IMO, this report had the same credibility as Cullen's Working Tax Group and Parker's review into the assets of NZ's richest people.... the findings and recommendations were decided before the first meetings took place.
Lol, what horse shit. The same credibility? Fucking hell.
The Parker review via the IRD into wealth/assets was sorely needed. We have very little data. The IRD was going to continue data gathering, but the idea was blown up by the new govt.
Oh, and you believed Parker when he said the review into the rich was never going to be used to formulate a wealth tax or CGT.... right up until Hipkins stopped it before Robinson was going to announce it in last year's budget. And you believed that a group headed up by Cullen who lost elections because of a policy on CGT was never going to recommend one. Now, that's horse shit if you expect us to believe that.
Oh, and you believed Parker when he said the review into the rich was never going to be used to formulate a wealth or CGT.... right up until Hipkins stopped it before Robinson was going to announce in last year's budget. And you believed that a group headed up by Cullen who lost elections because of a policy on CGT was never going to recommend one. Now, that's horse shit if you expect us to believe that.
Why do these clowns not follow proper procedure? It completely undermines everything they do, they may as well throw the KO review out. Bill English laughs all the way to the bank.
Speaking to the Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee, Parker was asked various questions about whether the Report would be used to change the tax system, here's his response to different questions from both the Greens and National. Also, Grant Robinson called it "an information gathering exercise".
Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick pushed on the other obvious point: what if Inland Revenue’s research discovers that the wealthiest aren’t paying their “fair share”? What would Parker do if he discovered the tax system wasn’t fair?
“Perhaps nothing,” Parker said.
“It just gives us an information base on which to base future decisions.
“We’ve made commitments that we’re not making new taxes this term, other than the 39 per cent tax increase,” Parker said.
“It’s become apparent that the traditional measures of income and wealth distribution in New Zealand are inadequate,” he said.
Swarbrick came around for another go, asking whether Parker would use the research to make sure the tax system treated all sorts of income fairly – that is income generated from ordinary work and income generated from wealth, often called “economic income”.
“Who is the arbiter of that – do you intend to set out a definition of what fairness looks like?” Swarbrick asked.
Parker was noncommittal: “those decisions haven’t been finalised, but I think most people would be interested in the economic effects of income rather than its name” he said.
National, sensing Labour might be about to budge on its pre-election commitment not to introduce any taxes that weren’t in its manifesto, quickly got Parker to rule out any big changes.
Housing spokesperson Nicola Willis led the attack.
“Is it anything more than a research unit to provide you with the database for campaigning for a wealth, inheritance, or death tax at the next election?” Willis asked. Parker denied that it was: “I’m not planning a wealth, inheritance or death tax, and I’m not seeking advice from my ministry on those issues, so the answer to those questions is it isn’t any of those things”.
The suspicion the Government might use the research to implement new taxes largely stems from the fact that the appropriation runs for just two years, rather than the usual four. This means it expires in 2023 – election year – leading some to speculate that whatever emerges from the research might be taken to the 2023 election as Labour policy.
On his way into the house, Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the money wasn’t intended to form the basis of any tax policy the Government would take to the election.
“That’s not it’s intention – it’s an information-gathering exercise,” Robertson said.
The quotes are from this article...
Less than two years later, based on the information prepared in a report (which had a budget of $5,000,000 to prepare), both Parker and Robinson were going to introduce a wealth tax.... until Hipkins stopped it. Oh, and the changes to the lowest tax bracket to not tax the first $10,000 of income would have given people a larger tax cut than the income tax bracket changes National campaigned for.
Some are in denial. Staggering really. Do they not live in the real world, mixing in their local community and see what’s going on?
Try to go to the doctors or hospital? Blind to the crime within their community? Seen the rise in homelessness and poverty? Seen the average persons struggles financially?
You can’t debate with people who don’t want to see…
Speaking to the Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee, Parker was asked various questions about whether the Report would be used to change the tax system, here's his response to different questions from both the Greens and National. Also, Grant Robinson called it "an information gathering exercise".
Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick pushed on the other obvious point: what if Inland Revenue’s research discovers that the wealthiest aren’t paying their “fair share”? What would Parker do if he discovered the tax system wasn’t fair?
“Perhaps nothing,” Parker said.
“It just gives us an information base on which to base future decisions.
“We’ve made commitments that we’re not making new taxes this term, other than the 39 per cent tax increase,” Parker said.
“It’s become apparent that the traditional measures of income and wealth distribution in New Zealand are inadequate,” he said.
Swarbrick came around for another go, asking whether Parker would use the research to make sure the tax system treated all sorts of income fairly – that is income generated from ordinary work and income generated from wealth, often called “economic income”.
“Who is the arbiter of that – do you intend to set out a definition of what fairness looks like?” Swarbrick asked.
Parker was noncommittal: “those decisions haven’t been finalised, but I think most people would be interested in the economic effects of income rather than its name” he said.
National, sensing Labour might be about to budge on its pre-election commitment not to introduce any taxes that weren’t in its manifesto, quickly got Parker to rule out any big changes.
Housing spokesperson Nicola Willis led the attack.
“Is it anything more than a research unit to provide you with the database for campaigning for a wealth, inheritance, or death tax at the next election?” Willis asked. Parker denied that it was: “I’m not planning a wealth, inheritance or death tax, and I’m not seeking advice from my ministry on those issues, so the answer to those questions is it isn’t any of those things”.
The suspicion the Government might use the research to implement new taxes largely stems from the fact that the appropriation runs for just two years, rather than the usual four. This means it expires in 2023 – election year – leading some to speculate that whatever emerges from the research might be taken to the 2023 election as Labour policy.
On his way into the house, Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the money wasn’t intended to form the basis of any tax policy the Government would take to the election.
“That’s not it’s intention – it’s an information-gathering exercise,” Robertson said.
The quotes are from this article...
Less than two years later, based on the information prepared in a report (which had a budget of $5,000,000 to prepare), both Parker and Robinson were going to introduce a wealth tax.... until Hipkins stopped it. Oh, and the changes to the lowest tax bracket to not tax the first $10,000 of income would have given people a larger tax cut than the income tax bracket changes National campaigned for.
Some are in denial. Staggering really. Do they not live in the real world, mixing in their local community and see what’s going on?
Try to go to the doctors or hospital? Blind to the crime within their community? Seen the rise in homelessness and poverty? Seen the average persons struggles financially?
You can’t debate with people who don’t want to see…
Errrr...that's the effects of neoliberalism and this manufactured recession.
Yes I have seen all those things. All accelerated far worse under the National government, began to improve under labour, got smashed by covid, and is getting far worse under National again.
But not for the wealthy landed gentry in this country, they're doing quite nicely.
Some are in denial. Staggering really. Do they not live in the real world, mixing in their local community and see what’s going on?
Try to go to the doctors or hospital? Blind to the crime within their community? Seen the rise in homelessness and poverty? Seen the average persons struggles financially?
You can’t debate with people who don’t want to see…
Doubts over the depth and rigour of Sir Bill English’s review of public housing agency Kāinga Ora are heightened by scathing confidential feedback over errors, omissions and using unverified hearsay
Been wondering that myself. I'm probably wrong but I guess they're looking at that if the government were to spend $1 or I was to spend $1, it doesn't add to inflation.
www.newshub.co.nz
www.stuff.co.nz
newsroom.co.nz
