On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:19:39 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:40:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 23:53:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96830392/labour-releases-full-tax-plan-in-response-to-criticism-over-its-working-group

So how exactly will the new government that Labour want to lead pay for >>>>>>the
promises they have made?
Firstly no tax certainty then no taxes but heaps of spending - daft! >>>>>>Tony

Now you are channelling the Pooh-troll!

Don't be so bloody stupid, I am channelling nobody, unlike you I do not >>>>need
others to feed me ideas; I can come up with my own.

Well Pooh is indeed a nobody, but in not feeling that your own ideas
are all that are needed

You liar, I have never even implied that! Proof that you lie and you do so >>ofetn!

So what did you mean by "unlike you I do not need others to feed me
ideas; I can come up with my own."? Why is it lying to take you at
your word?

you do have significant similarities to the
Pooh-troll. I prefer to look at facts where those are available . . . >>Bullshit, you are full of spin fed to you by an outdated and incompetent >>ideology.

What ideology is that, Tony?

Labours numbers do not rely on decisions yet to be made. They will >>>>>extend the "bright line" test for capital gains from National's 2 year >>>>>period to 5 years. They will also retain current income tax rates - >>>>>the tax cuts National promised from April next year will not happen >>>>>under Labour.

I do not agree, the figures almost certainly do rely on tax increases; in >>>>light
of the change in tax direction can you prove that they do noT?

Try:
http://www.labour.org.nz/fiscalplan

I did but it has a missing bit. What effect will the postponing of any >>working
group review on tax have on this "plan"? That is the point.

None of course - what evidence do you have that they allowed for
decisions not yet made? All that is changed is that they have said
certain decisions nopt yet made will not be implemented until after
the next election.

The results of the tax working group make no difference to the budget >>>>>given by Labour.

Prove it? Where are the workings?

http://www.labour.org.nz/fiscalplan

see above

You may also be under the same misapprehension as the Pooh-troll >>>>>regarding the stated purpose of the tax working group. It is to make a >>>>>fairer system - that does not necesssarily mean that the total tax >>>>>take after changes willl be more or less than under current taxation >>>>>setting. The primary aim is to see that our system is fair; making it >>>>>more fair may involve increases in revenue from some aspects of >>>>>taxation and decreases in others.

Any actual figures to demonstate that ???

No - are there any figures from National's group looking into their
water tax? Why would you expect conclusions from a working group yet
to be formed?

Is is irrelevant, National have a proven track record in highly adverse >>conditions, better than most of the world. That comes down to trust.

What proven track record? Despite a very strong financial position
that they inherited in 2008, we now have a greater problem with
poverty, inequality, low or zero productivity improvement over the
last few years, a housing crisis, huge spending in providing emergency >accomodation as social housing has been sold, productive enterprises
sold largely to overseas shareholders who have reaped good profits at
the epense of New Zealanders, only one sector (banking) showng good
profits, prices for basis commodities rising faster than wages (think
butter and electricity), private debt in a worse position than in
2008, and government debt again at a high level for New Zealand as a >percentage of GDP; high unemployment (especially for the young). So
where is your evidence for your personal opinion, Tony?

Our current system is complex, but where possible various parts have >>>>>been kept relatively simple - for example most parties support GST >>>>>being as near universal as possible. The interaction between different >>>>>elements of our taxation system is however complex - understandable >>>>>since out financial system is complex, but from time to time is is >>>>>worthwhile reviewing the structure as a whole as well as individual >>>>>elements. This is what the new National-led government did in 2008 - >>>>>resulting in their breaking a promise not to increase GST. I am not >>>>>suggesting that Labour will break promises, but they are likely to >>>>>look with interest at the results of the current governments latest >>>>>review for treatment of water resources. I carefully do not >>>>>characterise that as a tax

It does not matter how National would characterise it - It is a tax by any >>>>definition, how stupid you must think the public is, how bloody arrogant of >>>>you
- it is a tax!

Its actually closer to a user-pay charge, but a resource tax is OK as >>>well. Have National promised that their water tax will not apply to >>>farmers?

It is tax, pure and simple. It is tax you misleading prick!
And what National have said is not the point. The point is, as I have >>explained
using short words, is what Labour have said> Do try to keep up!

What National say is the pint just as much as what Labour say. Labour
have said they will extend the "bright line" test from 2 years to 5
years - and already we are seeing the effect on Auckland house prices
as some investors seek to sell out rather than wait for 5 years from >purchase. What are National proposing?

Regarding water, Labour are saying they will not set prices until they
have discussed with sector representatives - what are National saying
- after all they have already set up a review group - where is that
at?

We do have a history of National having a working group to review tax
- that resulted in them doing bugger all consultation before they
broke a promise by raising GST - and they went on to other tax
increases - see the list below

because National would doubtless use the
same term as Labour - royalties; they only refer to a water tax if >>>>>they want to accuse Labour of following their lead . . .When you hear >>>>>of a bottle of New Zealand water selling for the equivalent of NZ60 >>>>>cents overseas but costing NZ$2 here in New Zealand, it is clear that >>>>>some costs for exporting a valuable resource that is rationed in many >>>>>parts of New Zealand is at least worth considering - do you disagree >>>>>with National looking at that issue and seeking advice before making >>>>>decisions?

Stupid question, I have already agreed that taxing (correct term) water >>>>sent
overseas is appropriate but not taxing water that farmers use, that would >>>>be
seriously inflationary.

Do you have any evidence of that? Our butter prices for example are
set at international market levels - how much would a small water >>>resource taxc of say 1c per cubic metre of water add to the cost of a >>>500g block of butter, Tony? Have National promised not to apply water >>>resource costs to farmers?

Do you really want a lesson in simple economics?

If that gets an answer to the questions, then yes - would 1c or 2c
per cubic metre of water affect the world price of butter?
Have National promised not to apply their water resource tax to
farmers?

Well you won't get it from me but here is a clue (it could be hard for you to >>follow but here goes anyway).
Farm costs rise ergo middleman costs rise, ergo people pay more in the shop. >>Not hard was it? The trouble is the effect of GST and other overheads all the >>way through the chain.

Not if we are paying the export value it doesn't.

And have National
promised not to apply their water resource tax to farmers?

I suspect that the review was in any event going to take nearly three >>>>>years,

You can suspect anything your mind can drag up but it does not make it true.

but there are some aspects which can be thought through and
work started independently - those that will involve international >>>>>diplomacy for example such as taxation of global companies or rules >>>>>for overseas residents purchasing property in New Zealand. some >>>>>aspects of those discussions are probably already happening under the >>>>>current government.

Not probably, of course this sort of thing is being discussed and has been >>>>for
decades under all governments. What a waste of bandwidth that paragraph of >>>>yours was.

Not much result over the last 9 years though . . . time for a change, >>>right?

Stupid man and you still think I am a National supporter, No way am I that, >>just a shrewd judge of a patenty incompetent opposition as ably demonstrated >>by
your lying.

I have no idea who you are likely to vote for; you do appear to be
tending towards the sort of thinking disaplayed by Winston Peters in
his interviewwith Espiner this morning.

I'm trying to stick to policy

issues from the two parties most likely to form thelargest part of the
next government. Is it relevant who you vote for if you cannot have a >coherent discussion on specific issues wihout takling offence at
implications which are not there . . .