Spin or a lie - you decide.
Just popping back to this one. I had hoped that after a whole page of stuff feedback about this there would be some more information put out by the Govt to justify it's potential caught with a good spin on.
"Thinking about a move to Australia? Think again, warns Prime Minister Helen Clark.
Because across the ditch you'll run into higher taxes, higher property prices, higher unemployment, plus compulsory medicare and superannuation, she said in Palmerston North yesterday. "
See stuff : http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3597243a10,00.html
I also borrowed an official avg household income figure of $65,5209 from here.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3603795a6160,00.html
I postulated that as the tax rates had different graduation points and rates, I would need to calculate both the tax on the income as if was earned by a single person as well as splitting the income between two people. To give a fair comparison for the average NZ household income.
Australian tax rates from here were used:
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm
And NZ rates are from here:
http://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax-individual/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html
As an Individual an Australian pays $15,516 as tax on a gross income of $65,520.
An Individual in NZ pays $16,822.80 as tax on a gross income of $65,520.
The Aussie pays $1,306.80 less tax on an income $65,520
As an Individual an Australian pays $5,688 as tax on a gross income of $32,760.
An Individual in NZ pays $6,388.20 as tax on a gross income of $32,760.
The Aussies pays $698 less tax on an income of $32,760.
So that was the averages disposed off, how about the lower incomes.
Lets say Joe earns $18,000 a year.
In Aussie the tax is $1,800
In NZ the tax is a whopping $3,510
The Aussie is paying $1,710 less tax on an income of $18,000.
In NZ you pay almost twice as much tax when you earn $18,000. a year. It's just my opinion but I think this a very bad look for a Govt that claims it represents the lower to average income working people of NZ.
So I also looked at a reasonably large salary.
Lets say Joe earns $100,000
Aussie: $30,550
Kiwi: $30,270
The Kiwi pays $280 less here on an income of $100,000.
So the cross over point in the progressive models used is somewhere close below $100,000.
A quick look at massive income of $280,000
Aussie: $115,150
Kiwi: $100,470
Kiwi pays $14,680 less tax on an income of $280,000. Once again it's just my opinion but I think this a very bad look for a Govt that claims it represents lower to average income working people of NZ.
So the truth of the matter would appear to be, that the average Kiwi is better off in Aussie tax wise. Lower income earners are a lot better off in Australia tax wise and high income earners pay more tax in Australia.
I wonder was she using a large dollop of spin or was she thinking of her own income when she made the statement. Perhaps she thought she was addressing the business round table.
"Thinking about a move to Australia? Think again, warns Prime Minister Helen Clark.
Because across the ditch you'll run into higher taxes, higher property prices, higher unemployment, plus compulsory medicare and superannuation, she said in Palmerston North yesterday. "
See stuff : http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3597243a10,00.html
I also borrowed an official avg household income figure of $65,5209 from here.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3603795a6160,00.html
I postulated that as the tax rates had different graduation points and rates, I would need to calculate both the tax on the income as if was earned by a single person as well as splitting the income between two people. To give a fair comparison for the average NZ household income.
Australian tax rates from here were used:
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm
And NZ rates are from here:
http://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax-individual/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html
As an Individual an Australian pays $15,516 as tax on a gross income of $65,520.
An Individual in NZ pays $16,822.80 as tax on a gross income of $65,520.
The Aussie pays $1,306.80 less tax on an income $65,520
As an Individual an Australian pays $5,688 as tax on a gross income of $32,760.
An Individual in NZ pays $6,388.20 as tax on a gross income of $32,760.
The Aussies pays $698 less tax on an income of $32,760.
So that was the averages disposed off, how about the lower incomes.
Lets say Joe earns $18,000 a year.
In Aussie the tax is $1,800
In NZ the tax is a whopping $3,510
The Aussie is paying $1,710 less tax on an income of $18,000.
In NZ you pay almost twice as much tax when you earn $18,000. a year. It's just my opinion but I think this a very bad look for a Govt that claims it represents the lower to average income working people of NZ.
So I also looked at a reasonably large salary.
Lets say Joe earns $100,000
Aussie: $30,550
Kiwi: $30,270
The Kiwi pays $280 less here on an income of $100,000.
So the cross over point in the progressive models used is somewhere close below $100,000.
A quick look at massive income of $280,000
Aussie: $115,150
Kiwi: $100,470
Kiwi pays $14,680 less tax on an income of $280,000. Once again it's just my opinion but I think this a very bad look for a Govt that claims it represents lower to average income working people of NZ.
So the truth of the matter would appear to be, that the average Kiwi is better off in Aussie tax wise. Lower income earners are a lot better off in Australia tax wise and high income earners pay more tax in Australia.
I wonder was she using a large dollop of spin or was she thinking of her own income when she made the statement. Perhaps she thought she was addressing the business round table.
posted by Gardener at 9:06 PM
6 Comments:
Love the new look! (And the lack of edit-me links ;->)
To be fair a comparison also needs to factor back the "benefits"/"tax relief" paid at those income levels.
I have a feeling Australia has the far more efficient system of not collecting as much tax and the redistributing back to the same people ...
I have a sister who lives in Aus with her partner and their two children.
Neither of them work (every family has it's black sheep) and they are in no hurry to come home.
The welfare they receive there is more than they would receive here.
But I might get around to posting up the numbers sometime.
Don't worry - Im sure they can't be fleecing more than the windfall my Aunt just got from hardworking NZer's.
With 10 kids I really dont want to calculate their handout...
10 children is a sensational effort though. Bringing up that many kids would be a lot of work.
Just worked out the handout ~$800 per week.
Have to admit only 6 are hers (from the 1st 2 husbands). Other 4 have recently come with the 3rd husband.
Unfortunatly it would be nice if she did put lots of work into it - from my observations when around it is like many large families; it really just falls on the eldest kids to look after the younger.
$800 dollars a week - Gosh she will be in hurry to find a full time job I'm sure.
Yes the oldest (all older) children in a large family do end up being pseudo parents. One could validly argue that the costs associated with a larger family need to be balanced against savings in baby sitter costs, after school care etc.
If you sister choose to work full time it is very likely that her associated 'care' costs would be neglibable compared to say a family of two children.
But hey - who said welfare should be sensible. I will bet she won't be in a hurry to vote for anything other than Labour ?
Post a Comment
<< Home