Let's remind ourselves that before the election John Key promised not to raise GST
So on the day the National Party raise GST to fund a tax cut, two thirds of which will go to the wealthiest top 1 third, let's remind ourselves that before the election John Key promised NOT to raise GST...
...why isn't this snippet on loop throughout the mainstream media today rather than endless bullshit stories about how retailers are repricing everything. Why is retailers repricing a news story yet the fact the Merchant Banker Prime Minister promising not to raise GST before the election and then raising GST ISN'T A STORY?
John Key said if his Government had done its job, he promised he wouldn't raise GST - the fact he is then, by his own damned words, means his Government HASN'T done it's job.
And I quote: "If the Government are doing a half decent job there will be no need to raise GST" - John Key 2008 - before the election.
If Helen Clark had pulled shit like this, the NZ Herald editorial department would be firebombing Government buildings.
The really frustrating thing is that Key has never been challenged on his GST pre-election lie. The day after he announced the GST rise and the VERY DAY him promising NOT to raise GST surfaced on You Tube - Close Up bumped Key for an interview with an All Black who groped a teenager on a Fiji beach. Thanks for keeping us all stupid mainstream media.
So far today the TV news have spent more time on Paris Hilton having a car crash than the fact our Merchant Banker Prime Minister promised not to raise GST before the election, while raising GST after the election.
Unbelievable.
posted by Bomber @ 6:33 am
32 comments
32 Comments:
shot for bringing attention to this one, tu meke!
The answer is quite simple.
I am a regular reader of the Herald, and have noticed that on the whole, no matter what happens they will put a negative spin on anything Labour does, and a positive spin on anything National does.
I remember a couple of months ago when the politicians were talking about how they were going to remove some of their perks, but increase their salaries to make up for up.In the end (of course) it meant they were going to have more cash in their pockets.
So what did Herald do?
With the story they constantly ran an unrelated photo of Goff laughing (evil Goff laughing at NZers) and a photo of Key looking very serious and pensive (poor Key it's not his fault, Goff made him do it).
Today they ran a story about Key, and apparently he has a cold shower each morning to remind him what it's like to be poor.
Well it's obviously not working because he has just made a whole heap of poor NZers even poorer.:(
Lets cut the NZ on Air money to fund a reduction in GST. BOOYEH!
Just what we need extra GST and ETS with the employment % and
no raise in our wages
The cold shower story was on Banks..........but I agree with the Herald bias, very little on the widening gap with Oz now the Nazs are in
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. They could all just pay $10 since they all drank beer or if they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest of the 10) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed OK with the arrangement until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good and faithful customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer bill by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.’
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’.
They realised if they divided the $20 savings by six they could each reduce the amount they were paying by $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer! So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill the same way Tax Savings are dispersed, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings) – so 5 men are drinking for free.
The sixth now paid only $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth (the wealthiest) now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free, now along with the 5th too. The tenth man, who received the smallest percentage saving, was now paying 61% of the total bill – up from 59% before.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their total dollar savings. ‘I only got a dollar out of the $20′ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man: ‘but he got $10!’ ‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man.
‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’. ‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘$20 was given back and we didn’t get anything at all. This system exploits the poor!’ The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night, the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies, gentlemen and journalists, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
And they would go overseas to where Anon? Australia where the top tax rate is 45cents or the UK perhaps, where the top tax rate is 50cents? When we are all paying more in GST to fund a giant tax cut for the wealthy, I'm not really all that interested in hearing how lucky I am that the rich stay in my country.
Meh, that's just something you say while you're in opposition.
"I'm not really all that interested in hearing how lucky I am that the rich stay in my country."
That's because the top 10% of income earner pay over 70% of taxes and by acknowledging this then it undermines your own ideology about how the wealthy should be forced to pay even more.
The truth hurts doesn't it so lets just ignore it.
"And they would go overseas to where Anon? Australia where the top tax rate is 45cents or the UK perhaps, where the top tax rate is 50cents? When we are all paying more in GST to fund a giant tax cut for the wealthy, I'm not really all that interested in hearing how lucky I am that the rich stay in my country."
Oh my god are you stupid???
In the UK the top rate hits in at the equilivent of $375K NZD.
In Australia it comes in at about $230k NZD. Your lot had the top tax coming in at a pathetic $70K!
And you want the rich to go and take their jobs with them. How do you propose to fund your precious social programmes then. Not very clever are we?
Funny how Key came from a poor government dependent Housing NZ family along with Paula Bennett bleeding the system. Then these pricks have the nerve to attack the same type of individuals they once were.
The rich don't need a tax cut cut when they can afford it, what MOST of NZ cannot afford is this GST hike.
The fact is, the rich will go overseas if they want to, anyway, - and if they use an excuse like "I'm paying too much in tax", then, good riddance!
If Helen Clark had pulled shit like this, the NZ Herald editorial department would be firebombing Government buildings.
THE COMMUNIST LEAGUE CANDIDATES DEMAND;
Oppose government and police spying.Repeal the anti-terror laws.Drop the charges against those arrested and "framed up" in the October 15, 2007 'anti-terror' raids.
Funny how when a simple fact is pointed out (like Key stating he wouldn't raise GST), the anonotrolls start squealing like pigs.
And even funnier how price and tax INCREASES are characterised as "changes", whereas a decrease is a decrease.
...........and WHEN the fuck are we going to see all those blonde BIMBOS start trying to prove they're NOT in fact blonde BIMBOS and get a little more assertive.
Henry and...... ah....maybe they are just blonde bimbos.
One of them sure as hell has one helluva nauseating voice.
Please BIMBOS - fuk off to the Gold Coast, or Channel Nine.
Leave the real news to talking heads like Max Headr...err Simon Dallow (he now KNOWS he's beautiful - after all - he's paid his dues!)
I wonder when the msm will begin worrying WHY people don't actually take them seriously. Probably not till they're de-commodified, and that'll be about the same time they can lay claim to being journalists.
The riches always find ways to avoid paying taxes. Lets start for example with a one million expansive business car where its an business expanse which can be claimed back by a third for each year or creating a family trust (like our PM John Key). I have a cousin in overseas and she owns a really good business and to avoid paying taxes she is always buying some sort of investments with new higher loans. That's how it is and always will be: the majority mid and low income earners are paying the taxes and not the rich owns with their high profile lawyers and accountants to find every niche!!!
To the person with the 'beer' story.
I know what you're saying, but there's a big part of that equation that people always forget. Where the men went after they left the bar.
The four poorest went back to their houses they rent from the government, on a tiny block of land, in a poor area with high crime rates. Either that or they went to work at their night shift (possibly second) job.
The wealthiest went home to his multi million dollar house in Remuera, behind his large wall and gate, on his large, spacious property.
They wealthy pay the most, because they are able to. At the end of the day, they are left with substantially more in their pockets than the poor.
Okay. Beer. Tax. Wait what?
That whole bit about the beer is an internet parable that's been around for almost 10 years. It's also a straw man argument and false analogy to the NZ tax system - or ANY tiered tax system I've ever heard of.
Sure, we all like beer, but the mathematics in story doesn't add up. 40% of drinkers start at zero cost… and stay at zero cost? Okay, that doesn't happen in NZ. In Australia the first $6000 is tax free - but that's not much money to live on, and everyone gets it. With the beer story, only the poor get the free ride somehow. It would make (only slightly) more sense if the beer came in rounds, and the first round was calculated as free for everyone, and then a increasing cost for each round after that, scaled to each drinkers income.
The scaling is the next problem.
Man_10 pays 3.3 times what Man_09 does.
Man_08 pays 1.7 times Man_07.
Man_06 pays 3.0 times Man_05...
...Okay, mostly with you so far … how much more does Man_5 pay than Man_1,2,3,4? INFINITE times more. Even infinity times zero is zero. This bit of imagination is what forces more cost up the tier. And then when the bartender gives a discount (no clue what that is meant to represent in the real world - not a tax cut, not a soaring economy), apparently they reduce their savings by a fixed figure and then the narrator compares with a percentage difference in savings? Where did the richest mans savings go? Into the fixed discount distribution (not how a tiered tax system would work) AND into Man_5's magical free ride of zero cost - which again makes not a lick of sense in any real tax system.
At the very simplest interpretation of this story, what would be the income and tax in this analogy? Not the beer, everyone gets their fair share! Is this a communist economy? No, some people pay more for their share of the beer because … they're richer. Their income isn't even factored into the analogy, which means it doesn't distinguish between rich and poor at all. Of course the rich get a raw deal in the beer story - you don't see the benefit of their income. In the real world, the richer you are the higher your disposable income - which can be taxed higher without affecting your base living costs.
A tiered tax system exists so that poorer people can buy food and hopefully have what society consider a basic but respectable lifestyle (in a simple sentence anyway). Every dollar earned above living costs can buy you greater pleasures, and each of those dollars gets a slightly higher tax rate - but the utility of that 'richer' dollar is far higher than the 'poorer' dollars you have to spend just to pay rent and buy bread to live.
Oh lame. I kept getting an error about the request being too large, I gather my posts went through after all.
Sorry for the hassle there :P
hilarious...the Communist League oppose government and police spying...
Thanks Cam, for that incisive critique.
Who in NZ pays no tax? Only the very few who live entirely illegally outside the system. Believe it or not, even beneficiaries have tax deducted for their benefit. (And as Pete said earlier in the thread, it's not only the underclasses who are unemployed these days.)
This GST rise robs everyone to pay the rich. But the only people who will feel the sting are the ones who are the poorest. These poor overtaxed rich won't even notice a 50c rise in the price of their flat white.
I predict a crime wave to follow as people who are barely making ends meet already will need to steal to feed their families.
This us the reason why tax systems are structured as they are. Because everyone needs a basic minimum amount to survive. And people who are rich are making far more than anyone could ever NEED to survive.
A sensible counterbalance to this law would be to drop GST on fresh food as has been done in Australia, allowing poor people at least to still eat good food.
I am so angry about this. I pay my taxes so that we can have a functioning health system, education system, roads and libraries and so forth. I do not pay taxes so that they can they go straight into the pockets of the rich.
And lets not forget our illustrious Prime Minister stating "I didn't know my blind trust had invested in a winery" when John Key had personally purchased the shares in the company, they had named a wine after him and the old boys were drinking it at National's yearly conference.
Perhaps you should change your irrelevant beer analogy to wine. Hell! lets all just get pissed and let the country go down the gurgler.
Clearly the Government is full of liars and New Zealand is full of complacent sheep.
That's a good analysis Anonymous @ 10:28. True though it may be, I prefer to work ona simple principle, and that is that when the masses get pissed off enough (as they are about to be) they'll begin to express themselves in various ways - thru the ballot box, thru criminality, or by any means they're most comfortable with. I'd suggest we have a government that should be very worried. They can choose to try and suppress objection using various arms of the state "apparatus" except for the fact that they've begun pushing the boundaries SO far, that the families and friends of those that enforce will soon be getting very pissed off too. Hence the European situation.
Roll on. And if, when it all turns to shit, you expect me to shed a tear - forget it! I'll probably strike up a business supplying hangman's nooses
Good point, the mainstream media did miss the boat on the GST issue.
And to the beer analogy: the second commenter with the maths wins.
"Good point, the mainstream media did miss the boat on the GST issue. "
No, they probably judged it inconsequential. Most people would expect that policies change as conditions change and only a fanatic would consider otherwise.
"No, they probably judged it inconsequential. Most people would expect that policies change as conditions change and only a fanatic would consider otherwise."
No, but most people WOULD expect politicians to say one thing, then do another altogether.
Just because it's what we expect of them, doesn't make it ethical.
I think it is very important that Key blatently lied. He said himself it would only happen if they weren't doing a good job. Well obviously they aren't doing a good job then. His words, not mine.
He shouldn't have been making grandiose claims before the election if he couldn't keep to them.
Your arguement about conditions changing doesn't hold up in the slightest. Whats to stop politicians from promising all sorts of stuff then once they are in "Oh whoops, sorry conditions have changed. Can't do anything I pomised. I'll do the complete opposite instead."
Well nothing to stop them at all apparently. That doesn't make it right.
The conditions arrived at the hands of THEIR ideology,their "Fanatical"ideology, their religious pursuit of that ideology in spite of it's failings (as playing out before us) is the cause of our confusion. If you think Cullen n Clark delivered this "condition change" you genuinely do need to asses your sanity. Look to the Washington Consensus and it's adherents I suggest!
Excuse me Goff also lied too. Remember "Axe the tax"?
"Your arguement about conditions changing doesn't hold up in the slightest."
That's probably because you're a fanatic. If you think that global economic crisis doesn't justify a change in govnt policy then you're a moron too.
If you want to complain and whine against national's 'broken promises' then do it at the next election where you can unite with the 28% of voters who support labour.
If you think that global economic crisis doesn't justify a change in govnt policy then you're a moron too.
And yet the global economic crises DID justify handing out hundreds of millions in tax cuts the majority of which will benefit the top third wealthiest NZers.
Isn't it AMAZING what the right wing can justify while still claiming we are all morons for demanding accountability?
A lie is a lie is a lie.
If Goff lied he is a liar.
If you lie you are a liar.
John Key lied.
John Key is a liar.
Factiddy-dooo. Factiddy-daa.
Facts.
Are'nt they woooooonderful...
Not hearsay.
No mere speculation.
Solid. Irrefutable.
FACT.
Here's a knee-slapper.
What do you call a millionaire who lies?
The Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key.
Post a Comment
<< Home