Budget
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33530
Printed Date: 23 August 2025 at 11:17am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Budget
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Subject: Budget
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 3:18pm
|
What are your thoughts ? I actually missed it - did they say anything about childcare / 20 hours free or WFF? ------------- http://lilypie.com] 
http://lilypie.com] 
http://lilypie.com] 
|
Replies:
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 3:22pm
|
As far as I know 20hrs free & WFF will stay. Tax rate drops & GST goes to 15%
WFF will be increased as will benefits...I think. I have not heard it all but did mysky it so will watch what I missed later. Will have to check out how better off it any I will be. |
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 3:25pm
|
Looks positive for everyone. You can use this calculator to work out what you will be entitled to:
http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/ - Calculator |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 3:34pm
|
Well according to that calculator we will be better off.
I am sure I heard WFF was going up, does anyone know if I heard right & if how much it will. I am hoping I can have another yr off working till DS3 goes to school. |
Posted By: HuntersMama
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 4:07pm
|
It sounded pretty good to me. Didnt hear anything about WFF though. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 4:23pm
|
WFF and Super etc. will increase to offset GST rises however, due to DD#1 singing I missed when it would go up. I think it may be increasing before the GST rises.
Didn't see the thing about ECE as I had to go out. -------------  
 
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 4:24pm
|
1 October 2010 is when everything will take effect.
We'll be $28 a week better off - better than nothing. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">   [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 4:30pm
|
Not everything - depreciation tax changes are next financial year as is the change to the bus tax rate. Think the family trusts and LAQC tax changes are a way off too. -------------
|
Posted By: lemongirl
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 4:43pm
| http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10646286&pnum=0 - this is concerning. |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 4:44pm
OMG is it what?!  -------------
|
Posted By: minik8e
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 4:56pm
|
Extra funding removed from ECE centres that have over 80% of their staff qualified. So they get little or no benefit any longer for having qualified staff meaning that a) it's going to cost them less to have unqualified staff and b) those centres with qualified staff (and therefore higher wage costs) are likely to pass the costs on to the parents that use their centre.
I think. It's not a very well written article, or it could be that the issue is slightly complex? |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 4:58pm
Sorry my reply was badly phrased. It meant - OMG isn't it shocking!  -------------
|
Posted By: KiwiL
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 5:10pm
|
Yes, I agree. That is disappointing.
I am happy the WFF stays (not that we get any) and that the 20 hours funding will also stay. I am disappointed that the company tax rate is going continue to fall far beneath the top tax rate for income earners. This encourages rich people to filter money through companies, therefore getting away with paying proportionately less tax than others. It's world-standard practice to have the company, trust and top income rates all pretty much the same, to discourage tax avoidance. Of course, wouldn't it be nice to see companies passing on this tax benefit to their employees through better wages? |
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 5:16pm
Agree, its actually better than I expected, not a fan of that smug Fat Cat they have in parliament, will be interesting to see how much the WFF actually rises. we arent curretly entitled but will be with another child Did I read correctly that the threshold will be lowered? so less people will be entitled to WFF - currently $77k now only $72K - Im trying to read all this while juggling the crazy toddler who its going nuts from being stuck inside all day ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
kiwilaurie wrote:Posted By: LouD
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 5:45pm
hmmm if only the tax cuts where THAT generous to pay for us take another year off........but hey anything towards us staying home is better than working aye I will be less inclined to go back to work if daycare is gonna cost more or there is less qualified staff |
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:03pm
|
we get an extra $10 once our WFF kicks in when bubs is born that is...but its not alot more considering i dont work ...oh well we will take waht we can get -------------    CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:07pm
I wish, lol. But if WFF were going then I would have to go back to work now instead of when DS3 is 5 next yr. What I don't think is fair is that those who pay .33% now will pay .30% when the top income get a 5% drop. So the politicians will rake it in. The more people have to spend the more that goes back in to strengthening our economy. But now the extra we get a week will go to pay GST & the more in the family means the more GST you will pay, so on 1 income you will probably end up spending more or put off those big buys. DH is getting a pay rise at his next review end of May so I told him not to come home with less than $71000. ha ha..like that will happen 
|
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:12pm
Nic that's low. Don't forget if you are not working or not entitled to PPL you can get a lump sum of $1200..think it is still that |
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:17pm
|
DH earns about max $42,000 and i havnt worked in well over a year, boardering on two!! WFF says about $120 per week so assume this will go up to $130pw ?? all this stuff confuses me.... jazzy i wil be getting lump sum of $1200 but ike thats anywhere near an average 14weeks of maternity leave wages lol
edit to add: plus the $10 isnt going to offset all the extra GST well be paying out on groceries and nappies etc...DH just made that point lol ------------- CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: Shezamumof3
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:34pm
Same, we will get an extra $11.54 a week, thats with 2 kids and me not working. ------------- |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:38pm
| So how much is the WFF going up? |
Posted By: Peanut
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:39pm
|
My understanding is that WFF will go up by 2% roughly to offset the rise in GST but I could be confused.
DS's daycare has 100% qualified staff. I will be annoyed if they try to increase fees to cover the decrease in subs as I know they are still raking it in. They have 4 newish staff who are all on under $30,000 a year. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:44pm
|
Just saw John Key gets an extra $242 a week.......
What I could do with that... |
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:50pm
|
WTF! John key your asshole...as if you didnt get paid enough already!! shez, yeah even if i popped out another one straight after wed only get about $12 more...we must be in a similar boat to your family...sigh ------------- CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:53pm
|
2% increase is not much.
What ever happened to cost of living?? Wages were meant to rise to compensate for that, when GST came in another tax was meant to go, but it never did. It seams to me the poor stay poor & the rich get richer...now I have no problem with high tax groups getting more money back but I think it sucks when middle to low income get stuff all back...after all someone has to do the low paying jobs. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 6:56pm
| Is Paul Reynolds from telecom married? he gets $3452 a week extra...but then he earns $5mil |
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:02pm
|
We get the higher tax cut , but to be honest we are not that far above the threshold and without the benefits of WFF etc we arent a lot better off than many of our friends earning less and being entitled to the benefits that are available if your under it - so at least we win a bit there - if we didnt get the cut GST would have really hurt - so its not just rich people who benefit from that tax cut
We get $10 a week for childcare - and thats just because our daughter is a heart kid - so comes under child and disability meaning even though Im at home we can claim up to 50 hours a week from winz - but we dont - its just 14 hours I actually think WFF is quite generous - our parents got no where near that when we were kids ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:06pm
|
my parents got nothing when we were kids they just worked their asses off! lol tis true jazzy, the rich get richer, how the hell can he get over 3K more a week! WTF does he need it for he earns 5mil!!! Im even more stuck as coz im under 24 winz use my parents as a guide when i havnt had financial support since i was 18!! (22 now) and im married with a kid on the way....does that change it...NOPE ------------- CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:06pm
|
Isnt it funny how National were soooo concerned about education quality in NZ yet they take funding away from ECE where education starts?
We aren't in the top tax bracket and i have no issue with them getting more money back but why is it they get a bigger tax reduction % than the rest? I don't trust those calculators for working out how much better off you will be. We eat healthy and therefore spend more money on fruit and vege and healthy groceries so we will pay more there. Company tax shouldn't be lower than personal tax. Thats just typical right wing politics though they favour business totally. And what on earth is with these maori prisons. I mean really, do you really honestly think that a criminal who wants an easy buck or wants to be a violent idiot is really going to change just because s/hes being preached your "mana".... yeah right! Money for stupidity really. |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:11pm
|
I think that all in all we will be the same or a bit skinter. The calculator says we will be $35 a week better off but then we are landlords so whereas our small rebate each year use to cover our accountants bill now it won't and I'm not sure about the whole depreciation thing but that may mean we end up paying a small amount of tax on our rental income each year instead of getting small amount back. We aren't in a LAQC so I don't think the other changes effect us. We will also lose some working for families as they are going to change the income for that from taxable to all income which means that they will then take into account the non taxable portion of DH's wage (he gets shift allowance, and sometimes a food and petrol allowance when called in).
If they have lowered the thresholds as someone said on the first page then we might lose out even more
I do understand why they have raised GST as it means people visiting the country pay it and it's a much harder tax to evade, but I'm not sure that the tax cuts for those on lower incomes will be enough to offset it. I am happy they haven't scrapped the 20 ece, is a shame about the reduction in funding for qualified teachers though. ------------- 
 
|
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:13pm
disgusting on both counts, I need to leave this thread, this government are destroying our country and it makes me sooo mad!! And yes I did vote for them and yes I am soo sorry and ashamed!! I hope all you guys benefit in some way or another ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:35pm
Im about ten years older than you , so your parents may have not got it, but at one stage even the queen got child support Are you a student to not be entitled to anything? I had the same when I was your age too, but now i dont get anything because Im married with a child ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:38pm
|
nope i havnt been in study since 2008...DH studies part time though and works fulltime...i just sit at home like a single person realistically... I might get something if i was a student which is whats dumb, though now my mums earning well and dad is too they prob would say they earn too much for me to get student allowance as am under 24...stupid loop holes suck...also winz say one thing and then studylink say another, we basically fall right through the middle of both of their loop holes...so unfair ------------- CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:48pm
|
Once your married they dont count your parents, but I was the same, they expected me to live on $2 a week when I was studying
Im really surprised your parents income comes into it to be honest since your married - how long since you have enquired with winz Dont forget to register as soon as you have Charlotte, you will be entitled to WFF and the parental tax credit for 8 weeks after she is born Then also go back to WINZ and ask for accomodation if you dont qualify now - they seem to be alot more generous with families My husband got made redundant last year, then so did I so we had to go through the drama with WINZ - we got accom of $120 a week, and WFF of $136 a week - now we have to pay all that WFF back as DH got another job 3 months later and it put us over the threshold ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:55pm
|
definately will be registering once charlotte is here! ill be going through IRD instead of winz though as its easier or so iv heard! I think WFF says well get like $123 per week...plus i guess the new $10 top up but is there anything else we can get?? we only $100 rent pw as we rent a cottage off PIL cheaper thats the loop hole with winz, because we are married they count DH's income which give us like $2 a week or something and with studylink our marriage doesnt count as we are under 24 so is based on parental income so DH would be intitaled but works so doesnt get anything and I cant get anything coz my parents earn too much...does that make sense? winz also have issues with one of us being a student and try to fob us back off onto studylink as they "dont deal with students"!!
so lost and confused!! ------------- CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: _SMS_
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:57pm
|
ok i must sound really dumb lol!!
But with that WFF calculator does it just say how much extra you get?? -------------  
|
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:00pm
|
sabrina - if you go onto IRD you can work out your WFF and then on the beehive calculator you select that your a WFF beneficiary and add your details it wil tell you total weekly increase at the bottom along with total annual increase...mine says "+$10.." ------------- CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: zoeymil
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:03pm
|
I'm an Early Childhood Teacher and i'm so gutted about the dropping of 100% registered teachers to 80% , it just pushes out the need for qualified teachers and professionlism in early childhood. National just don't value ECE as the most important stage!!!! ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:17pm
|
Bamn have a play around on the WINZ and studylink websites as if you have charlotte - its worth asking Id think - they can only say no again
I dont know what else is available cause I havent been in your position Lucky your rent is low Totally agree with you Zoey - very unfair ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: pikelets
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:22pm
|
I'm not impressed with the ECE decision. I have to put my son in daycare co z I have to work. It is ridiculous to think it could go up $25 per week.
We should be encouraging qualified ECE teachers in our daycares not encouraging the centres to take on more unqualified teachers to look after our kids. And as for the tax cuts - sounds good but once we start paying an extra 3% GST then it will balance out. If our daycare goes up $25 per week and rent goes up because of the GST, I won't be too happy ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
 3 Angels - Dec10 / Mar11 / Dec11
|
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:26pm
|
i dont think the extra covers the extra GST personally...but thats only in our situation.... good idea RJ..but i think i did it a year ago when we TTC and it didnt change anything.... ------------- CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:33pm
|
I don't have a problem with the ECE decision, in the end there simply isn't enough $$ to fund it.
I think it will force ECE centres to operate better, and provide a more effective service to parents. We'll be better off by $28 a week, which is the only thing we've received from either government in the last 10 years. WFF is only $61 for us, I'm better off being a full time student. As I get $71 and can earn $195 on top of that. WFF as soon as I earn anything we don't qualify. Keeping qualified skilled people in the country by reducing the top tax rate is better for the country and productivity, so many well qualified and experienced people have gone overseas simply cause the $$ is better. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: myfullhouse
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:34pm
|
IMO we are going to be worse off as the increase in GST is going to mean that everything goes up and our extra $$ after the tax cut will be gobbled up but the increased GST. The Govt are just giving with one hand and taking with the other, but trying to make it look like they are wonderful for giving us a tax cut. But then I could be biased, I definately didn't vote them in! ------------- Lindsey 
|
Posted By: ALittleLoopy
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:36pm
|
linzy they had to give us a tax cut as it was part of their promised voting promo thingy wasnt it?? they are getting out of it by taking it away again in GST ------------- CHEM 6/12+ |
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:38pm
I agree with you . You sound about the same as us, but as a student I get nothing - do you mind me asking how you do that? PM me if you like - if you want to tell me that is ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: pikelets
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:41pm
Our previous daycare was a shambles coz they hired very little staff that was qualified so we changed to one that the teachers are all qualified and know what they are doing and we know that DS is with people that have great knowledge. There also seems to be a drive to get qualified ECE teachers so hope there won't be an abundance of them now. You are right there isn't enough $$ to fund it... or other things that we need in this country... ------------- http://lilypie.com">
3 Angels - Dec10 / Mar11 / Dec11
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:42pm
|
Yeah I would like to know as well, cos I have ended up borrowing the student loan living costs, but if I could get $71 then i wouldn't need to do that or I wouldnt' need to borrow as much of the living costs anyway. -------------
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 8:53pm
|
Actually I'm wrong we don't get anything - was going by this
If you have a partner and children and Weekly payment from 1 April 2010, after tax, at tax rate 'M' is: your combined income is more than $391.56 but less than $815.70 a week before tax and you live with your partner $70.13 Not realising there is an upper income limit - we don't get anything then from student allowance then. 
Sorry ladies - dumb preggy brain - guess its back to work instead. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 9:36pm
|
Bugger Calia I thought you had discovered a loop hole!! we will have to borrow living costs too ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 8:21am
|
[QUOTE=BAMN08] WTF! John key your asshole...as if you didnt get paid enough already!! QUOTE] If I'm not wrong, JK gives most of his salary to charity ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: deodora
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 8:38am
|
They way the budget has been presented and the calculators that show you how the changes will affect you are based on a number of assumptions.
So when they say you will get XXX in a tax cut and that XXX will be spent on the GST increase which will leave you with XXX is based on assumptions made by Treasurey. For example it is assumed you will save much of your tax cut (and therefore not pay GST on it) it is assumed that your mortgage/rent payments are 'average', that the amount you spend on other things that GST is charged on is also 'average'. In addition it does not take into account the increases in ACC levy's or the costs we will all have to pay towards the Emissions Trading Scheme. I don't mean to depress everyone but don't get too happy thinking you will have any extra to spend. The budget has been presented very cleverly and has suceeded by distracting everyone with tax talk but the massive cuts to health let alone other areas concern me greatly. Saying ,some of the loophole closure re trusts and rental property depreciation is very good. |
Posted By: E&L+1
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 8:56am
|
I think you are right there summerlamb.
To me the announcement that 1 in 4 of our university graduates leaves NZ is scary especially given the student loan scheme. Hopefully one positive out come of this budget is that we will be able to retain some of our own graduates and be able to attract some to come back! ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 9:09am
|
Yeah well he also pays a lot more tax. I don't get why people are so pissed at those earning over 70k getting a tax cut - they're paying more tax than anyone else - where do you think all the revenue comes from to pay for WFF, SA and benefits from higher earners. The CEO of Telecom is a dumb example - there are plenty of people earning 75-80k raising their families and paying their mortgages who don't get a cent from anywhere yet they pay for everyone elses handouts. There's nothing stopping the rest of the population from getting educated and getting off their arse and getting a well paying job! ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: freckle
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 11:50am
I so agree!!! and CJ I think it's only fair the higher wage earners get decent cuts... lets keep them in NZ ------------- mum to 3 lovely girls :D |
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 11:54am
|
caliandjack, my quote wasn't a criticism of John Key, it was actually a defense saying that he may have an extra $200 a week because of the tax cut but as he gives his salary to charity that means a charity is now $200 a week better off.
I agree with everything else you've written. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: freckle
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 11:56am
|
Nic we earn a little more than you guys (going by what you said before) and we get just under $300 a fortnight for WWF (with two kids) and I think it's bloody awesome! I think we're so lucky to get what we get and like CJ without the higher wage earners paying lots of tax we wouldn't ... ------------- mum to 3 lovely girls :D |
Posted By: kiwisj
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 12:02pm
I agree with all this too. The reason higher income earners are "better off" each week is because they pay more tax in the first place. ------------- SJ Callum - Dec 2008 Daniel - Oct 2010 |
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 12:17pm
|
I agree with C & J's post. I am so sick of NZ's mentality that rich people are bastards and don't deserve anything. They contribute to 74% of our tax for gawd's sake and they work damn hard. They didn't sit on their asses and whinge that the govt should be giving them more money for doing nothing, they were ambitious and went out there and made their own!
(Disclaimer, I'm not saying anyone here is like this, I am more ranting about my brother and his friends) |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 1:13pm
|
I don't have a problem with the top earners getting more by the tax cut but what get me mad is that the % is not the same for the other ones.
It is not going to keep skilled people in NZ as some get their qualifications so they can move o/s. Good on John Key giving a lot of money to charity, I give money to some, not on his level as we don't have the $$ as he does. Lets face it he did not want to be PM for the money as he has more than most of us will have in our lifetime. I read a background on his life & it was really interesting but I did not vote for him as I thought with him the people on the lower scale will get left behind & some services will suffer. So as usual health & education suffer, well done National the rate you are going we won't be able to educate the young so they can slot into that top income. I wish they would look at benefits & stop those thieving scum that rip it off they are the drain on our country & help the ones that really need it. Oh & I have to say that any one that gets $5m to run a phone company that disconnects people over small amounts is a joke. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 1:24pm
Did I get it wrong I thought it would mean that they will not be able to afford a lot of qualified staff & will pass more cost off to the parent. Which would mean some parents could not afford either to go to work or would leave their children with basically anyone. I think kindy is great, I don't pay much so always help out with fund raising & helping out at kindy so I think it would be sad if the budget hurts them financially. |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 1:40pm
|
They've kept the 20 hours free child care for 3 and 4 year olds, But they're not subsidising the qualified teaching staff up to 100%, only 80%, and yeah it may mean fundraising and passing the cost on to parents - 1.5 billion is a crazy amount to expect the governement to pay. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 1:46pm
|
But why should the percentage reduction be equal across all bands?
The fact of the matter is that New Zealand does not have enough money. If not cut from ECE or healthcare it would come from transport or somewhere else. As we all know with our personal finances, there is only so much to pay the bills each month and when it is gone its gone, the only option left is credit. New Zealand does not need to be in any more debt. Like it or not business and high income earners paying huge amounts of taxes is a massive part of what keeps New Zealand running, we could have the best healthcare and education system in the world but with nobody paying large amounts of tax to pay for it how would we fund it? This means we need to keep these businesses and individuals in the country and attract new investment, the only way to do that is to make New Zealand an attractive proposition and tax is obviously a part of that. I'm happy I got a tax cut of course, but I would have been fine for it to stay where it was as well. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 1:51pm
|
Given what's happening in europe atm, I think the budget is a good one - don't think anyone wants to see NZ bankrupt. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:01pm
|
This thread is such a brilliant example of left vs right mentalities!
At the end of the day economists are saying that National have been far too generous with the tax cuts we have been given and that the country can't actually afford them but I love it how people still think that they should be entitled to more
|
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:05pm
|
I agree Little Red, it really is a classic example. I also agree that the country can't afford it..... remind me again how many billions of dollars of debt are we in already?? ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:06pm
|
Lol LR ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:10pm
|
Most of the people I know who are in the 'left' mentality would actually prefer not to have a tax cut and the expense of public services. It's the ones in the right that want it.
I agree the country can't afford it. Cast your minds back to the last election when Labour said exactly that and National ridiculed them. Now in the second budget they are having to 'make good' before election time comes around again. Also lowering the top tax rate doesn't equal people staying in NZ. You have to increase the wages to do that and there is no guarantee that will happen to any great degree. Especially now that inflation is tipped to blow out so people will be trying to keep wage increases modest so as not to compound the issue. ETA: As for the ECE cuts - I saw a quote from someone in the paper which I'm going to steal and paraphrase. The gap between the rich and poor is widening and where it is universally accepted that the only way out of poverty is education the government is cutting that too. -------------
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:15pm
I don't want or particularly need it. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:16pm
|
I agree too, my family won't really be any better off as any extra will go on GST, I would rather not have a tax cut & the money go in to health & education. Also if the economy takes another dive the tax cut will go out...so they say, so if that happens GST is up & no extra from any tax cuts. Oh & it does not make sense to give back if it works out to be more that the GST we will be paying so when you do the numbers you know there will be hidden costs & the price of everything will be a lot more then the extra tax the lower brackets will get.
We borrow billions so why not revamp the benefits, too many get a free ride while others support them. |
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:16pm
| Remember John Key was a millionaire already before he became prime minister so i'd expect he should give a lot to charity. Biggest concern for me is if childcare costs increase many of my friends who are border line able to afford it now (working mostly for career reasons not financial benefit) will most likely leave their jobs. Which means more people on WFF and less taxpayers. Surely less taxpayers isn't "good for the economy"? |
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:19pm
| We personally will be better off by $13 a week. I'd rather that go into health or education. I've yet to figure out what they mean by WFF will no longer indexed? Does anyone? |
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:23pm
| I don't believe that the GST hike is really going to affect people that much. Retail is such a competitive market nowadays they need to keep prices low. I think it is going to be the suppliers that are going to wear the brunt of it. |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:27pm
|
Great and how is that going to help the economy then? Our local suppliers won't be able to compete and so will lose out to overseas vendors. That means more job losses here and more people leaving for overseas.
Saying that GST rises won't affect people much is rather short sighted. -------------
|
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:28pm
|
What I took from the news last night about WFF is they are going to look more closely at people who have business & pay themselves..say a small wage & divert funds through the business so they can get WFF & some of them would not get it as they really make more than the cut off point.
So I think it is a good idea as the ones that are entitled to it will still get it & the ones who are not don't which is fair. When I go back to work I won't be able to get it & that's ok by me. But I am sick o the ones who get them that should not. |
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:33pm
Most people are short sighted though, they don't look past the last dollar in their pocket - these are the people that I am referring to. |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:35pm
|
Totally agree LR. It drives me to despair -------------
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:38pm
|
The irony of this whole thing is tax cuts take effect 1 October which is the day I go on maternity leave and won't get any benefit from them anyways. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:40pm
| That's freaky timing C & J! |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:40pm
|
WFF is no longer going to be based on taxable income but on all income, so if you get part of your wage paid as non taxable (my dh gets a non taxable shift allowance and occasional meal/travel allowances that are also non taxable) these will now count as income for the purposes of working out WFF.
I believe the gst rise was intended to gain revenue from tourists who also buy stuff whilst here and the tax cut was suppose to offset it so that it doesn't effect people living here, that was my understanding of it anyway. We are in the higher tax bracket but we will be no better off as we now have more income because of the whole non taxable thing and plus I'm not sure what will happen with our rental income as currently we run at a loss and therefore our rent doens't have to be included as income for the purposes of WFF but I guess that will also change, still considering we only get $36 from wff a week anyway it's no huge loss. Oh and we both voted labour, we might be considered middle income but it sure as hell doesn't feel like it and I really did not want national to get in and destroy the country but unfortunately too many people are stupid and greedy and wanted their extra $50 a week. Well they all now have egg on their faces don't they! -------------
|
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:43pm
|
There are a lot more implications on a rise in GST than just how much you pay at the shop though. The points Bobbie makes are entirely correct, it will have an effect in a number of other places, but it will also increase government revenue as well which will benefit us in numerous ways. Like anything, the budget is about trying to figure out where you can trim a bit of fat to suplement somewhere else, unfortunately the state our country means there isn't really any fat... ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:48pm
Personally I don't think we would have been so much better if Labour had of remained in power either. I'm not thrilled with the National government but I wasn't thrilled with the pile of crap the Labour one left us in either. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:48pm
I for one didn't vote for National for the tax cuts, I voted for them because I think that Labour turned the social welfare system into a joke and I am hoping National will do something about it. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 3:44pm
Yip it is a joke & a drain I hope they change the whole system. I think pensioners who have worked their butts off get stuff all while others can sit on theirs & do nothing for theirs. |
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 3:54pm
|
I personally have been a Greens supporter since before I could vote. But that's sort of irrelevant. I too am so fed up with people who are lifelong bludgers- it used to be that the unemployment benefit existed to stop you from losing your house & support your family with the BARE ESSENTIALS while you were TEMPORARILY out of work. Now it seems to be a lifestyle choice. (NOT referring to the dpb with that comment.)
|
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 3:57pm
| Oh and I've never agreed with anything Sue Bradford has ever said before someone hits me with that stick!! |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 4:38pm
|
I never got the Greens - they seemed to be the protestors party. I liked Sue Fitzsimmons and her environmental policies but the rest of them really are a drain on society they're politicans. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 4:59pm
| Two_boys, is that true about non-taxable allowances becoming part of the WFF combo too? If so, we will never get it again because it's too hard to work out and I don't want a bill |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 5:22pm
|
with company taxes being dropped big time, many companies may be able to absorb the extra gst so perhaps they won't passs those costs on...but also perhaps companies who are going off-shore might be tempted to stay./
What is getting me is the students moaning about the $50 admin fee. Sorry, but I paid interest - compound at that - and my loan is astronomical - with nearly $30K being interest, so sorry if I don't sympathise with you!!!! |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 5:32pm
|
I've no sympathy either Lizzle, I'm more than happy to pay $50 for an interest free loan. Best loan terms i've ever come across. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 5:59pm
|
Yep I have student loan and I'm more than happy to pay it. I never agreed with interest free I dunno why they didn't make it 1% or something so that it covers it's own costs of being run as that would still be extremely generous compared to other countries.
Yep Emz that's what he said during the budget reading, that it would no longer be calculated on just taxable income as that wasn't always a fair indication of the amount of income a family was bringing in. Emz you could set it to lump sum that way you still get it but only at the end of the year. -------------
|
Posted By: Shelt
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 9:11pm
|
lizzle company taxes arent dropping till the 2011/2012 tax year (the tax year ended 31/3/12) and the GST is going up on 1 October so I dont think companies will be absorbing the extra GST.
I might get hit with a big stick here  but GST is not going up by a hell of a lot - 2.5% is peanuts considering that most of the tax rates are dropping by 3% or more. Its only really going to make a difference if you are considering a big ticket purchase.------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Shelt
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 9:17pm
two_boys I think as long as you don't have your rental property in an LAQC you won't be any worse off. As far as I understand it they won't be including the rental income, just not letting you use the losses to reduce your overall income to boost your entitlement. And this is just my personal opinion (I am an accountant so possibly a wee bit biased ) I dont think National are going to destroy the country. They are trying to redistribute the money they have by targetting it to where they think it should go.
I found this email that is doing the rounds again and I thought it totally explains my side of the fence
Economics 101 Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men (the poorest) 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 quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer 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 realized that $20 divided by six is $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 by roughly the same amount, 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) The sixth now paid $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 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. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their 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 I!" "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. "We didn't get anything at all. The 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, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, this 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. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 10:14pm
| Cool email, I'm sure even my primary schoolers would be able to understand that! Re voting for greens, i would never expect them to govern the country (neither do they for the record), but I think their policies regarding a more sustainable (read low maintenance, affordable and efficient) way of doing things are super important for anyone who even likes to pretend they give a damn about the future. Though I have to admit sometimes some of their policies can seem a bit communist! |
Posted By: tictacjunkie
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 10:18pm
|
Then again, I don't expect any Labour or National voters to 100% support (or even understand) all of their chosen party's policies. At least the Greens policies are mostly transparent. Labour and National tend to change theirs according to the latest poll or how close we are to an election.
|
Posted By: kiwisj
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 10:40pm
|
Shelt, I love that explanation of taxes and have been thinking about it all day and wanting to post it on here! Glad someone else beat me to it
------------- SJ Callum - Dec 2008 Daniel - Oct 2010 |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 7:50am
| I can see my Monday lesson in Economics!!! thanks! You've just saved me some plannng |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 1:58pm
|
I guess I just think that if you cut taxes for the poor then they wouldn't need things like accomodation supplements and WFF to make ends meet and therefore higher earners wouldn't need to pay the tax to pay for those services and surely less people using those services would mean a reduction in the cost to provide them. And by provide I don't mean the money they pay out but more the money that is spent on running the system in the first place.
It makes no sense to me for the government to top up income with taxpayer money and I don't entirely agree that families should get more assistance cos I think you shouldn't have kids until you can afford to without assistance. I am not an economist though and it seems most economists think it is a good budget overall so that has to be a good thing. Shelt that will be good if we don't have to count the income cos that just means we will stay the same as our loss is minimal anyway, I was actually told by my accountant that you can't use the loss for the purposes of WFF when we first applied for it but then I read in the paper today that that was what they wanted to stop. Very confusing. -------------
|
Posted By: sadie
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 2:59pm
|
Since people are moaning about the top income brackets getting a 5% point decrease in their tax rate - more than anyone else - has anyone thought to look at it as a proportion instead? So $0-$14k is dropping from 12.5% to 10.5%. That's a 16% reduction. $14-$48k - 21% to 17.5%, a 17% reduction $48k-$70k - 33% to 30%, a 10% reduction $70k plus - 38% to 33%, a 14% reduction.
When you look at the proportions like that, is is actually the lower bands that are receiving the best tax cuts. Personally I think the tax cuts are great, and I have no problem with rasing GST either. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 3:04pm
Well I am moaning about the 3% drop for $48k-$70k - 33% to 30%, a 10% reduction why does that have to be the lowest it is the 2nd highest group. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 3:19pm
I personally would rather the extra went in to education & health...but it has not so I will take the extra we get as it will be spent on the GST extra added to what I buy. Lets not forget that the "poor" pay taxes as well & if you work out the extra the lower scales have it is hardly life changing. As for not having kids till people don't need assistance the human race will die off. When the so called recession hit here it gave a lot an excess to lay off staff, wage freezes were put in place & people suffered so I think it is time that people go a bit back. If wages reflected inflation then people would not need as much help. |