Two Face Cunliffe plays the envy card again

In his speech yesterday David Cunliffe again showed his two faces.

He railed against rich pricks with trusts and rich accountants hiding assets.

We are confronted by a government clearly ruling in the interests of a few at the expense of the many, and creating two New Zealands.

One for the rich and powerful, who don’t pay their fair share of tax because they have smart accountants to ensure they avoid it.

And there’s the other New Zealand. Where people struggle to put food on the table for their families.  


We will raise the top tax rate for high earners but not middle income families.

We will target those who speculate on capital gains and avoid tax using trusts.

I wonder perhaps when he will be asking his accountant to wind up the Bozzie Family Trust and removing his family home from the trust structure he has set up.

Yet another two-faced politician decrying that which he has already availed himself of.

David Cunliffe really is Two-Face the Politician


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • blokeintakapuna

    Our NightMayor and CunningCV seem to be soul brothers…

  • blokeintakapuna

    Convenient he doesn’t mention the Lawyers required to set up the Trust.

    • paddles83

      Do you mean his bitch Mrs

  • steve and monique

    Being two-faced, one would have thought he would have chosen the better one to show to the public. As for the two New Zealand comment, I fear that has already happened on another level entirely. When you start having race based policies etc, that ship has already sailed

  • Whafe

    The man gives me the creeps, not sure why, but just find him so creepy.

    I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could kick him, the man is a dishonest creep

    • LabTested

      I was watching the movie Leon last night. Gary Oldman’s performance made me think of David Cunliffe

  • Toryboy

    There is a widespread ignorance about that sort of thing so I imagine many of the ‘ordinary’ people will believe it is actually true.

    By having assets in a trust you simply have ownership in another entity, perhaps to shelter them from future creditors (or wives), but the amount of taxes remains the same.

    The personal income tax rate is 33%, the Trust tax rate is 33% – exactly the same – so nobody avoids paying “their fair share” of anything.

    It is a myth, almost everyone (out of ignorance) believes it… it simply isn’t true.

    I know there are many who after years of socialism may be thinking “oh well maybe that is what rich people do” so let me repeat it, in case you are hard of hearing –
    It isn’t true.

    • Steve R

      Oh if only that we’re all we were taxed. Don’t forget that those poor folks that the liebour party claim to represent pay a much higher percentage of their pay in taxes thanks to gst and the fact that they spend every cent. By the way I have no real problem with this , it’s just the way it is .
      But hay go ahead taxe the rich , when we look at the real numbers the net gain will be f all . Not to mention the fact that history is full of examples of just such tax increases leading to more money and earnings being sent offshore and hidden , thus a lower rate of gain .

      • Toryboy

        Ha ha – my post was solely addressing rich pricks and the false perception they somehow avoid taxation.
        Yes there is a strong argument that poor people are the ones not paying their fair share, but Labour is curiously silent about that.

        • James Growley

          If you happen to be belong to one of those blood sucking churches that tithes you a percentage of your “income”, then a trust is the way to go. You may actually earn say $500k a year, but draw only $30k a year as income from the trust therefore robbing the church of $47k per annum.

          • jonno1

            Wow that’s a cynical view James, where did that come from?
            I choose to tithe, at a minimum, both to my church and to other charities (no compulsion!). But I also take into account your point and either “up-size” my personal giving to reflect trust net income, or donate from the trust directly.
            But I absolutely agree that low income families need to put their basic needs first, and any group that suggests otherwise is, frankly, wrong.

          • James Growley

            Unfortunately, the direst of low income families mainly from a certain part of Auckland where religion is taken very seriously, are compelled to go into further debt to meet their churches demands rather than be held up to ridicule.

          • jonno1

            James, if that’s so then it’s very sad and certainly not a Christian attitude, perhaps more a cultural thing.

    • island time

      Not a complete myth. You can allocate income to beneficiaries who are on a lower tax rate. However plenty use trusts for asset protection without other tax advantages.

      • Muffin

        Yes but if hey are under 16 then it’s taxed at 33 still.

      • pidge

        The tax rate of Trust income paid to minors is 33% (see, with some exceptions.

        • island time

          Yep, so there is still an element there to take advantage of in some circumstances – so its not entirely mythical.

          • pidge

            “an element” in “some circumstances” – I believe that’s called a “long bow to draw”.

            1. The Trust needs income or liquid assets to be able distribute it, for which a tax return would need to be completed for the trust and beneficiaries. Failing to dot i’s and cross t’s will result in adverse consequences from IRD.

            2. Any net income the trust receives that does not get distributed still gets taxed at 33%.

            3. The most tax that could be avoided by paying to an adult beneficiary of the trust is ~$9,050K (paying a beneficiary $70,000 from the trust, with that as the bene’s sole income – instead of keeping the $70K in the trust and paying the 33% tax).
            $14k bene income = $3,150 tax advantage
            $48K bene income = $8,420 tax advantage

            4. A Trust Bene getting $48K from a trust is not going to be a drain on other Taxpayers as well now are they, they are still paying their fair share, right?

            Honestly, you’re barking up the wrong tree with Trusts. Trusts are for protecting assets and distributing the passive income (dividends, interest etc) from them. Finagling active income (wages, salary, commissions, directors fees etc) streams is what company structures are better suited for.

            If you are saying that it’s not right that people should be able to protect the assets they have accumulated for the benefit of themselves or children / other people they care about, please just say that? It is a legal method of protecting assets from your own stupid mistakes, because they aren’t your assets anymore, they belong to the trust. If you know of someone who treats a trust asset as their own, I’m sure IRD would love to hear about such arrangements.

            If you are concerned about the means by which the assets are accumulated (say, a rat-bag property developer), please be sure to lay the blame at the method of asset accumulation, not the Trust structures.

          • island time

            No stringing of a bow. Merely stating that there are still some unintended tax concessions which busts the myth. I could also go into a dialogue about tax law and application and management thereof but chose not be be a boring prat about it. I happen to have a trust for asset protection and actually gained a small benefit albiet unintended but it might add up depending how many kids you have.

            Your last two paragraphs are not worth any words. Never said anything of the kind. Sounds like you may be adding one and one to get three.

          • pidge

            That’s why I added the conditional “if” at the start of the two paragraphs?

            If the beneficiary of a trust was directly receiving the income from the asset instead of via the Trust, there is no difference in the tax paid by the beneficiary, right? The tax rate on Trusts (33%) encourages the distribution of Trust net income to those earning below $70,000. Above that, it’s a choice of accruing assets in the trust or more cash for the high-income earner beneficiary(s). Finagling with gifting back can be used to minimise the tax exposure of the Trust (not the beneficiaries), but it does not remove it, and requires the co-operation of the beneficiaries to gift back do that.

            Actually, for minor, it is better that they receive the income directly from the asset instead of via the trust, due to the 33% tax on distributions to minors (with some exceptions to that rate).

    • jonno1

      It’s actually slightly worse than that Toryboy. Trusts are taxed from the first dollar of profit, so for the first $70k you’re worse off leaving it in the trust. I’ve thought about drawing income down then re-gifting it – don’t know whether that’s legal but have decided it isn’t moral (my choice). So like a lot of rich pricks I probably pay more net tax than I need to. Of course company profit attracts only 28% tax, but again from the first dollar. Frankly I’ve never understood why different entities have different tax rates.

  • Phar Lap

    Yes he is just like a kipper fish .A two faced bastard with no guts.

  • Patrick

    The politics of envy, class warfare, such an easy ploy to play by Cunliffe. Pity those who get sucked in by Cunliffe will not see that he doesn’t give a flying toss for them. He is all about divide & rule. Just as long as he gets the PMs job. He couldn’t give a toss for the hoi polloi, sitting up high in Herne Bay looking down his nose at the masses, practising his bro talk. All the while admiring himself in his full length mirror.

    • Toryboy

      But you forget Patrick – the difference between living in a Herne Bay mansion and a Parnell mansion is simple “I am not a dirty Jewboy” (as Labour constantly points out); surely you realise that when Cunliffe does it it is ‘different’? he is the son of a Vicar (code for: Christian, not dirty Jew).

      As you say, pity those who fall for it.

  • Day Day

    Is Cunliffe suggesting avoiding tax is a crime? Avoiding tax is 100% legal, tax evasion however, is not.

    • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

      With Curryleaf in power, you won’t have any money left to pay anything….

    • pidge

      IRD are steadily chipping away at avoidance, see the husband and wife surgeons who were investigated by IRD and screwed over for having the audacity to only pay themselves $60,000 from their company. It’s not like they could ever get any more money out of the company without paying more tax eventually.

    • island time

      Not so much a crime but he will want increased tax take to fund his insurance company if he gets in power.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Rich prick tax is coming whether you like it or not….

    • OneTrack

      scs – Where does the rich prick tax cut in – $40k, 50k?,…

      • cows4me

        Depends on wind direction, really who would know One Track, we dealing with seriously entitled people here.

      • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

        Don’t listen to Cows4me as he is high in the rich prick register. He will b paying special taxes.

        According to my briefing paper to Curryleaf, this is the plan.

        From 60K until 119,999 the tax rate will be 39%
        From 120K onwards the tax rate will be 42%

        During election campaign, Curryleaf will be saying – “rich people will be paying a modest additional levy to restore social justice”

        • Dave

          SCS, others are welcome to join me in Australia, where taxes and GST are currently just under NZ tax rates, and will be way lower than the CurryLeaf taxes. C4M and others, please turn the lights out, as there will not be many left to pay the pinko socialists wages and benefits, however, please leave SCS a few candles for light and tins of baked beans to survive on.

          • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

            We will be chasing you in Oz for sure mate….That is called Kiwis Overseas Tax or KOT….

  • john Doe

    “Two face Cunliffe”…..I dont think so ..he is too bland to be two faced!

    • rrroberto

      Two faced indeed. How about Janus face, with the silent “j”

  • Reid

    The inequality is a major meme partly because it’s global not just here and they capitalise on that just like they capitalise on the environment. It’s worse than ever statistically because of the utterly mental property prices in Auckland. The fact this gives people big assets but not big cashflow is a detail lost on the floaters. Plus all Liarbore have to do is cite a few examples and the emotions go off the charts. It’s a classic hot button issue and you know what?

    I bet, just bet, National does absolutely completely totally nothing about countering it apart from wheeling out dry as dust English every once in awhile to reel off some Treasury stats.

    Conservatives are useless at political persuasion. For some reason, they (we) think the issue is taken care of by said above wheeling out, case closed, there we are.

    Well newsflash, it’s not and that won’t work. It never has and it won’t this time, either. Crosby-Textor or whoever does their comms in this coming election year are going to have to earn their money and design a program that touches and counters those emotional buttons the lefties and the media will push left, right and centre from campaign start to campaign finish. Will that happen? I’m not holding my breath.

  • Bruno 32

    I have been around and done lots of deals.Nearly all with a handshake,with a bit of paperwork to tidy it up. BUT,there is something about Cunliffe My well developed bullshit detector goes off the radar.He IS DODGY.

    • Kimbo

      Not dodgy, just uninformed. Dangerous to give any power to this fuckwit.

      • Bruno 32

        uninformed is dodgy if your in the job this waste of space is applying for

  • Kimbo

    “He railed against rich pricks with trusts and rich accountants hiding assets.” Haha Oh fuck yes, mock the successful. pander to the losers. You gotta love the Labour dream. Winners Not.

  • BJ

    In todays Herald Damian Grant Kills this beautifully: Grant: Poverty isn’t fault of the rich
    Sorry – I don’t know how to link the article

  • Mr_V4

  • Bryan

    well the latest just shows how out of touch he is when he says

    “we are going to use some of the Red Zone houses for temp housing”

    he doesn’t know that half of them have been demolished already because they are unlivable He would not live in them and yet he expects to offer people a house with broken floors coated with liquifaction and leaking broken roof and thats Labours housing plan its a sick joke

    • onelaw4all

      It dovetails nicely with the Lab/Green economic policies.
      Busted and without any solid foundation.

  • timemagazine

    How typical of the left-always blame somebody else for your misfortunes.

  • rouppe

    The trust thing is total bollocks.

    The tax rate for a family trust is 33%. The maximum personal tax rate is, err, 33%. So even though some people might run their income through a trust, most of it is going to be taxed at the same rate. The only exception is those that have significant beneficiary distributions through their kids but this should be disclosed in annual IRD returns and so untoward activity picked up then.

    The biggest rip-off with trusts – and probably limited liability companies more so – is when business-people do poor quality work via their company, funnel the income into their trust, and then wind up the company leaving innocent people holding the can of shit at the end. A la leaky homes. They merrily continue to live up large, drive their new BMW, form another company and keep on going.

    That is where the focus of the law should be applied to make it easier to unwind and get at the assets built up from being a prick.

  • Max

    The Socialists at the top of the red dung pile always ensure their personal wealth is protected from their hordes of welfare funded followers .
    All of them become strangely silent and helpless when it comes to increases in perks and salaries ,which are beyond their control even if they set it up to be that way.