PDA

View Full Version : Tax cuts.



Sweep
28-05-2009, 08:32 PM
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=100702&fm=psp,tst

For those that voted National to get the tax cuts.

For those who did not vote you got what you deserve.

somebody
28-05-2009, 08:34 PM
It's a sensible budget, which deals with the real (and growing) problem of debt.

If Labour was still in power, they would have announced tax hikes to continue funding wasteful government spending.

Metla
28-05-2009, 08:34 PM
I voted National, and I'm glad they cancelled the tax cuts.

gary67
28-05-2009, 08:38 PM
I didn't vote National and it's an ok budget not spectacularly bad or good just average

Sweep
28-05-2009, 09:07 PM
I did not need or want Tax cuts but a number of people based on the promise from National voted for the Party or other parties on a promise to deliver the same.

For me it is a reasonable Budget and possibly acheivable even.

Once again time will tell.

Mr English suddenly became less like a wimp to me.

bob_doe_nz
28-05-2009, 09:20 PM
I'm laughing at the people who voted National just specifically FOR the tax cuts

the_bogan
28-05-2009, 09:42 PM
I'm a bit disturbed that they cancelled the super contributions, but still promised to pay out super at 66% of average wage (after tax). Wonder where that money is going to come from.

And are they trying to turn us into a nation of builders?

prefect
28-05-2009, 09:58 PM
Cant blame National for a recession the worst since 1929.
Reasonable people would expect the government to do stuff to mitigate the effects of a major recession did I say it is the worst since 1929?
Unreasonable people like commies would expect them to carry on as if no recession has happened.

Sweep
28-05-2009, 10:01 PM
I remember paying 1.5 shillings in a pound tax for superannuation some time back. That cash just disappeared somewhere. Not sure when but it had to be prior to 1967 as it was in currency prior to the 10th July 1967.

Possibly into something called the consolidated fund much like these days where the Government collects road taxes via Petrol and Diesel user charges and said funds do not go into improvement of roads as such.

somebody
28-05-2009, 10:05 PM
I'm a bit disturbed that they cancelled the super contributions, but still promised to pay out super at 66% of average wage (after tax). Wonder where that money is going to come from.



They didn't really have any choice. Borrowing money to put into savings is idiotic (imagine telling low income families to get a personal loan so they could put money into the share market - you are paying interest on a loan, which is being invested in something which has uncertain returns).

When Michael Cullen set up the super fund, it was specifically so that when there are budget surpluses that money could be put aside for future superannuation payments. There is no surplus this year, and won't be for the next decade or so - in fact we are $8 billion in deficit.

the_bogan
28-05-2009, 10:18 PM
Cant blame National for a recession the worst since 1929.
Reasonable people would expect the government to do stuff to mitigate the effects of a major recession did I say it is the worst since 1929?
Unreasonable people like commies would expect them to carry on as if no recession has happened.

Although you can blame them for promising that tax cuts would go ahead when they knew that this recession was coming. Sure they may not have known that it was going to be as bad as the media make it out to be, but if they had no clue then they deserve to be treated with the contempt that the masses are scorning upon them.

Sweep
28-05-2009, 10:20 PM
And Mr Cullen also mentioned at one time NZ was 11 billion in credit which is possibly why a number of people chucked out Labour in favour of National.

The Treasury just plain gets things wrong and they are the people that advise the Government of the day.

prefect
28-05-2009, 10:23 PM
The recession has turned out to be worse than expected, so continuing with tax cuts would be dumb, sort of thing labor would have done.

roddy_boy
28-05-2009, 10:29 PM
Did anyone watch the live coverage on tv1 this arvo?

I found Phil Goff's rebuttal speech absolutely appalling. The man had no idea what he was talking about, and just rambled on but was shouting the whole time. Quite poor really. Labour is really struggling without Helen Clark and Dr. Cullen imo.

somebody
28-05-2009, 10:39 PM
Did anyone watch the live coverage on tv1 this arvo?

I found Phil Goff's rebuttal speech absolutely appalling. The man had no idea what he was talking about, and just rambled on but was shouting the whole time. Quite poor really. Labour is really struggling without Helen Clark and Dr. Cullen imo.

Labour is falling apart - especially now since their supporters (Winston, the Greens, United Future, Maori Party) have either been kicked out of parliament or decided to work with National. The Greens have been playing smart politics lately and will probably take votes off Labour at the next election - differentiating themselves in Mt Albert, and getting small wins like the cycleway and the insulation scheme will certainly be appreciated by their supporters.

Phil Goff and his party is so desperate that they're trying to buy a by-election in Mt Albert by demanding that taxpayers spend an extra $1 billion on a damn tunnel so they can save ~365 houses - rather than the sensible option of 60% tunnel, 40% motorway proposed by the government. To put that in perspective, $1 billion is enough to build 3 hospitals - personally, I'd rather demolish those houses and have the hospitals.


</rant>

robbyp
28-05-2009, 10:48 PM
The recession has turned out to be worse than expected, so continuing with tax cuts would be dumb, sort of thing labor would have done.

I don't agree that the recession is worse than expected. Many peope knew it was going to be bad, and I expect it to get a lot worse, so so do many other people. Unemployment well over 10% etc. These so called 'experts' who didn't expect this, should be sacked, as what are they being paid for. You should always plan for the worst situation possible, and have plans in place. My problem with the budget, is there is no plan to get us out of this depression. We are borrowing to top up our living costs, and we still are, so it is only going to get worse until that is corrected.

wotz
28-05-2009, 10:52 PM
I see David Cunliffe has taken on the Cullen sneer

zqwerty
28-05-2009, 11:02 PM
Try this National voters:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22756

Sweep
28-05-2009, 11:49 PM
Living outside your budget is a recipe for disaster.

Borrowing does not help as interest charges are applicable and only makes the situation worse.

Some people need to or want to get a Mortgage which is borrowed against a house or other collateral.

There again the banks may lend you money or not.

If I buy a car and sign up for a loan to do so the interest charges do not change during the period of the loan in general say two years.

If I buy a house today the interest can be anywhere between what it is now up to 22%.

Now the banks pay the previous house owner $xxx,xxx and lend me that at a rate of xx% but during the course of the loan the interest rate goes up or down.

Why is it that I borrow $xxx,xxx at the price the bank had to pay today and have the interest adjusted against what the bank has to pay for funds to lend in the future?

If I buy a new car today and spend say $40,000 in cash.

Would any one expect the car dealer to phone you and say the price of cars has just gone up so we want another $10,000 as it costs us extra to get them so you are going to pay more.

roddy_boy
29-05-2009, 12:03 AM
wat

Sweep
29-05-2009, 12:40 AM
wat

Did you not get my point?
Sorry about that.

2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113 127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229 233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349 353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463 467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541
547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599 601 607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653 659
661 673 677 683 691 701 709 719 727 733 739 743 751 757 761 769 773 787 797 809
811 821 823 827 829 839 853 857 859 863 877 881 883 887 907 911 919 929 937 941
947 953 967 971 977 983 991 997 1009 1013 1019 1021 1031 1033 1039 1049 1051 1061 1063 1069
1087 1091 1093 1097 1103 1109 1117 1123 1129 1151 1153 1163 1171 1181 1187 1193 1201 1213 1217 1223
1229 1231 1237 1249 1259 1277 1279 1283 1289 1291 1297 1301 1303 1307 1319 1321 1327 1361 1367 1373
1381 1399 1409 1423 1427 1429 1433 1439 1447 1451 1453 1459 1471 1481 1483 1487 1489 1493 1499 1511
1523 1531 1543 1549 1553 1559 1567 1571 1579 1583 1597 1601 1607 1609 1613 1619 1621 1627 1637 1657
1663 1667 1669 1693 1697 1699 1709 1721 1723 1733 1741 1747 1753 1759 1777 1783 1787 1789 1801 1811
1823 1831 1847 1861 1867 1871 1873 1877 1879 1889 1901 1907 1913 1931 1933 1949 1951 1973 1979 1987
1993 1997 1999 2003 2011 2017 2027 2029 2039 2053 2063 2069 2081 2083 2087 2089 2099 2111 2113 2129
2131 2137 2141 2143 2153 2161 2179 2203 2207 2213 2221 2237 2239 2243 2251 2267 2269 2273 2281 2287
2293 2297 2309 2311 2333 2339 2341 2347 2351 2357 2371 2377 2381 2383 2389 2393 2399 2411 2417 2423
2437 2441 2447 2459 2467 2473 2477 2503 2521 2531 2539 2543 2549 2551 2557 2579 2591 2593 2609 2617
2621 2633 2647 2657 2659 2663 2671 2677 2683 2687 2689 2693 2699 2707 2711 2713 2719 2729 2731 2741
2749 2753 2767 2777 2789 2791 2797 2801 2803 2819 2833 2837 2843 2851 2857 2861 2879 2887 2897 2903
2909 2917 2927 2939 2953 2957 2963 2969 2971 2999 3001 3011 3019 3023 3037 3041 3049 3061 3067 3079
3083 3089 3109 3119 3121 3137 3163 3167 3169 3181 3187 3191 3203 3209 3217 3221 3229 3251 3253 3257
3259 3271 3299 3301 3307 3313 3319 3323 3329 3331 3343 3347 3359 3361 3371 3373 3389 3391 3407 3413
3433 3449 3457 3461 3463 3467 3469 3491 3499 3511 3517 3527 3529 3533 3539 3541 3547 3557 3559 3571

bob_doe_nz
29-05-2009, 12:54 AM
Optimus?

roddy_boy
29-05-2009, 01:05 AM
irl lol.

Sweep
29-05-2009, 01:05 AM
Optimus?

No. Prime numbers. Only the first 500.

I really should add that to my signature.

Wat?

Sweep
29-05-2009, 01:08 AM
irl lol.

What?

roddy_boy
29-05-2009, 01:13 AM
Now the banks pay the previous house owner $xxx,xxx and lend me that at a rate of xx% but during the course of the loan the interest rate goes up or down.

Why is it that I borrow $xxx,xxx at the price the bank had to pay today and have the interest adjusted against what the bank has to pay for funds to lend in the future?

If I buy a new car today and spend say $40,000 in cash.

Would any one expect the car dealer to phone you and say the price of cars has just gone up so we want another $10,000 as it costs us extra to get them so you are going to pay more.

This argument is just so absolutely ****ing retarded that I don't even know where to start.

If you pay for a car with cash, it's all over, deal is done, nothing more needs to exchange hands.

If you're borrowing money from a bank, they are getting that money from somewhere and have to pay for it. If they start having to pay more for that money, they are going to have to charge you more for borrowing it. I don't know what the hell your analogy is even trying to achieve.

I honestly don't know what your story is, Sweep. There's either something wrong with you or you're an excellent troll.

Edit: Anything considered a personal attack isn't meant as such.

Sweep
29-05-2009, 02:39 AM
This argument is just so absolutely ****ing retarded that I don't even know where to start.

If you pay for a car with cash, it's all over, deal is done, nothing more needs to exchange hands.

If you're borrowing money from a bank, they are getting that money from somewhere and have to pay for it. If they start having to pay more for that money, they are going to have to charge you more for borrowing it. I don't know what the hell your analogy is even trying to achieve.

I honestly don't know what your story is, Sweep. There's either something wrong with you or you're an excellent troll.

Edit: Anything considered a personal attack isn't meant as such.

But once again the bank lends me money for a mortgage which is got from somewhere and when the bank does this they get this money and lend it to me at the rate they decided to use on the day I draw down the loan.

Now let us say that the bank has some money which they are prepared to lend me at say 5% interest. The bank had the money to lend me at that time presumably and have paid the original houseowner the $x at that time. The bank should know at that time what it cost them to have the cash to lend me on that date. Now the Bank has to make a profit which is fair enough by me. Otherwise why be in business?

The fact that it costs the bank more to have the cash to lend out to others on future dates should not come into the equation in my opinion when my interest rates goes up as they may do.

Take hire purchase then where you buy a television for $x again. You sign the contract and you will pay more than if you use cash but the actual rate of interest does not change during the period of the contract as far as I am aware.

With banks you can have a fixed loan or a floating loan or a mixture over some years.

So with banks they seem to be lending cash they do not actually have on hand the day you get your loan and work on what may happen in the future and what it costs to borrow funds in the future and why should I sign a contract where the goalposts shift from day to day?

I hope you now get the point I am trying to make.

Do you work and if so are you paid in cash? If not then I would think that your employer would pay your wages into a Bank account of your choice and any funds accumulated in your account are or could be used by the same bank to lend to others and the Bank will pay you interest on the funds you have. That would be a cost to the Bank of course but rest assured that the same bank might pay you 2% and lend your funds out to others at a somewhat higher percentage.

Much like people vote for a Government expecting better health, schooling, more fighter planes, less crims more law and order and etc.

We do have Actuaries who do the maths on the likelyhood of death before a certain age based on age and whether or not you use cigarettes or being Male or Female for Insurance purposes. Car insurance for males under 25 is significantly more than the same insurance for those over 25 for the same vehicle for example. Car insurance is also more or less costly depending on where you live and whether you have the car garaged or fitted with alarms or whatever. They have this down to a fine art even by suburbs.

I am not here to annoy you either BTW but a simple "wat" does not achieve much. And the asteriixes above would tend to make me think that you have a lack of english skills but there again I can be wrong.

SolMiester
29-05-2009, 02:18 PM
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=100702&fm=psp,tst

For those that voted National to get the tax cuts.

For those who did not vote you got what you deserve.

I laughed when the Labour leader yesterday was going on about National tax cuts being slashed....

Under Labour, we a a boom for over 9 F**king yrs, and did we get a tax cut....?, even though they did spout on a couple of occasions that they would.....

I cant stand that Labour leader, so much so, I can never get his name right!...LOL

roddy_boy
29-05-2009, 03:07 PM
But once again the bank lends me money for a mortgage which is got from somewhere and when the bank does this they get this money and lend it to me at the rate they decided to use on the day I draw down the loan.

Now let us say that the bank has some money which they are prepared to lend me at say 5% interest. The bank had the money to lend me at that time presumably and have paid the original houseowner the $x at that time. The bank should know at that time what it cost them to have the cash to lend me on that date. Now the Bank has to make a profit which is fair enough by me. Otherwise why be in business?

The fact that it costs the bank more to have the cash to lend out to others on future dates should not come into the equation in my opinion when my interest rates goes up as they may do.

Take hire purchase then where you buy a television for $x again. You sign the contract and you will pay more than if you use cash but the actual rate of interest does not change during the period of the contract as far as I am aware.

With banks you can have a fixed loan or a floating loan or a mixture over some years.

So with banks they seem to be lending cash they do not actually have on hand the day you get your loan and work on what may happen in the future and what it costs to borrow funds in the future and why should I sign a contract where the goalposts shift from day to day?

I hope you now get the point I am trying to make.

Do you work and if so are you paid in cash? If not then I would think that your employer would pay your wages into a Bank account of your choice and any funds accumulated in your account are or could be used by the same bank to lend to others and the Bank will pay you interest on the funds you have. That would be a cost to the Bank of course but rest assured that the same bank might pay you 2% and lend your funds out to others at a somewhat higher percentage.

Much like people vote for a Government expecting better health, schooling, more fighter planes, less crims more law and order and etc.

We do have Actuaries who do the maths on the likelyhood of death before a certain age based on age and whether or not you use cigarettes or being Male or Female for Insurance purposes. Car insurance for males under 25 is significantly more than the same insurance for those over 25 for the same vehicle for example. Car insurance is also more or less costly depending on where you live and whether you have the car garaged or fitted with alarms or whatever. They have this down to a fine art even by suburbs.

I am not here to annoy you either BTW but a simple "wat" does not achieve much. And the asteriixes above would tend to make me think that you have a lack of english skills but there again I can be wrong.

That's why you pay over 20% interest on a hire purchase, and less than 10% interest on a mortgage. It's pretty bloody obvious.

wratterus
29-05-2009, 03:07 PM
No. Prime numbers. Only the first 500.


Someone never watched transformers... :cool:

bob_doe_nz
29-05-2009, 03:10 PM
Someone never watched transformers... :cool:

YAY!!! You got it! :banana

Metla
29-05-2009, 03:11 PM
Someone never watched transformers... :cool:

yeah, But it made the joke even bettererererer.

wratterus
29-05-2009, 03:17 PM
:lol:

Rob99
29-05-2009, 03:43 PM
Try this National voters:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22756

How can you believe something written in the future:waughh: