Thursday, October 11, 2007

Come on Cullen, time to soak the rich and squeeze them till the pips squeak


Well, after everyone else had had their two-pennorth, or five cents at the current exchange rate, what can I say about the budget surplus that hasn't been said already?
Obviously, Liarbour is planning a huge bribe with our own money, as this Colin Espiner story notes here.
His blog about the "kitty" being so fat, similarly notes Liarbour's "aversion" to taxcuts, but the party is 'running out of excuses" not to give them, so will "throw the kitchen sink" at voters next yesr to buy its re-election.
David Farrar at Kiwiblog, meanwhile, looks at various tables to show why taxcuts are affordable now.
While Cactus Kate presents an interesting compare and contrast with Hong Kong where budget surplesses have led to income taxcuts AND infrastructure spending.
And Half Done notes a US report where Bush's taxcuts have led to a surge in government revenues.
There's not much to add that the other's haven't but taxcuts do fuel economic growth, and we have had little of it lately, more like 2% as opposed to 5% over the tasman. Despite government claims of strong economic growth, living standards have barely changed as Cullen has grabbed much of the extra wealth in tax, which the government has frittered away on public services for little actual benefit. Liarbour's mismanagement continues, whether it be theith inability to get their forecasts right, or run an election campaign without stealing from the public purse, or being unwilling to get more state output, despite much extra state input.
Oh yes, as a Pom, I also recall when UK chancellor Nigel Lawson cut UK income taxrates in the early 1980s, not only did this generate more income tax, but the share of total tax take paid by the rich actually increased. There was extra economic growth and less incentive to avoid or 'fiddle.'
So go on Michael, soak the rich and squeeze them hard until the pips squeak. Lower their taxes. That way they won't need accountants to devise such 'avoidance' measures or hire hot shot lawyers like Cactus Kate to help them 'manage' their finances tax-efficiently.

1 comment:

spam said...

I saw someone trying to argue that we didn't need tax cuts, because people had a lot less money in the 50's, yet were apparently 'happier'.

Go figure.