Paying the bill for Christchurch
Some say it is too soon to start thinking about this. Adam’s view is that it is not too soon. The Government is clearly making plans. Therefore a debate is appropriate.
In an earlier post Adam made a number of suggestions.
It would appear that some are thinking along similar lines
Fran O’Sullivan makes some similar suggestions in her list of 10 steps.
Naturally some politicians are upset saying that some of these areas were ‘no go zones’ based on what National said before the 2008 election, eg Peter Dunne.
Mr Goff said if the govenment made changes then it would be using the earthquake to cloak an opportunistic move to implement a harsh rightwing agenda.
This does not seem to hold water, as if that was the case National could have done that afterthe first quake.
The overall magnitude of the disaster is such as to be a ‘game changer’.
It would be irresponsible not to examine all options, including a one off tax impost.
If the Government did not do this then they would be criticised by exactly those who are criticisng them now.
Given that WFF and interest free student loans were massive election bribes by Cullen their review is timely. We can no longer afford these gold plated schemes, if indeed we ever could.
All areas of cost should be reviewed, the world has changed.
Comments are closed.
Cad – “nor did I miss the alleged consignment to the trash heap”
If you claim you didn’t miss it, you are agreeing that it occurred.
It’s logical guv!
No defence for Bilious Bill Adam?
“Does it not make you suspicious that while English ‘can’t comment’ on whether he’ll cut Working for Families’ etc, he was very quick to say ‘no I wont’ to touching the tax cuts.”
Robert
Bilious Bill, Double Dipton call him what you like.
In my view he is somewhat over rated and should not be where he is.
You will not often find Adam mounting a strong defence of Farmer Bill
Whadda ya say to this Adam?
John Key thinks the government can help pay for rebuilding Christchurch by cutting Working For Families for “high income earners”.
Bullshit. But don’t take it from me – take it from Bill English back in 2008:
“A careful analysis of Working For Families reveals there would have only been small savings had National opted to remove those on higher incomes from the scheme.
“Taking higher-income families out of WFF saves very little money, at least in the short term.
“As at 31 March 2007, around 1,000 families earning over $100,000 were receiving WFF, and payments to those families totalled only $1.1 million.
$1.1 million is chump change for government, and SFA compared to the ~$5 billion cost the government is looking at for the earthquake. So why are Key and English talking about it? To get us to buy their myth that they can cut WFF at the top while not leaving anyone else worse off.
From No Right Turn
Chump change or not it should be done, on principle
I would look very carefully at where current planned infrstructure spend is targetted as I do wonder whether, with modern technology, we need all the highways being planned.
Adam is deluded, Robert knows the answer
Danyl@The Dim-Post says this well:
”
DPF is wroth with the media for tastelessly pestering the Finance Minister about his plans to finance the re-building of Christchurch. Apparently when English publicly muses about financing the cost of the quake and then calls a press conference to discuss the issue it’s ‘ghastly opportunism’ on the part of the media to question him on it and report his answers, especially if they’re politically unpopular ideas like scaling back Working For Families.”
DPF has his view and I mine.
I think the media should question him, let us see if he has any ideas.
Why wouldn’t the reversal of the tax cuts so enjoyed by high income earners like Bill English and John Key be a good place to start Adam?
Those wealthy fellows can well afford to give their largess to the quake victims.
If there was to be an earthquake levy I would scale it so that it was progressive and did not start from a low point.
Whilst so many always go on about reversing tax cuts, in quantum the amount given to so called rich was not the huge amount thought. There just are not that many rich people in NZ
In fact the largesse was given to lower down the scale in absolute terms. It would make sense to cut WFF so that no one on an income of over $80,000 got it.
Okay Adam … why not start by reversing that tax cut, leading by example then suggesting other measures. Does it not make you suspicious that while English ‘can’t comment’ on whether he’ll cut Working for Families’ etc, he was very quick to say ‘no I wont’ to touching the tax cuts. Key leapt in as well to assure the recipients of those tax cuts that they wouldn’t have to stump up.
Robert
Yes let’s reverse the taxcuts. The greatest $ burden will fall on the poorer sector of the community.
Working for Families is middle class welfare and rewards people with large families. It is discriminatory and should ideally be eliminated, but at the very least trimmed so that only the pooer segment of society receives it
Frankly the idea that someone works is taxed and then gets that tax back simply becuase they have chosen to breed is repugnant and inequitable
RG:Your generosity on behalf of others is colossal.
The financing of the CHCH re-build can be sorted without altering the present tax system. I suggest that escalated mining is the solution. There is an appealing aspect to remedying CHCH through the application of receipts from a re-opened Pike River Mine. The sense of loss being ultimately replaced by a remedy.
Adam says:
“Yes let’s reverse the taxcuts. The greatest $ burden will fall on the poorer sector of the community.”
But individually, the burden would be as minor as the ‘gains’ the ‘poorer sector’ made from Bill and John’s ‘tax-switch’. I haven’t heard a single individual from the ‘poor’ bracket celebrating those tax-ciuts. Not one. Key could reverse the extra tax he burdened the community with through his raising of GST as well (remember when Key raised our taxes Adam? It wasn’t so long ago).
Cad – your suggestion to mine-baby-mine is one that the New Zealand public have already consigned to the trash-heap of history. Were you alseep at the time?
Robert we will not agree on this I am sure.
The overall package was fiscally neutral.
You appear to be one of those who thinks the system is OK when some 5% or less of the population pay more than 20% of the taxes, this 5% including people who earn $150,000 .
No wonder so many leave
RG: I most certainly wasn’t asleep, nor did I miss the alleged consignment to the trash heap. If you are certain that this occurred, please provide details of time and method. In the interim you can continue to espouse your tax-baby-tax unique form of mining. Your posts frequently encapsulate the worst of the Kiwi psyche: Envy, drag-down and redistribute…the solution to everything! Not!