NZ Politics

561 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

ACT leader David Seymour says simpler tax system would encourage a culture of success (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

National campaigned on a proposal to adjust the existing tax thresholds, but as part of coalition negotiations with ACT last year, it agreed to consider whether the "concepts" of ACT's tax policy could be incorporated "subject to no earner being worse off than they would be under National's plan".

In simple terms, ACT would immediately axe the lowest tax threshold of 10.5 percent, meaning the government would collect more revenue from all income earners.

Some of that extra revenue would then be returned to low-and-middle income earners through a targeted tax credit to ensure they were not worse off.

The money left over would allow the government to reduce the higher tax rates at the top of the income scale - dropping the 33 percent rate to 30, and the 39 percent rate to 33

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd like to point out that poor people (mostly) don't vote for Act, so from their point of view this is better for their voters.

Though I stand by my previous claims that people who vote for Act (largely) do not understand the Act policies, and are just voting for someone who is not Labour or National.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

so from their point of view this is better for their voters.

I think enacting policies that only benefit their own voters is sort of a more sophisticated version of that thing that happens in some third world countries where if you vote for them you get a cash payout or a chicken or something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Haha it pretty much is! My understanding of a center-right viewpoint is basically that people deserve their position in society based on their actions. It makes sense from that view point that a flat tax is fairer.

And let's be honest here. The majority of right wing voters stand to benefit financially from right wing policies, but also the majority of left wing voters also stand to benefit financially from higher tax rates on the rich. People tend to vote for things that benefit themselves, and I think MMP helps solve that problem by forcing groups to come to compromises.

My personal view is that most people vote for what benefits themselves. Something about a society growing great when the old plant trees under which they will never sit - I like to think we're closer than 50 years ago but we still have a long way to go.

Edit: I feel like I should add a disclaimer that any of my views are point in time, and they change like the wind 😆

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

When we look at facts and metrics fairer societies actually benefit everyone in them. For example there was an OECD study that found countries with higher income equality recover more slowly from economic recessions.

I also don't get why the political right in NZ are content to have 20% of kids in relative poverty because those are our future taxpayers and citizens. We'd prosper better as a nation if everyone had access to skill building, proper brain development, and felt a bond of loyalty with the wider society.

viewpoint is basically that people deserve their position in society based on their actions

That's just magical thinking, but all too prevalent.