'Least well off' would be compensated

John Key.
John Key.
Prime Minister John Key says any increase to GST would have to be compensated for, including by immediate increases to pensions, benefits and Working for Families payments.

A GST rise to at least 15% was among the recommendations of the Government's Tax Working Group, which looked at ways to reform the tax system.

Mr Key said no decisions had yet been made on the recommendations.

The proposal to raise GST to allow lower business and personal tax rates has caused concern it would leave families on low incomes struggling to buy basic goods.

Mr Key said if any changes had implications for lower income earners, they would have to be compensated.

"Obviously for pensioners, you would have to have an immediate increase in the pension; for those on Working for Families or benefits, there would have to be an immediate increase."

The Tax Working Group had estimated that the costs of compensating those on low incomes would mean increased revenue of just $200 million from a GST rise to 15%.

However, the Government had to look at wider considerations.

"There's no way we can allow those that are least well off to be put into a worse position. We are not looking to make money on changes we might make, but we are looking to make sure we have a better and fairer system."

Yesterday, Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said he was interested in a tax on financial transactions rather than an increase to GST a call also made by Progressive leader Jim Anderton.

Mr Anderton said imposing a small tax for every transaction was a fairer way to broaden the tax base and lower income tax without boosting GST.

Dr Sharples said any changes to income tax should be at the lower level for those earning less than $25,000 rather than the top rate.

However, Mr Key said lowering the top tax rate to 33c so it aligned with the trust rate would help stop people "sheltering" their income in trusts to try to avoid higher personal taxes.

"If you are a higher income earner, rightfully you should pay your share.

"One way to make sure people do that is to make sure the tax rates reflect what people think is fair."

Mr Key has also indicated some changes are likely for investment property owners, although he has ruled out a capital gains tax.

He said there were some issues the Government needed to consider before deciding on a land tax.

"Whether we would go to a land tax I wouldn't jump to that conclusion."

However, there was clearly a "hole" in the system if there was $220 billion invested in rental properties but the Crown was losing money.

"That hole probably needs to be plugged," he said.

Nobody should draw conclusions about what the Government would do and any decisions were not likely until the Budget.

Federated Farmers has objected strongly to the idea of a land tax and Dr Sharples said on Wednesday while he was generally supportive of taxing wealth and assets, he was concerned about such a tax on Maori lands, especially the large non-commercial holdings held under Treaty settlements.

- Claire Trevett of The NZ Herald

Saving for a rainy day

One of the main reasons the country has done so well through the current recession is because Mr Cullen saved that surplus "for a rainy day" by paying down debt and building up reserves. While they are loathe to admit it, National owe him a huge debt of gratitude as it's put them in a great place right now.

Dropping taxes below a long-term sustainable level in good years, while tempting to a government, is a big mistake as it means you have to raise rates at the start of a recession (or borrow when there's no money available) to cover the government's increased costs such as unemployment benefits and the reduced tax take.

Increasing rates or taking cash out of the economy is a bad move for a government trying to stimulate a dying economy.
So bravo! to Mr Cullen for doing the right thing.

Fiscal responsibility

I would have thought that if the country can't afford tax cuts now, without reducing further spending in other areas, you would applaud the fiscal responsibility.

Labour had nine years to give the massive surpluses, the result of over-taxing, back to middle- and low-income earners in the form of tax cuts. Instead they chose to give it back in the form of a bureaucracy-heavy tax credit system you had to register for. Even then, only to those who they deemed to be their constituency.

The only time it crossed their mind to give tax cuts was just before the election.

Someone with more cynicism than I may believe that Labour wouldn't want low-income earners to increase their wealth, because the more this happens the more their constituency will shrink.

Low-tax party?

Perhaps I've misunderstood National's "we're the the low tax party" message.
I would have thought a low-tax party would be looking to decrease taxes, not increase them.

Matter of perspective

I don't think the problem is that National want to increase tax. I think the problem is one of perspective. For nine years we ran record surpluses while funding myriad non-returning, airy-fairy projects and policies.

All the while, Labour refused to give cuts to the "middle income earners" paying for the majority of the benefits others gained from these policies.

The economy was booming. All Labour did was spend the surpluses and refuse to acknowledge the sacrifices that Middle New Zealand had made for them.

This current Government has to deal with a world recession, falling company tax incomes, and a slow economy which can only be kept crawling along by borrowing.

What would Labour have done in this situation? Borrowed far more. The alternative to borrowing is, of course, dramatically reducing spending. Is that a more palatable approach?

Labour has not promoted an idea that would have made any difference to the current scenario. Do you expect your tax cuts now they are unable to be funded? 

I personally believe the time for punishing people for success in the form of "envy taxes" belongs has passed.  I also think people who earn less that $20,000 should not pay any tax. Let them decide how to spend their money.

Tax changes

Where is the evidence that the tax system is broken?
If GST was raised to 15% and lower income earners were compensated, then middle income earners would bear the brunt of the extra tax.

If high income earners are sheltering their income in trusts, lowering the top tax rate wouldn't mean they would pay it. It would mean no one would pay it.

Why is it so important to align the income rate with the corporate rate? No other country has.

These are questions the media should be asking.
The media constantly harped on about Labour being a high tax government. Where are you now that National want to increase tax (sorry 'broaden the tax base')?

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
P.B Technologies LtdDunedinComputer Services
Harbour Fish WholesaleDunedinWholesalers & Distributors
Downes Gemtime JewellersMosgielJewellers
FindSpace LimitedDunedinReal Estate Agents