Linky. Well. One Link.

Awesome post on Brain Stab.

Didn't know it was that bad...

Unknown to me, I'm on ACT's mailing list and I got an e-mail today from them asking for my vote. One bit of the e-mail was interesting..

The average New Zealand worker is now $450 a week poorer than the average Australian worker.

If we were a state of Australia, we'd be the poorest - $100 a week poorer than Tasmania.

If we were a state of the USA, we'd be 51st and last - $120 a week poorer than Mississippi.

I must say, I didn't know it was that bad. If I could be bothered I'd be tempted to check those figures. Seems a bit dodgy. I did do a little looking about Mississippi on wiki though. They were once the fifth richest state in the USA. That's what slave labour can do for you.

Awful Policy

ACT founder and candidate the Hon Sir Roger Douglas said ACT would make the first $10,000 tax-free for full-time income earners, and inflation-index tax brackets to restore 2000 values.

-ACT

(h/t: Deborah @ The Hand Mirror)

How do you justify giving the tax break only to full time workers? Is part time work not important? Not even a little? As Deborah points out this is a spit in the face to anyone that looks after children. This policy completely distorts incentives towards full time work. Sure, that may not seem bad but kinda assumes that everyone can be fitted into a nice little homogeneous box that says that full time work is best for everyone. It's not. I used to kinda like ACT, it appealed to the inner right winger inside me but this policy seems to go against what the likes of Rodney Hide stand for - especially their rhetoric concerning 'choice' - I thought ACT would be the last party that would try to dictate how people can work through the tax system. I am very confused by this policy.

In terms of the other issue raised by this press release - tax bracket creep. I'm in favour of it and I thought it was already in place. A bit of research found that it is - just not to the extent that ACT wants it. It was announced in 2005 and the first adjustment would take place back in the 31st of March 2008 - only covering the period between the 1st of April 2005 and the 31st of March 2008. ACT wants it to cover the period going back to 2000. I'd be seriously more cautious doing that.

I do think that the tax brackets should be increasing by the rate of inflation every year. Not every three years in an attempt to build up a nice little stockpile for election year.

Man... long boring post. One question, did National increase the tax brackets in the 90s? That's something I want to find out.

Election Prediction (The Wild Guess)

I like making a wild guess, getting it down on paper (or blog) and then getting it out months later and having a good laugh. Without further ado, my predictions for the New Zealand Election this year.

National: 53 seats
Labour: 47 seats
Greens: 8 seats
Maori Party: 5 seats
ACT: 3 seats
NZ First: 3 seats
Progressive: 1 seat
United Future: 1 seat

That makes a total of 121 seats with the Maori Party providing the overhang. This situation will call for some complicated coalition building.

I'm also envisioning a situation where ACT and the Greens get less votes, NZ First is booted out completely (Winston Peters doesn't win back his Tauranga seat), the Maori Party get less party votes and National picks up the majority of these votes. That'll look like:

National: 58 seats
Labour: 49 seats
Greens: 6 seats
Maori Party: 5 seats
ACT: 2 seats
Progressive: 1 seat
United Future: 1 seat

That's 122 seats. Oh well, so much can change before election day.