Re: Has Key met his own "National Standard"?
ChristianKnight
"Fred" <r...@parachute.net.nz> wrote in message
news:hktgsd$o9i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "ChristianKnight" <Christi...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:hktghn$ql7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>> "Fred" <r...@parachute.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:hksem3$cqn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "ChristianKnight" <Christi...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hkrc1n$g8p$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Fred" <r...@parachute.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>> news:hkqq4p$dbl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:rrp1n51jcj9aspuaq...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/martin-johnston/news/article.cfm?a_id=110&objectid=10538381&pnum=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "National leader John Key said told a press conference this morning
>>>>>> that if National is elected and does a "half decent job" at growing
>>>>>> the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate will not be
>>>>>> necessary."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/martin-johnston/news/video.cfm?a_id=110&gal_objectid=10538381&gallery_id=103051
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps Fred would like to give an objective view as to whether the
>>>>>> National /ACT government have met their own standard for growing the
>>>>>> economy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Neither you, me or John Key can 'grow' an economy. That's a most
>>>>> frustrating and incorrect use of English. However it seems he has
>>>>> passed
>>>>> the test. They will not be increasing the top tax rate and GST.
>>>>> Changes
>>>>> are aimed at being tax neutral. And I do think he will stimulate and
>>>>> increase the economy. In the current world situation that's a tall
>>>>> order
>>>>> for any govt., and nobody can expect overnight results.
>>>> He is increasing GSt
>>>> to 15 %
>>>> He and National should tax everythiung except fruit and vegetables .
>>>
>>>
>>> Fruit and vegetables are sold at markets by auction and sell at price
>>> that
>>> varies daily. The price is set at the amount that will mean all
>>> perishable
>>> goods will sell before spoiling. Removing GST will not decrease that
>>> price, just as retailers found it impossible to add GST to perishables
>>> when it was introduced. If a banana will sell for a dollar, nobody will
>>> discount it to 95c because there's no GST. They will discount it to
>>> 95cents when they're in such supply that if they don't sell - they get
>>> thrown out.
>>
>>
>> The markets and the sellers want to make a margin of profit that demand
>> dictates is feasable.
>> Taking away Gst is likely to reduce costs to the consumer and incease
>> profit
>> to the farmer and middleman
>> Christ's love
>>
>>
>
> Bloody rubbish. If a supermarket can get $2 for a cabbage - they will.
> That is how the world works. A damn cabbage isn't worth more because of
> some tax - it is worth the price it will attract to sell before it is
> rotten. Amen.
I do not believe you. Food is like anyother commodity.
Only without it people die.
Christ's love
Christ's love
Fred
GST adds around 1% to food.
ChristianKnight
Christ's love
Fred
fall around 1 or 2%.
ChristianKnight
Christ's love
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
How do you work that out, Fred?
Fred
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tq05n5paccdbggg8m...@4ax.com...
Because GST is a system of debits and credits. If you remove food from the
system then the producer loses all input claims. So effectively every
overhead , e.g rent, electricity, advertising -and every non-food component,
e.g. packaging, increases by the amount of the GST. The retailer pays more
because he loses the claim from his purchase price (currently11.11%) and
then adds his mark-up, so the end rfesult is trivial. But here's the real
rub - retailer pays his accountant heaps more because it's no longer a
simple one tier system, and that cost gets passed on. We do have the best
system in the world - Labour gt it dead right in the first place. Leave well
alone. While the hoi polloi might bleat on about exempting this that or the
other thing ocassionally you won't find any qualified agreement.
Some countries, e.g. Australia, have simply left the final addition off, but
that has another set of problems, mainly definition of complying items, and
policing fiddles (and we all remember them from the days of our multi-level
sales tax system) as they have found out. It's a simple and effective tax
system. And in combination with a progressive income tax system any
criticism of being regressive doesn't hold water.
John Cawston
> <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Probably. But if you remove food from the GST system the retail price
>>> would
>>> fall around 1 or 2%.
>>>
>> How do you work that out, Fred?
>
> Because GST is a system of debits and credits. If you remove food from the
> system then the producer loses all input claims. So effectively every
> overhead , e.g rent, electricity, advertising -and every non-food component,
> e.g. packaging, increases by the amount of the GST. The retailer pays more
> because he loses the claim from his purchase price (currently11.11%) and
> then adds his mark-up, so the end rfesult is trivial. But here's the real
> rub - retailer pays his accountant heaps more because it's no longer a
> simple one tier system, and that cost gets passed on. We do have the best
> system in the world - Labour gt it dead right in the first place. Leave well
> alone. While the hoi polloi might bleat on about exempting this that or the
> other thing ocassionally you won't find any qualified agreement.
> Some countries, e.g. Australia, have simply left the final addition off, but
> that has another set of problems, mainly definition of complying items, and
> policing fiddles (and we all remember them from the days of our multi-level
> sales tax system) as they have found out. It's a simple and effective tax
> system. And in combination with a progressive income tax system any
> criticism of being regressive doesn't hold water.
Hear hear. Its a good system and will serve us well as we
continue to increase it whilst reducing income tax. Eventually we
should line up with many OECD countries with a 20% rate. That
would enable us to introduce (say) a non taxed "living wage".
JC
>
>
Fred
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hkv2lr$jrr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes. I believe there was a massive opportunity lost when GST was introduced.
Had it been brought in at 20% with an even bigger drop in income tax than
was implemented at the time (remember Muldoon's 66%?) this country,
including the lower paid, would be so much better off by now.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I am sure that if we exempted food from GST we would adopt the
Asutalian method - which means the difference could be more than your
1% or 2%. But I also agreee that this wouldbe undesirable - it would
make a simple system very complex, with a lot of eitehr loopholes or
an army of inspectors to enforce it. "Food" is not a well-defined
term.
>>
>> Hear hear. Its a good system and will serve us well as we continue to
>> increase it whilst reducing income tax. Eventually we should line up with
>> many OECD countries with a 20% rate. That would enable us to introduce
>> (say) a non taxed "living wage".
I believe that many countries have moved away from taxes such as GST /
VAT over the last few years. Which OECD countries have a 20% or more
rate? - and do they also have lower income tax than us?
>Yes. I believe there was a massive opportunity lost when GST was introduced.
>Had it been brought in at 20% with an even bigger drop in income tax than
>was implemented at the time (remember Muldoon's 66%?) this country,
>including the lower paid, would be so much better off by now.
>
How would the lower paid be better off?
Can you explain how giving John Key and his mates keep hundreds a week
more in their bank accounts helps the poor?
Fred
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mdb6n51i2cj3e06pj...@4ax.com...
perceived advantages.
>>> Hear hear. Its a good system and will serve us well as we continue to
>>> increase it whilst reducing income tax. Eventually we should line up
>>> with
>>> many OECD countries with a 20% rate. That would enable us to introduce
>>> (say) a non taxed "living wage".
>
> I believe that many countries have moved away from taxes such as GST /
> VAT over the last few years. Which OECD countries have a 20% or more
> rate? - and do they also have lower income tax than us?
Ofvf hand ,I can't name them. They do exist and I have seen a list of such
countries.
I don't bother clogging up my brain with remebering such details. You could
look it up. I remeber googling a site once that had most countries' tax
rates listed.
>>Yes. I believe there was a massive opportunity lost when GST was
>>introduced.
>>Had it been brought in at 20% with an even bigger drop in income tax than
>>was implemented at the time (remember Muldoon's 66%?) this country,
>>including the lower paid, would be so much better off by now.
>>
> How would the lower paid be better off?
>
> Can you explain how giving John Key and his mates keep hundreds a week
> more in their bank accounts helps the poor?
John Key doesn't come into it. I understand he retains only that part of his
salary that is due to the IRD and donates the rest to charity. Other than
that - the economy would benefit, and everyone wins. It's simple Laffer
curve stuff. How does putting up barriers to the talented and
entrepreneurial types help the poor! I'm sure you'll agree that if we bake a
bigger cake we can get more and bigger slices, and even the crumbs will be
more plentiful.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
"Understanding" is not enough with this "National will not increase
GST" prime minister.
Fred
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l8l6n5dgjb9sniv7n...@4ax.com...
I agree. Key, while I don't think of as a liar, was certainly a bit naive
with that comment. I think his claim ,that if the retirement age is ever
raise above 65 he will resign, is also going to bite him in the bum one day.
John Cawston
Its really a strawman because Key said "Ultimately what future
governments do is up to the Prime Minister and Cabinet of the
day, in my view the position is sustainable as it stands."
There's enough weasel room there to flag it in a "future" govt.
In effect Key fluffed his lines over the GST increase.. all he
needed to say was the report submitted by the Taxation Working
Group had changed his mind by power of the argument.
Having said that, if all Goff could come up with was a highly
contextualized comment by Key just before the election then he's
not offering much as an Opposition leader.
JC
>
>
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Surprising how often Key seems to rely on 'weasel room' isn't it. I
suppose you will claim that nothing he said in the election campaign
means anything now JC - it does appear that those who believed that
got it right.
>
>In effect Key fluffed his lines over the GST increase.. all he
>needed to say was the report submitted by the Taxation Working
>Group had changed his mind by power of the argument.
>
>Having said that, if all Goff could come up with was a highly
>contextualized comment by Key just before the election then he's
>not offering much as an Opposition leader.
>
>JC
Are you just ignorant or is your assertion deliberate JC? Of course
Goff came up with more than that - try reading his speech; you may
learn something.
I am amazed that Key would come through with his blatant cash grab so
soon after Goff's speech about governing for all New Zealanders, not
just the wealthy few. It seems Key is actually surprised at the
reaction to his speech - shows how out of touch he is.