Repeat After Me.. Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat tax...
From ACT News. Great to hear Rodney back on the tax message.
If ACT was writing this year's budget, it would include moves towards a flat tax and a Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
A low, flat tax would boost productivity and growth, as well as benefiting Kiwi workers, businesses and communities.
A Taxpayer Bill of Rights would cap real government expenditure, requiring politicians to prioritise and budget, instead of reaching ever-deeper into the pockets of taxpayers.
If ACT was writing this year's budget, it would include moves towards a flat tax and a Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
A low, flat tax would boost productivity and growth, as well as benefiting Kiwi workers, businesses and communities.
A Taxpayer Bill of Rights would cap real government expenditure, requiring politicians to prioritise and budget, instead of reaching ever-deeper into the pockets of taxpayers.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
5/11/2006 12:45:00 PM
17 Comments:
It is indeed pleasing to see him back on message, but far more disquieting to see that ACT questions in the house have been handed over to the Maori Party because no ACT MPs were going to be present in the house due to their either dancing or serving in the army.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice in the short term to gain long term Aaron. Email me again in a few weeks and tell me you don't think it was all worth it.
Flat tax is a great idea.... Best that ACT sticks to one policy though as we don't want to be labeled flip flops.
Repeat After Me.. Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat Tax...Flat tax...
I think repetitive sloganeering only works for "get tough on crime".
A low, flat tax would boost productivity and growth, as well as benefiting Kiwi workers, businesses and communities.
How is that so?
Tax is a cost on production. Reduce the cost of production you get more of it. The more production you have, the greater the wealth of the individuals that make up our nation. Very simple economics really.
Incomplete economics on your part.
Tax generates government revenue which flows back into the economy as government spending. Money gets spent on law and order, defence, healthcare, education, basic income for the unemployed/retired, and public goods.
It could be argued that all of these either secure or raise production levels.
The money for tax cuts needs to come from somewhere. What would Act cut if they were to have their desired 25% flat tax and no GST?
Your statements show your lack of knowledge about basic economics. There is a difference between economics and right wing rhetoric.
Anon. Not only don't you understand economics, you don't understand basic physics. If money isn't taxed, it still gets spent on health. education etc. It doesn't accumulate under people's mattresses, they spend it on what they want. If the government taxes it, the government pays an extra layer or several of bureaucrats to spend the money on what the government (or lobby groups) want.
Adding an extra step to any process and making it less direct makes it less efficient, meaning wealth gain is slowed down. Floor shift gearing is more efficient than column change because there are fewer linkages to lose energy. Economics works in exactly the same way. The more direct the transaction, the less leakage of energy (wealth). Read something like Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". You'll be amazed at how you could have been so deluded about something so simple
Getting in the sack with the Maori Party is sending confusing signals to the voters.
Taxpayers create wealth. Governments consume it.
I have a degree in economics. Public economics is a social science not a physical science. It involves trade-offs and conflicting but valid arguments. There is no mathematical formula for a perfect government. There is a difference between a book about economics and a book of opinions written by an economist.
Not everyone can afford education, healthcare and food for themselves and their children, at every point in time. Social service spending can help people get out of poverty.
Having tertiary education funding helps fast-track people to higher incomes. If there wasn't the state funding, it would take some people decades of saving income from low paid menial jobs before they can afford to up-skill.
If people don't have any social security, they are unlikely to spend much of their money on wants. This would mean less spending. It could mean the economy contracts, the production of wants is aimed at a small rich minority and unemployment skyrockets. The other argument is that the higher rate of savings would lead to higher investment, but then if this goes too far less investment would occur because of a lack of demand. There needs to be a balance.
"There needs to be a balance."
*shudder* stop causing imbalances Trevor, you're frightening the statists.
" Social service spending can help people get out of poverty."
Yeah right! Like Labour would ever allow that to happen and shrink its voter base.State spending keeps people in poverty by taking money that would be spent on generating new wealth (which is the only cure for poverty) and using it to keep people treadng water on dependency.There are more people on welfare and in need now that the state has moved in to help out than there were when it was left to the market....explain that Anon.
25% What are you, a commie or something? True Act supporters demand a 5% flat tax max.
The unemployment rate and the number of people on non-pension welfare has dropped during Labour's time in power. Benefits cover the cost of basic necessities but barely cover the cost of luxuries. People get a lot more by working. That is why most beneficiaries are only on the benefit for a short time. It isn't an easy
life on the benefit. Removing the unemployment benefit won't
fix the problem of unemployment.
Tax cuts in an already liberalised economy do very little to boost growth. Trickle down theory lacks empirical evidence to back it up.
Even if tax cuts did boost economic growth, most of that growth would fall in the hands of the rich; very little
would fall into the hands of the poor.
http://indymedia.org.nz/feature/display/45086/index.php
劈腿,劈腿,劈腿劈腿劈腿,劈腿劈腿劈腿,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇, 外遇,外遇,外遇, 外遇,外遇,外遇, 偷情,第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 徵信社,徵信社,外遇,外遇,徵信社,徵信社,外遇,徵信社,徵信社,外遇,外遇,抓姦,徵信,徵信公司, 外遇,徵信 包二奶 跟蹤 監控 徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社, 徵信社,徵信,徵信, 徵信社,徵信社,徵信社, 徵信社,徵信社,外遇,第三者,徵信社,偵探社,徵信社,偵探社 ,偵探社, 偵探社,偵探社,偵探,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務家事服務家事服務,家事服務,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,離婚,徵信社,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,外遇,離婚,劈腿,持久,持久,持久持久持久,劈腿,徵信,徵信社,外遇外遇外遇,外遇徵信社,徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信徵信社,徵信,徵信徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home