The Alliance Party has released its tax plan as part of its alternative budget, calling for a major overhaul of New Zealand's taxation system to assist low to middle income earners, and to pay for free education and a substantial boost for health spending including free doctor's visits.
Alliance finance and taxation spokesperson Professor Jim Flynn says one of the key goals of the Alliance is to restore a fair tax system based on ability to pay.
"Under an Alliance Government, a total of $3.57 billion dollars extra will be paid by the top 33%, particularly those who earn over $100,000 per year, but we give tax relief to the bottom 67%. The break-even point will be $41,000, that is, a family with two wage-earners each making that amount will pay no more tax."
Professor Flynn says the budget would see a new deal for pensioners and beneficiaries
"The first $10,000 of income would be exempt from tax. This applies to everyone, but it would most benefit those on low incomes. Adjustments will be made so that those on Government superannuation and benefits are included."
The Alliance tax plan would also provide a massive boost for low income New Zealanders struggling to make ends meet, says Professor Flynn.
"Almost 900 thousand Kiwis who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 would average $1400 less tax than they do now. Another 700,000 would enjoy substantial tax breaks. Those on $25,000 would pay $980 less and those on $35,000 would pay $430 less. Up to $34,000 (60% of Kiwis), our tax relief for low income earners would be more favorable than that offer by Labour effective 1 October 2008."
The Alliance is the only party outside of government to spell out where the money to cover its promises will comes from.
Professor Flynn says Alliance income tax is part of a total package that will finance extra spending of $6.12 billion per year.
"Of this, $1.545 billion would come from income tax, and another 1.375 billion mainly from higher taxes on casino profits, a carbon tax, restoring the land tax abolished in 1992, and inheritance taxes at 20 cents in the dollar beginning at $500,000. We would introduce a Capital Gains Tax modeled on Australia's that would afford another $1 billion."
"The rest would come from stopping payments into the Superfund ($2.20 billion). Those payments are starving social spending and blighting New Zealand's future. A healthy, well-educated, fully-employed people is the best guarantee we can support the elderly in dignity."
Professor Flynn says the Alliance tax plan would fund an ambitious social programme to lift the living standards of New Zealanders.
"This $6.12 billion of extra income would fund free tertiary education, universal student allowances, abolition of school fees, 22,000 state houses over three years, and a universal child benefit of $15 per week. The Alliance would also treat a set percentage (rising over three years) of GDP as a dedicated 'Towards first world health' fund. This would add around 1.4 billion dollars to the projected health vote."
"It would pay for free doctor visits, no prescription charges, reduced waiting lists, and meeting urgent needs in mental health, aged care, and disabilities. It would provide free hearing and eye tests and free dental check-ups."
Professor Flynn says the removal of GST is essential to create a fairer tax system.
"The Alliance would gradually replace GST, starting with essentials such as food, and put in its place a financial transactions tax (FTT) at the low rate of 2 cents per $100. The FTT would be charged on withdrawals only, not deposits. If you spent $29,000 per year and withdrew a weekly total of $560, FTT would be 11 cents. Compare that to GST on a family's weekly food bill - 12.5% of $200 or $25 a week."
"GST is a regressive tax that hits the poor at the same rate as the rich. It burdens business with unnecessary compliance costs. The Alliance is committed to the kind of progressive tax system that existed in New Zealand before Labour and National decided to benefit the wealthy and attack the most vulnerable."
Key points for Alliance tax plan for New Zealand
• First $10 000 income tax free
• Immediate removal of GST on food and phase out of GST over time
• Less tax for low to middle income earners on progressive tax scale
• Introduction of Financial Transactions Tax
• Introduction of Capital Gains Tax (family home exempt)
• Introduction of inheritance tax and reintroduction of land tax
• Stopping payments into Superfund
• Taxes would fund free education, universal student allowances, a major boost to public health spending including free doctor visits and no prescription charges, universal child benefit, abolition of school fees, and investment in housing and infrastructure.
For further information contact Professor Jim Flynn on (03) 4798668 (work) or (03) 4667024 (home) or email
jim.flynn (at) stonebow.otago.ac.nz
Comments
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Stuff which would also be anathema to the business community. Which is currently exploiting a divided and under unionised working class suffering a mostly collaborationist top union leadership.
My question to Professor Jim Flynn is:
How could such measures be introduced and implimented in the present political climate?
Don Franks
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
At the moment this is difficult due to the points you note.
But having said that, the instability of global capitalism is rapidly creating a mood for change. Unless there are credible alternatives, that mood will express itself for support for "a change" (to National?) or even more sinister possibilities.
In any case, we simply have to keep providing that alternative in a consistent and principled way.
Regards, Victor Billot
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
The question is Don, do you support us, or are you in the way?
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Nice to know the party that polled less than 0.1% at the last election has lost none of its hubris!
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
My original question was genuine. Victor went some way towards answering it. But none of us have the formula for mass left agenda mobilisation yet, which is why I asked, because I'm still looking for better answers.
Its not just a matter of being sensible in order to "bring the fractured left together". It's fractured because of the clash between reformist and revolutionary politics. For example, some on the left believe that capitalism can be made into a fair society. Some on the left believe that parliament is the most powerful political institution in the country. Others of us on the left disagree with both those propositions. We can all unite in pursuit of various single issue causes, but at home time we're on opposite roads, heading for different destinations.
Don Franks
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Are you just trying to prove that you're two steps further to the left than RAM and one step further than the Alliance.
I'm not involved with any of your parties, but it would make sense if the lot of you just worked together at election time. You will all remain irrelevant in the eyes of most workers if you continue to isolate yourselves from each other.
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
We advocate the abolishment of GST because it's a regressive flat tax that hits the working class hard while barely affecting the bosses. The Alliance appears to more or less agree with us on that question, which is good to hear.
However, we intervene in bourgeois elections for different reasons to the Alliance. The Alliance's reasons for participating in bourgeois elections is to try and win parliamentary seats, with the eventual goal of putting progressive policies into effect through parliamentary means. The Alliance believes that capitalism can be improved and modified to serve the needs of society.
The Workers Party runs in bourgeois elections not with the primary goal of gaining seats in parliament (although that would be tremendously beneficial both to the WP and to the working class movement as a whole), but in order to gain exposure for our revolutionary politics and win people over to the ideas of socialism.
It was put this way in a WP study pamphlet (which can be found at comradealastair.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/how-revolutionaries-choose-their-political-priorities/);
....................................
"There are several main reasons why we run in capitalist elections.
elections are a time of heightened political discussion and running in the elections allows us a platform and wider audience for our revolutionary ideas
we try as much as we can to provide an organisational form for our politics; for instance, challenging Labour isn’t just a literary task, it means we have to challenge them in election campaigns as well as in our paper and everywhere else
the specific form of electoral politics in NZ creates additional opportunities for us that were not there under the old FPP system, so it is even more important to run.
Our approach differs from RAM and the Alliance because we are not trying to say things with the objective of getting elected or appealing to a mass audience. What we say may well only appeal to 1 or 2 percent of the population, or less, because we are not living in revolutionary times but in a period of mass passivity and political retreat/downturn. We identify our audience as primarily the advanced workers and we want to take them a step further although, of course, part of what we say will hopefully appeal to a wider audience. But we are not trying to move politically to where the masses are; we are trying to win whatever small section of people can be won at present to revolutionary ideas. This means we also don’t pretend that the things we stand for – even something apparently basic like Abolish GST – can be delivered by capitalism. RAM-SW and the Alliance act and speak as if current policies were simply some kind of mistake and there are alternative policies within the framework of capitalism that could work better for everyone. We argue that economic and political policies pursued by successive governments – and the wider state apparatus – do actually represent the interests of capital and they are not stupid, accidental or mistaken, but necessary expressions of the needs of capital.
The left sectlets generally do not run. Some put out leftist rhetoric and then call for a vote for Labour, ie a vote for a capitalist party. Some demonise National in such a way that it really amounts to support for Labour, although they may call for a vote for the Greens. Others play down the importance of elections, don’t run, don’t call on their members or anyone else to vote for revolutionaries like the WP – generally this expresses their own political and organisational inability to pose any alternative to the parties of capital and possibly their fear that they’d end up embracing opportunism if they intervened in bourgeois elections."
.................................
"I'm not involved with any of your parties, but it would make sense if the lot of you just worked together at election time. You will all remain irrelevant in the eyes of most workers if you continue to isolate yourselves from each other. "
The only way left unity can be achieved in a sensible and principled manner is through working together in a comradely way on an issue by issue, campaign by campaign basis. The debacle of the Socialist Alliance (now essentially just the DSP) in Australia shows what happens if you unite on any old basis, papering over the real political differences that exist.
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
There is no confusion about what the Alliance stands for, its a parliamentary socialist party.
You say WP is only using parliament to get your revolutionary politics across. Why then don't you stand on a program that says that?
----------------------------------------
Workers Party platform
1. Opposition to all New Zealand and Western imperialist intervention in the Third World and all Western imperialist alliances.
2. Secure jobs for all with a living wage and a shorter working week.
3. For the unrestricted right of workers to organise and take industrial action and no limits on workers’ freedom of speech and activity.
4. For working class unity and solidarity - equality for woman, Maori and other ethnic minorities and people of all sexual orientations and identities; open borders and full rights for migrant workers.
5. For a working people’s republic.
----------------------------------------------
Any worker reading this 5 point program could say OK I can agree with this pity we don't have the numbers yet to vote it in, and meanwhile I'd like to keep Key out thanks. Come back next time.
There is nothing in this program that says, we can't do this through parliament, we have to take power as a class and overthrow the state.
So while WP slags off most other left groups as watering down their program, or not needing too, you fall into the same trap.
What is revolutionary about this program?
To be revolutionary you would have to spell out that workers rights would need a fight to build fighting democratic unions, breaking with the labour bureaucracy, and winning those rights through forming workers councils.
To be revolutionary you would have to point out that to win a living wage and reduced hours would mean taking control of production through worker occupations and expropriations.
What is a worker's republic? To be anti-imperialist, have open borders etc, you would have to say that workers have to make a socialist revolution which means overthrowing the existing capitalist state and its parliament, and creating a socialist republic.
If you don't say these things your program is no more revolutionary than the Alliance's or RAMs.
Maybe you have your revolutionary program in small print on the back of the program?
Dave Brown
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
if you are not contesting the election to win, who will you be suggesting people vote for? or will you be suggesting people don't vote? I'm confused becasue you say you are not contesting this election to win but to talk about issues.
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
In the current political climate if getting into parliament was all that mattered we'd have to chuck all the talk about socialism and the working class overboard but obviously we´re not prepared to do that.
However if any of candidates did by some chance succeed in getting elected they would still take their seats and use their position and the resources of parliament to support extra-parliamentary action (strikes, protests etc) as well as acting as "tribunes of the people".
Although we do not have a perspective for winning change through parliament, we still believe that bourgeois elections afford us a valuable opportunity for getting our anti-capitalist political message across.
Often our candidates are asked to explain how demands such as the complete abolition of GST or open borders could be realised, and we are then able to explain that under the conditions of 21st century late capitalism they are of course impossible but that we base our demands not on what is "realistically" possible but rather on the things that workers objectively need.
This concrete form of revolutionary politics I venture to say gets the point across to potential working class voters a lot better than CWG-style phrase mongering.
However we do openly state our opposition to capitalism as well - in our paper, on our election posters and in our election leaflet, as those who have read or seen any of these will know.
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
then let us unit behind one left wing party, with the cause of getting a working class voice into parliament where it can do some good.
there's only one with a "desirable" tax policy, lets support them.
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
No, ha ha there is no small print on the back of our 5 points.
As another comrade has pointed out, we put out a large range of agitation and propaganda, much of which spells out our explicitly revolutionary programe in detail. You have read the Spark and seen all that stuff in its pages so why piss around complaining about our 5 points as if that is all we've ever uttered?
As far as our 5 points go, none of them could be attained under capitalism at the moment, not one.
I don't think many Alliance propositions are attainable under capitalism either, which is why I raised a sincere question about how we get there. That understanding is not advanced by your concious misrepresentation of our position.
Don
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
"As far as our 5 points go, none of them could be attained under capitalism at the moment, not one."
Yes but none of these demands says anything about how workers have to fight for these demands.
They are posed as if they can be voted for in parliament, and that is the first impression people will get when they read your program.
The reason why CWG did not combine with ACA in 2002 on this 5 point program is that it was not honest and upfront in spelling out what workers had to do to organise to overthrow capitalism.
It is like you accept that workers need to have a dumbed down program that doesnt mention socialism or revolution because they won't understand until you have a chance to explain it to them.
Its like the old Clark Kent Superman comic.
The only fourth form trick about this is the WP fantasy about Clark Kent being able to find a phonebooth in time to do a quick change.
Dave
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Of course they don't! They're not intended to be a pamphlet, they're a basic platform of ideas that we can give to somebody in the street and quickly explain to them the things we stand for - as far as I can see, you're argument boils down to the fact that we havn't made each of those points six paragraphs long with the words "socialist revolution" and "workers council democracy" put in at least tweice in every sentence. If we talk about this basic platform to somebody, we'll obviously go into detail about how this would have to come about, and believe it or not Dave we wouldn't tell them that we want to achieve it through parliamentary means. These demands cannot be achieved within the framework of modern day capitalism, thus by raising them we challenge capitalism and bourgeois ideology. From my experience, workers are perfectly capable of asking questions and listening to answers, so you're argument is moot.
"They are posed as if they can be voted for in parliament, and that is the first impression people will get when they read your program."
Now you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're complaining that we havn't included in our 5 Point Platform anything on how we expect these goals to be achieved - and yet at the same time, you're saying that our 5 Point Platform is "posed as if [it] can be voted for in parliament". You're not making any sense Dave (nothing unusual there...).
Explain to me exactly how our platform connotes that it can only be achieved through parliamentary means?
"The reason why CWG did not combine with ACA in 2002 on this 5 point program is that it was not honest and upfront in spelling out what workers had to do to organise to overthrow capitalism."
*sighs* There's this new fangled idea out there that goes along the lines of organisations being allowed to put out more than one pice of text. It's quite a nifty idea Dave, as it means that you don't have to include absolutely everything you're organisation stands for and how it plans to achieve this in one piece - you can do it in seperate installments! You can talk about open borders and what you think needs to be done about this in one place, and you can talk about food prices and what you think needs to be done about this in another place! Incredible!
"It is like you accept that workers need to have a dumbed down program that doesnt mention socialism or revolution because they won't understand until you have a chance to explain it to them."
Um, no it's not. This program can only be implemented through a social revolution that eliminates the capitalist system, and we make that clear when we're talking about it. It is intended to state our basic ideas in a short and concise manner, and it's usually accompanied by text that yes, mentions the words socialism and revolution. The 5 Point Platform is not an article or a manifesto, and it doesn't pretend to be!
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
And speaking of phone booths, isn't that where most NZ socialist parties hold their meetings these days?
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Crabclaws
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Well that's certainly the case with the CWG! :)
Seriously though, it's true that the marxist left in NZ is tiny. I see this is all the more reason for us to a) focus on getting our political priorities right and b) regroup existing as well as develop new revolutionary cadre, rather than burning people out through mindless hyperactivism and wildly exaggerated perspectives.
The reality is that we're in for the long haul and there are no short cuts to winning mass working class support for socialism, whatever some people may try to tell you.
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Our class solidarity is with workers in this defensive struggle against Key, while at the same time opposing Labour's program.
This in fact a principled position which is more than can be said of WP between elections when it works as paid organisers under bureaucrats aligned unofficially with Labour, taking advantage of labour laws that has allowed unions to be revived, and inviting those bureaucrats to address your meetings and making no political criticisms of them.
Don't you think its a bit rich, acting as a left cover for labour left bureaucrats like McCarten between elections, and then posing as some sort of alternative at election time? In reality, this electoral posing is just to keep the appearance that you are to the left of the labour bureaucracy, something you need to do to differentiate your brand between the RAM, SW, Alliance and CL.
Dave Brown
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
Also don't you think it's a bit rich to oppose WP on the grounds that we are not "revolutionary" enough only to then call for a vote for Labour every election?
As for your specious argument about voting Labour to keep the Nats out, I'd remind you that its part of the ABC for revolutionaries that the struggle to defend existing and improve future wages and conditions depends on the actual relationship of forces on the ground, not which bourgeois party is in government.
If you'd done any actual union organising yourself you'd know that union right of entry to the workplace under Labour's ERA in many cases is very difficult to enforce, and quite frankly not worth the paper it's written on.
The Nats know this, which is why the changes they are proposing in their policy released today will leave intact many of the measures brought in by Labour under the ERA including the "social partnership" between unions and employers and make only minor changes to right of access.
Remember that private sector union membership has continued to fall year-on-year under Labour, so from John Key's point of view the job is already half-completed!
Re: Alliance tax plan helps 67% of Kiwis
For a start our work in unions is not as paid organisers under labourite bureaucrats like McCarten. We have members and elected delegates and officers in the NDU, PSA, AUS, ASTE, Unite, and in the past in EPMU, Maritime and SFWU.
In none of these unions are we part of the bureaucracy. Our members work for the independence of unions from the state. We do not work as paid organisers or invite union bureaucrats to our political meetings and allow them to speel their reformist politics. Not only do you do that you do not criticise their politics at your own meetings as in the case of your recent Marxism in Auckland.
I know at least one of your members thinks that Lenin was wrong to advance the critical support tactic of social democratic parties in 1920. If there is anyone in WP who thinks that Lenin was right in 1920 and was still a revolutionary, why not say why this tactic is no longer applicable in NZ today.
Remember that in 1920 Europe was in a revolutionary situation, there were mass communist parties, and that critical support was to put Labour in power in order to expose it and destroy it, not give it political support of any kind.
If you understand Lenin's position in 1920 you will also understand that it is a revolutionary tactic that exists side by side with wider revolutionary struggle outside parliament. Indeed its whole point is to break workers who have illusions in Labour to independence class struggle.
WPs tactic by comparison is to ignore those workers who still have illusions in Labour because its easier to recruit those who have broken from Labour and not expect them to understand that critical support means somehow backtracking on their history and supporting Labour.
We know exactly what is involved in getting onto worksites thanks, having been around a few decades longer than you. We have always said that workers rights result from workers fights, not legislated rights.
You can say that entry is on paper and therefore worthless, but you won't convince workers that this is worthless, or that Labour is as bad as National with the threat of 90 day sackings, privatised ACC, negotiated holidays, bargaining agents other than unions which opens up the field to company unions, reviews of minimum wages etc.
When they look at Labour, look at National, and the range of Alliance, RAM, WP etc for them the immediate choice is going to be the 'lesser evil'.
Lenin's position of 1920 is both revolutionary and still correct. You should use the elections as a platform to raise a full revolutionary program which makes it clear that there is no parliamentary road upfront, and then when organised workers who still look to parliament for answers and prefer to listen to McCarten et al to vote Labour, Green, Maori, you tell them OK if you still think that they will deliver vote them in and give them a hard time and find out for yourself.
Union membership between 1999 and 2006 went up by more than 25%. Private sector density has not increased overall because of the unevenness of this sector. eg. financial services has lost jobs and union members. But there is growth in parts of the the casualised service sector and union recruitment is growing in that sector which is a real breakthrough.
The point is that without the efforts of Unite and SFWU, for example, to recruit casualised workers the the overall density of the private sector of 14% would be even less.
See
www.victoria.ac.nz/VMS/documents/IRC%20Documents/Unions%20and%20Union%20Membership%20in%20New%20Zealand%202006.pdf
Dave Brown