My Right

How things change. Tickets are booked, resignation handed in and preparations are under way - My Right is off to London.

Many things to sort out - so of all the things that exhaust My Right's recreational time - unfortunately Blogging was the one that had to go.

It was an enjoyable little hobby - the to'ing and fro'ing on tax in particular. I guess there are some things in life that even ostensibly intelligent pundits will never agree on. But the ability and willingness to debate and elucidate your position says more about the person than the position they adopt at times. Hence - Jordan, you have my utmost respect - for someone that is wrong... ;-)

I do sincerely hope some things change while I am away. I am not just talking about the Government either! I do worry about National's ability to provide a viable alternative and real leadership, based on a defined vision, not politicking. Act's ability to survive, let's not go there.... At the same time - I certainly do not like the way the current administration sees it as their moral duty to impose their ideologies on us underlings.

Developing a new stratum of middle class beneficiaries will be the legacy of this Government. If, after some reflection in a few years, Maharey and co can be proud of that - then they are more out of touch than My Right thought possible.

But leaving politics aside - I hope New Zealanders (all) take note of a recent Don'ism - "what ever happened to personal responsibility?" My Right holds rather grave concerns for the general direction we are heading in as a country. For want of a better expression - I think we are getting soft. Only showing the units a student passes and ignoring the failed units on NCEA results is case in point. Failure does not have to be entirely negative - it is how you respond to a failure that counts.

Lecture over, posting over, at least for the foreseeable future.......

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. STEPHEN FRANKS to the Minister of Police: Did it occur to him to ask the police what evidence they were still seeking when they informed him they were still investigating the Tame Iti case when Tame Iti was seen on television brandishing a shotgun, which he also discharged to shred a New Zealand flag, and what assurance can he give that all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law?

True to form - speak in clear sentences, pick a widely known topic, and tap into the sorts of things that people may be thinking - but have recently been afraid to express. Clearly this can work - seeing Clark do back flips over Orewa 1 was clear, and almost farcical, evidence of this.

But I think in all the dismissive and aggressive dissolution from the mainstream media (which My Right does not intend to link to) - I really believe they are missing the one thing that will resonate with the clichéd 'kiwi battler'. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Labour underestimated the general unease about race relations - it didn't show up in their polling. Would you tell a stranger on the other end of the phone that sometimes Maori extremists (translated as Maori in general when polling) piss you off? No. Brash made having concerns OK.

So I think it may be with Orewa II - and not because we want to bash beneficiaries. Because we are sick of socio-policy-paths (the 'never been in the real world new age do gooders') who are out to save the world. My Right is not advocating natural selection - but the pendulum may well have swung too far.

Jordan is typically analytical in his summation of the speech - but I think he is missing what will show in the polling come Saturday. That the base reaction may well be that Don really has a point, and has struck another nerve.

Further, at least with Don you know what he is saying (as opposed to Social Steve). Many pundits have pointed out that George W (for all of his considerable failings) came across as a straight up simpleton - "you may not agree with me - but you know my intentions".

Overall My Right didn't mind the speech - but has always seen welfare as the simple white elephant of deeper societal issues. But, if mainstream NZ view this speech as an expose of a dangerous drift away from the good old kiwi ethos, then it may be a bit more dexterous than has been acknowledged thus far.

The desperate celebrity award - Lesley Martin, "killing your own mother and then writing a screen play about it is showing real dedication".

New Zealander of the Year - Ahmed Zaoui - enough said.

It was, of course, also alleged that John Tamihere accepted a $195,000 ‘golden handshake’ when he had previously said he would not accept it. This was not strictly a matter that Mr White was asked to consider, but the Report does make some relevant comments:

The payment was not a ‘golden handshake’ of the type that Labour campaigned against in the 1999 election.

"In their own ways, both prime ministers worked on the basis that how you do things in politics can be more important than what you do.

For Ms Clark, a cautious approach to how things are done can persuade voters that her policy objectives are also moderate in tone, when this may not be the case at all."

Cullen and the Government are unabashed redistributionists. They believe in taking from the inventive, productive, enterprising participants in the economy and delivering, via an army of bureaucrats, to those who are not. Cullen's preferred method of creating a "fairer" society is to turn as many people as he can into supplicants for government benefits of some sort or another, the calculation being that the grateful beneficiaries will reward Labour with another term in office.

The buoyancy of the economy has disguised the fact that the present front-bench are traditional profligate tax and spenders.

Cullen has been spending a good deal of his time recently playing down the size of the surplus and trying to douse calls for tax cuts. He has raised the old bogey that tax cuts could only be achieved by slashing spending in areas like health and education. Voters may at last be recognising that this is nonsense.

[original post]Australian Income Tax Rates

From 1 July 2005 the following income tax rates apply in Australia:

0 to 6,000 - 0%
6,001 to 21,600 - 17%
21,601 to 63,000 - 30%
63,001 to 80,000 - 42%
80,001+ - 47%

Interesting contrast with our system, where higher income earners pay less and lower income earners pay more. On the other hand, Australia has compulsory super payments they have to make which we don't...

[comments]The aussies have a capital gains tax as well. The medical levy is the same as the ACC levy. The company rate is 30% so I guess like in NZ self-employed people can cap their income tax to the company tax rate. Tough cheese for salary earners. In aussie you get a tax rebate if you pay your own private medical insurance. This is the way of the future as is a low income tax-free band.

While just comparing tax rates in highly successful Singapore the rates for salaried employees is

0 to 20,000 Nil
20,001 to 30,000 4%
30,001 to 40,000 6%
40,001 to 80,000 9%
80,001 to 160,000 15%
160,001 to 320,000 19%
320,000 plus 22%

Posted by: Simon | December 15, 2004 06:46 PM

I'm in Korea paying 4% tax, there are also levies for pension and health which the employer is supposed to match dollar for dollar (though my employer pays the whole lot including tax, utlities and lunch for me)

Posted by: stef | December 16, 2004 03:05 AM