New Zealand Fabian Society

Peter Harris' Budget Lecture Well Received

Details: Category: Events; Created on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 12:00

Peter Harris' lecture providing a context for the 2010 Budget was well received in both Auckland on Tuesday and Wellington on Wednesday. He offered the perpective that, despite the traditional rhetoric and posturing, any Budget has little to offer as an instrument of change for any Government, so don't expect big things from this one.

However, Peter did identify critical pressures on the economy and tax system that were fundamentally misrepresented by the Tax Working Group and are to be ignored at our peril. The TWG's flawed analysis and selective recommendations are to form the basis of a 'ruse to cut working for families by stealth', while 'the rich don't pay taxes anyway'.

The paper that forms the basis of Peter's lecture is available for download here.

Comments

#13 Guest 2010-09-01 23:38

If you check this out it gives you treasury's data on income v tax paid. In my humble opinion by stating that the top 10% pay 44% of the tax all they are doing is clearly describing the yawning gap between that 10% and the rest of the country. What is interesting to note is that a similar number of people pay next to no tax.
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2010/taxpayers/02.htm#_tocwhopays

Quote

#12 Guest 2010-09-01 05:52

"Firstly, the rich do pay tax – lots..."

It's misleading to conflate 'the rich' with those earning high taxable incomes (in the case of the TWG, deliberately misleading). The wealthiest NZ'ers have little or no taxable income & many even receive taxpayer subisidies - eg WFF & student allowances. With no capital or wealth taxes, this group can't pay taxes, even if they want to.

Quote

#11 Guest 2010-08-31 23:38

"BigCake"

Firstly the rich do pay tax – lots.

According to the Tax Working Group “The top 10% of income earners now pay 44% of all personal income tax.

They also said how much income they earned as a proportion of all income. Their 44% tax is based upon their proportionately high earnings. The big question is should they pay more tax. On wealth, for example.

Quote

#10 Guest 2010-08-05 22:18

The Government is now a welfare system for 'wealth bludgers'
"The Conservative Nanny State" is an e-book you can download about it here: http://www.yousay.co.nz/articles/politics/nanny+state.html

Quote

#9 Guest 2010-04-28 04:04

Lets have a financial transaction tax on all internal transactions. instead of income tax. A Tax on all withdrawals from the Banks, building societies, sharebrokers, finance companies, lawyers etc etc. (“the Banks”) Just think of what could be provided for the people if every day half a cent was taken from each and every dollar of all withdrawals made throughout the country. Every day. The structure to do this already exists when Banks deduct withholding tax. An army of civil servants would therefore not be required. People would be encouraged to save and that would help our appalling savings record. Yes, there probably would be more cash payments but there are already laws that stop the payment of large amounts of cash. The rich would pay more. But it can’t be tax deductible the way GST is. Or even more interesting it could be a progressive tax so the larger the withdrawal the larger the amount of tax paid. Say one cent on all amounts over one million dollars.

Quote

#8 Guest 2010-04-07 05:15

arevants: hah, wondering when someone was going to raise that point re my first comment.

You are right to make the distinction. Read the other day about Sam Morgan complaining about not having to pay tax.

In part depends on what you mean by rich.

Some people caught by PAYE are rich by anyone's measure.

The original point I was making was about Peter dumping on the rich and implying they only got rich because they don't pay tax.

Not true.

Sam Morgan got rich because he was smart and worked hard - but he should be paying tax.

Quote

#7 Guest 2010-04-07 00:05

Surely you're missing the point? The issue is wealth rather than taxable income.The PAYE tax scales are undoubtedly inefficient and inequitable - but only for wage and salary earners.

The wealthy are generally NOT wage and salary earners. When they are, they end up in the lowest band after netting off any losses from their LAQC's, probably receiving extra tax credits into the bargain. Given that we effectively have no taxes on wealth or capital, it is fair to make the generalisation that the wealthy pay little or no tax (just ask one of them).

In terms of 'moral luck', it seems that the very wealthy have consciously and deceptively channelled the political process in terms of tilting the playing field their way. If this was all transparent it probably wouldn't be sustainable.

Quote

#6 Guest 2010-04-06 23:52

Did look it up - now have a new phrase.

Agree the rich don't have full control of the circumstances that allowed them to get rich, but from my observations they have a hell of a lot.

Quote

#5 Guest 2010-04-06 20:17

Quoting BigCake:

Secondly, they are not rich because they don’t pay tax. They are rich because they work hard and because they have had the guts and ambition to back an idea and turn it into (or maintain it) as a viable business.

"Moral luck," look it up.

Quote

+1 #4 Guest 2010-04-04 00:25

Re 'the top 10% of income earners pay 44% of all personal income'

It would be interesting to know what percentage of all personal income is earned by the top 10% of income earners.

Would that not give us a more complete picture?

Quote

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post