Friday, 21 May 2010

Budget 2010: Answers on a postcard please

So what exactly makes this “the biggest change in the tax system for 25 years”?  Is it just because it’s been nearly that long since Government Slavery Tax was last whacked up?

Anybody else remember this government’s election pledge not to raise GST?  And to give significant tax cuts?

How grateful are you  now to Dodger Rugless for introducing Grab, Snatch & Take all those years ago?

Is it really a tax cut when taxes across the board are going up?

How come none of the Nats or any of the dozens of talking heads interviewed yesterday mentioned the cost of the Emissions Tax Scam?

Why are so-called conservatives cheering hikes in welfare at a time of depression?  How grateful would you be now for a politician with Ruth Richardson’s courage?

If Greece, Ireland & the UK can recognise that now is a time to cut the salaries of MPs & bureaucrats, why has the NZ government been doing the opposite?

If conservative governments are supposed to be responsible, why is it that when this government is already spending beyond its means, it now intends to borrow nearly half-a-billion more to fund it increase its spending by yet another $1.1 billion?

Just how the fuck is that revenue-neutral?

Has anyone noticed any decent spending cuts anywhere?

How coincidental is it that most of the changes in this budget are too complicated to calculate simply? You think that’s just coincidence  that it leaves ample room for spin?

If demand for rental units stays the same, but the supply of rental units goes down because owning a rental unit has just been made less attractive, what do you think will happen to rents?

If this government truly wants to help local businesses, then why has it just made it necessary for landlords to raise rents on commercial property?

If the money supply were to stay the same while GST is increased, what do you think that would do to the total level of spending in the economy as measured without GST? And by implication, to GDP?  And, by further implication therefore, what does this tell you about this government’s expectations (or even instructions) regarding monetary inflation?

Regardless of what you think you’re going to win on the budget’s swings, if when prices go up by more than six percent next year as a result of  the budget, will that make you worse or better off?

You think it’s just coincidence that the government’s online Budget tax calculator tells you all about what you win on their swings, but nothing about what they take away on the roundabouts?  You know, like rises in rents and price inflation and ACC levies; like increases in Government Slavery Tax and tobacco and alcohol tax; like the coming rises in petrol and power tax because of the ETS . . . ?

Did you notice how Bill English now insists your buildings won’t depreciate in their first fifty years?  Bet you didn’t know he’s relying on the New Zealand Building Act to make it so.  And we all know how well their Building Act works, don’t we?

If it’s true that wages rise as productivity-per-worker rises (which it is), and it’s true that productivity-per-worker rises as more capital is made available per worker (which it is), and it’s true that this government wants wages to rise (which is questionable), then why is this government discouraging capital investment by not allowing businesses to write off the depreciation of their productive capital?

How excited are you at the IRD getting more than one-hundred million dollars to “crack down” on the so-called “black economy,” i.e., on the only part of the economy that is actually working.

If you voted for ACT in 2008, how do you feel about them voting “enthusiastically” for this budget?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.  Are these the best thousand words about this budget?

budget1 [Cartoon from The New Zealand Week]

Answers on a postcard, please.  More questions welcome.

UPDATE: Accountant Mark Hubbard has a few questions of his own, and more than a few answers.


Berend de Boer said...

PC: If you voted for ACT in 2008, how do you feel about them voting “enthusiastically” for this budget?

ACT did a very good alternative budget, and have criticised it for what it is as well. And they seems to be the only ones highlighting ETS.

Of course they are going to vote for this budget. What's the point of voting against it? It does not improve things in measurable ways, but also it doesn't worsen NZ.

Owen McShane said...

There will be no real growth and development in NZ while this culture prevails.
No growth while this culture prevails.

Anonymous said...

I agree. I think this is a grim budget that does nothing positive at all. GST has actually gone up 20 %. Think about it....12.5 +20% =15.A growing disincentive to employ a NZ business.
What is of concern to me is the continual borrowing of 240 million dollars by this Government every week. Been going on for a long time now and set to continue for another FOUR years yet. Any ideas about who's gunna pay that back?
National has done nothing about growth in government, local & central. Nothing about dealing to "Red Tape". I don't think that "they" give a damn.

Anonymous said...

Mark Hubbard (still not able to find my Blogger password).

My answers are on this link.

Just in case link doesn't work:

twr said...

Mark, just type your name under the "Name/URL" option (the one above anonymous).

Mark Hubbard said...

Hah!Thank you twr, I've found myself again. I'd never realised you didn't have to have an account. A lot of frustration saved from now on.

Greg said...

You think it’s just coincidence that the government’s online Budget tax calculator tells you all about what you win on their swings, but nothing about what they take away on the roundabouts?

Got that backwards, haven't you? At least according to Sandie Shaw...