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.
Show me the quote where he said it would never be used. I don't remember him saying that.
Corruption
enlighten us with some specifics
Reviewed an organisation without talking to it.$500,000 for a three person review into KO. All on Bill English's terms. All arranged via a text message. Nothing to see here.Stuff
www.newshub.co.nz
View attachment 7541
Speaking to the Parliamentβs 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".
www.stuff.co.nz
whatβs the character count on a reply?
Some are in denial. Staggering really. Do they not live in the real world, mixing in their local community and see whatβs going on?
Lol, that's not saying never.Speaking to the Parliamentβs 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 ChlΓΆe Swarbrick pushed on the other obvious point: what if Inland Revenueβs research discovers that the wealthiest arenβt paying their βfair shareβ? What would Parker do if he discovered the tax system wasnβt fair?
βPerhaps nothing,β Parker said.
βIt just gives us an information base on which to base future decisions.
βWeβve made commitments that weβre not making new taxes this term, other than the 39 per cent tax increase,β Parker said.
βItβs become apparent that the traditional measures of income and wealth distribution in New Zealand are inadequate,β 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 β that is income generated from ordinary work and income generated from wealth, often called βeconomic incomeβ.
βWho is the arbiter of that β do you intend to set out a definition of what fairness looks like?β Swarbrick asked.
Parker was noncommittal: βthose decisions havenβt been finalised, but I think most people would be interested in the economic effects of income rather than its nameβ he said.
National, sensing Labour might be about to budge on its pre-election commitment not to introduce any taxes that werenβt in its manifesto, quickly got Parker to rule out any big changes.
Housing spokesperson Nicola Willis led the attack.
βIs 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?β Willis asked.
Parker denied that it was: βIβm not planning a wealth, inheritance or death tax, and Iβm not seeking advice from my ministry on those issues, so the answer to those questions is it isnβt any of those thingsβ.
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 β election year β 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 wasnβt intended to form the basis of any tax policy the Government would take to the election.
βThatβs not itβs intention β itβs an information-gathering exercise,β Robertson said.
The quotes are from this article...
Stuff
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.
Errrr...that's the effects of neoliberalism and this manufactured recession.
Your debates with yourself must be pretty pointless then.
newsroom.co.nz
Why?
Inflation neutral Who says?Why?
Taken from govt savings
Inflation neutral
Still $3.5b in new spending in priority areas
Big new spending on health, education, law and order and infrastructure
Why should noncore govt spending be untouchable at the expense of workers in a cost of living crisis? Doesnβt everyone need to chip in?
I think itβs great minimum wage people arenβt now paying high level tax. Not inflation adjusting tax rates has been a govt wrought targeting the poor.
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.
Just want to reiterate that they don't speak for all MΔori, bloody hell.
For the extent of the things cut and the broken promises of funding for select treatments that they campaigned on. The sorts of things you were critical of the last government about. Fascinating that national have now run 4 seperate elections on tax cuts and won 3 of them and are delivering them when the country can least afford itWhy?
Taken from govt savings
Inflation neutral
Still $3.5b in new spending in priority areas
Big new spending on health, education, law and order and infrastructure
Why should noncore govt spending be untouchable at the expense of workers in a cost of living crisis? Doesnβt everyone need to chip in?
I think itβs great minimum wage people arenβt now paying high level tax. Not inflation adjusting tax rates has been a govt wrought targeting the poor.
