"...we backtracked on our election pledge to remove the surtax on superannuation. Because morally I couldn't justify to myself that we would give a tax concession to the wealthy retirees - which removing the surtax would do - while we were taking some off those who were in much poorer circumstances."
#JimBolger, 2017
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-9th-floor/story/201840999/the-negotiator-jim-bolger
This quote from Bolger epitomises the way everyone is the hero of their own story. He could morally justify cutting social welfare benefits to the bone in Richardson's infamous 1990 budget, throwing thousands of kiwis into avoidable poverty, but not cutting a tax on retirees.
Elsewhere in the interview he decries the total failure of neoliberal policy. But they cut benefits to bail out a bank, instead of raising taxes. Eg targeting those engaged in dodgy financial game . Classic neoliberalism.
@strypey
Things I never understood:
1) Why are we still taxing superannuation payments or benefits? It means people are not actually getting what it says on the tin, despite allocating all this budget to it.
2) Why do small businesses / sole traders have to pay "provisional" tax - especially in first 1-2 years?! It's a pretty big deterrent to anyone starting up a side venture where they will have unsteady income
@aligorith
The sur tax on the pension was more akin to benefit abatements than tax. It applied to people who had other income as well. Just like people earning a lot aren't eligible for student allowances. Now it's gone again superannuation ("guaranteed retirement income") is the closest we have to a Universal Basic Income. But only for old people.
If we still had the surtax Winston would not be getting a full GRI on top of his other income (inc dep PM salary
Strypey
Joshua Leung
Robyn