promised that no more than 5% of taxpayers would pay the highest tax rate when they reefed it up out of spite. In Australia, where Goff seems keen on their GST rate and not keen on their high income tax rate the thresholds are massively in favour of the taxpayer than anything he did or has suggested. The top rate he thinks we should aspire to only kicks in once our income gets over $180,000. Even at labour’s holy $70,000 promised threshold in Australia your rate would be 30%.

Phil Goff is a ninny. I don’t think he is evil, just thick. He mouths platitudes, one liners and bullshit all through the worst SEG ever seen. He is actually insincere lookng the way he nods and bounces around. Give it up Phil, let Cunners take over.

Goff has been desperate for relevance. With today’s speech he has proved his complete irrelevance.

  • pwebb

    Uh lots of comments to make but Helen said that in 1999 only 5% of taxpayers would pay the top rate. She was right. Back then only 5% “earned” more than $60k.

    Labour was tremendously successful and the number in the top bracket grew exponentially.

    Helen did not promise that there would be no more than 5% paying the top tax bracket at any time. She also used the boom in wealth to pay off some crown (our) debt and it is just as well that she did.

    • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

      If the other comments are as poor as your first then don’t bother.

      In 1999, Labour promised “no rise in income tax for the 95% of taxpayers earning under $60,000 a year. ”

      Labour weren’t tremendously successful at anything. the number in the top tax bracket grew despite them not because of them you fool. Paid off the debt with the “structural” surpluses that Cullen promptly blew on a fucked railway. Oh and did you forget about the state of ACC?

  • jimmie

    yeah and she signed a painting she did not paint, and added on a new tax rate, and brought in the EFA, and supported Winston First, and the list goes on.

    Don’t forget the overpriced trainset. Recession hitting 18 months earlier than the rest of the world. Huge deficits brought by student loan interest wipe off and WFF. How about the pledge card ripoff?

    dweeb – when looking back at Flarks reign of terror please do not forget that she could have done a whole lot more but rather spent her time trying to wreck NZ with her social change agenda.

    Kinda like Nero fiddling while Rome burnt. (You could say scorched earth policy for the incoming hapless Nats.)

    Piss off history reviser.

  • grizz

    You Forget to mention his references to increases in petrol and energy by way of the ETS. While we do not agree to the ETS, the ETS that Labour would have would have a far greater impact on prices and taxation than the sham we are going to see in a couple of months.

    The guy is all bullshit. He is talking about borrowing to pay for the Cullen fund. You only have to witness the sudden crash last week which wiped millions of stock market value to see how irresponsible it is for governments to ivest borrowed money. Rainy day money should come from surpluses and the aim should be to return the government books to surplus. If borrowing to invest were a good thing, why not invest half a trillion dollars rather than 2 billion per year?

  • joes

    Labour is getting desperate – they don’t know how to get their picture in the papers anymore, so they have to resort to this crap.

    However you got one thing wrong. They are proposing to raise the threshold for the top tax rate to $100,000. Not $70,000…. which is what it is at the moment…. quite a big error but since I agree with you overall, I won’t hassle you about it.

  • titanuranus

    These fuckwits will say whatever they think will buy them a vote,why anybody pays attention is anybodies guess ,wishful thinking maybe?
    Blatantly obvious Goof is in way over his head without Auntie Helen to tell him what to say or think.

  • pwebb

    Um

    Labour did not promise that only 5% would pay the top tax rate for ever. They were in power for 5 years. Did you read the latest OECD research that suggested that New Zealand was low down on the list of who pays the most tax and that a single income family with kids pays very little tax.

    ACC? Well they built the reserved up from $4b to $11b. It is a strange day when that is called a crisis but I guess if Nick Smith keeps shouting that it is some will believe him.

    And the railway should have never been sold in the first place.

  • pwebb

    Oops typo. Helen was in power for 9 years. 9 glorious years.

  • gooner

    The OECD report said nothing of the sort pwebb. You must’ve mislaid your glasses.

  • pwebb

    From today’s Herald

    “The average New Zealand earner’s total tax burden is second-lowest in the OECD when superannuation and other compulsory taxes are counted, according to a new report.

    The OECD, representing 30 of the world’s richest economies, reported yesterday in its annual publication Taxing Wages that New Zealand’s “tax wedge” was half the OECD average and only higher than Mexico’s.

    A tax wedge is the difference between how much employers pay workers and how much workers take home.

    The report also said that New Zealand had the smallest tax wedge for one-earner married couples with two children earning the average wage, at 0.6 per cent.”

  • panda

    So pwebb why is New Zealand not at the top of the list for wealth / income etc?? OK sorry second highest!!

    After all Helen had 9 years to get as there.

  • http://booktragic.blogspot.com pauleastbay

    PWebb shoot over to Kiwiblog and read apples aren’t apples. The herald is only giving you half the story.

    Nine glorious years………………you sad sad fag hag

  • titanuranus

    With fuckwits like pwebb about, no wonder this country is up shit creek.
    Another moron that believes everything he/she reads in the Herald.

  • jonno

    I’m not an economic genius like everyone in government clearly think they are, but instead of increasing the tax take and giving it back to people, why don’t they just tax people a bit less in the first place.

    It’s not like it increases in value by going through ird mits.

    eg first 20k tax free or top up with handouts if absolutely necessary if people are too gimp-like to earn 20k by themselves.

    the simpler the tax is the less succeptible to loopholes etc.

    anyone?

    anyone?

  • grizz

    Jonno,

    You miss the point. Labour is the party for unions and public servants. Taking money off people to give it back to them through welfare payments gives people a job and by default a reason for Labour to exist.