Ardern: “the effect of any (tax) changes will not occur until after the next election”

Suggestions that the Government may raise fuel excise taxes to pay for things like rail, public transport, and cycleways and walkways, has raised questions about commitments made by Labour during last year’s election campaign on certainty over possible tax changes.

NZH (14 September 2017): Labour tidies up tax policy, will delay new changes until 2020

Labour has decided to delay any implementation of changes from its tax working group until after the 2020 election in a bid to stop any further political damage from its tax policy.

Finance spokesman Grant Robertson’s announcement…

…is a reversal of the previous position of leader Jacinda Ardern.

“We will involve the public at every stage of the Working Group, as well as Cabinet and Parliament’s consideration of any changes that arise from it.

“We know it is important to get this right, so we will balance the need for certainty and urgency by ensuring that any potential changes will not come into effect until the 2021 tax year.

“This gives multiple opportunities for public input, and a general election before any new tax would come into effect.

“To avoid any doubt, no one will be affected by any tax changes arising from the outcomes of the Working Group until 2021.

“There will be no new taxes or levies introduced in our first term of government beyond those we have already announced.”

Ardern said…

… it was her “captain’s call” to back down from introducing new taxes in a first term of a Labour Government because it was clear the public were concerned.

“I have been driving our campaign and I have taken political risks but I’ve done that because I feel so strongly around the urgency there is around tackling the housing crisis. But I needed to also balance that against certainty for voters.”

Ardern:

“This is about making sure that we are providing certainty to voters, but also there is still real urgency around tackling the housing crisis. So yes I will continue to undertake this work in government, but we have balanced that against the need for people to be certain when they vote around exactly what they will be doing.”

“We will still act on what comes from the Working Group, and that may be legislation or it may not. We’ll still act on the findings of the Working Group, we’ll go through a big process with both the public and in Parliament…

…but the effect of any changes will not occur until after the next election.”

Katie Bradford: “If you essentially delay taxes now, will you be able to afford your promises?”

Ardern:

“I want to make really clear, our fiscal plan was never built around any potential revenue down the track from a tax working group, because we had not settled on what we would do in the future. So there is no requirement for any revenue off the back of that tax working group.

“Everything that we have announced in public is already able to be fully funded from the re-prioritisation that we have set out, and it’s all in our fiscal plan.

“I believe I can do the work, get it ready to go, and still provide voters a chance to vote on it before it’s implemented.”

This was in part referring to tax related to housing (Capital Gains tax), and to recommendations coming out of the Tax Working Group.

But Ardern went on to refer to Labour’s whole Fiscal Plan, and to “”everything that we have announced in public”, so i think that voters would consider it disingenuous if Ardern now claims that tax changes like fuel tax done outside the Tax Working Group don’t apply.

Ardern already sounded disingenuous yesterday saying the an increase in fuel ‘excise’ was not a tax increase – see Ardern: fuel increase not a tax, it’s an excise.

Previous Governments have increased taxes after promising not to – the National led Government increased GST after saying they wouldn’t. But that was a measure taken in reaction to a serious Global Financial Crisis they were landed with, and was more or less balanced by decreases in income tax rates.

I’m sure there are more examples going back further, but regardless of what past politicians have twisted and changed, that doesn’t give Ardern or the current Government a free pass for going back on their word.

Similar to ‘it’s not a tax, it’s an excise’, perhaps Ardern thinks it wasn’t a promise, it was an exercise in campaign rhetoric.

Or perhaps she will make another ‘captain’s call’ and defer any changes to tax, including fuel tax, until after the 2020 election.

However she could have an out in the fine print:

“Alcohol, Petrol and Tobacco Levies – will be adjusted as per normal government practice and as set out in Budget documents.” – http://www.labour.org.nz/tax

Will people be happy with that and paying more for their petrol to finance Auckland transport?

And – Labour’s Fiscal Plan, which Ardern clearly referred to, makes no mention of increasing fuel tax, and does not specify or mention at all the fuel levy in their costings.

90 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  April 5, 2018

    Labours manifesto clearly stated that duties could be raised.All the wonderful screaming skull political reporters didn’t bother reading it…why should they….they create the…news’!

    • Can you please provide a link and quote.

      Ok, I have found this: “Alcohol, Petrol and Tobacco Levies – will be adjusted as per normal government practice and as set out in Budget documents.” – http://www.labour.org.nz/tax

      Tobacco has been going up as per previous plans.

      I’m not sure people in the regions will see putting up their fuel and freight costs to fund Auckland transport as “normal government practice”.

      • Blazer

         /  April 5, 2018

        People are selfish and rises in duty are never popular.The fact of the matter however is just as I stated …it.

        • I have appended to the post the facts of the matter. No mention of increased fuel duties in Labour’s fiscal plan.

          • Blazer

             /  April 5, 2018

            ‘They could start by citing some articles in The Herald from before the election.

            Labour will give Auckland Council the power to introduce a regional petrol tax – understood to be 10 cents a litre – to help pay for light rail. Infrastructure bonds and targeted rates will also be used to fund transport in Auckland.-OAB.

            • That was very specifically a regional fuel tax for Auckland. There was no mention of other regions paying more fuel tax to fund largely Auckland transport.

            • alloytoo

               /  April 5, 2018

              This is a bail out of Len and Phil, because in true socialist fashion they’ve run out of other people’s money

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 5, 2018

              HAHAHA! Phil “Rogernomics” Goff is a socialist?? I think I just pissed myself.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 5, 2018

              Thank you for sharing that with us, Phantom dear.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 5, 2018

              You’re welcome.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 5, 2018

              is there anything else that you’d like us to know ? We’re all friends here, don’t be shy.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 5, 2018

              No, I’ve already done enough ‘threadjacking’ on another thread today thanks Kitty dear.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 5, 2018

              All right. But don’t be inhibited in future, I think we were all glad to know that you felt that we were friends and would be glad to hear about such intimate things ! 😀

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 5, 2018

              No prudes here, as a dear friend used to say. 😀

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 5, 2018

          Normal govt practice is that petrol tax is spent on roads for the vehicles that pay it.

          • David

             /  April 5, 2018

            Not anymore now truckies pay their RUCs so that their competitor Kiwirail gets funding.

            • PartisanZ

               /  April 5, 2018

              Truckies’ RUCs don’t even pay for the damage their own trucks do to the roads, much less contribute anything to rail …

              One single pass of a truck-and-trailer unit is equivalent to ONE THOUSAND car passes … Do the trucks pay 1000 times more tax?

              They don’t … They’re being subsidized by the cars … Corporate Welfare I think its called?

          • High Flying Duck

             /  April 5, 2018

            That is an important point Al – the petrol levies are specific and are meant to be targeted to paying for roading projects.
            It is a long way from “normal government practice” to decide to up levies on road users to pay for trams and cycle lanes.
            Disingenuous at best despite Blazer’s apologist rhetoric.

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              you need to cite definitive proof that petrol levies are exclusively for roading…doubt it very much.

            • I think it would be different if fuel levies were increased to pay directly for things that will benefit those paying the taxes, but taxing some to benefit others will always risk a political backlash.

              There is growing concerns that motorists keep paying more for the benefit of, for example, cyclists and pedestrians who don’t pay anything for improved facilities. I know a lot of people gripe in Dunedin about the amount of money spent on cycleways that are obviously not used much, but cost hundreds of car parks and are inconvenient.

        • David

           /  April 5, 2018

          “People are selfish and rises in duty are never popular.The fact of the matter however is just as I stated …it.”

          Yes they are selfish, and there are none more selfish that those who force people in rural areas to pay extra to subsidies the urban elite’s public transport ,while those same urban elite;s smugly sneer at those fund their lifestyles.

          • Blazer

             /  April 5, 2018

            ON A COST =% WHO BENEFIT ..you will find the subsidy is around the..other..way.

            • PartisanZ

               /  April 5, 2018

              Woohoo! Nothing like the topic of TAX and Blazer the cat among the pigeons to entice the really big readership! Look at those uptick and downtick numbers!!!

      • alloytoo

         /  April 5, 2018

        Frankly I view the Auckland fuel levy as an indictment of Brown and Goff’s tax and spend administrations.

        It’s a bail out for buddies.

        Only problem is there is no one to bail out NZ Inc. once this labour government is finished spending up large.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  April 5, 2018

          I have yet to hear anyone who thinks that the tax on petrol is all right, especially when it’s forced upon people who don’t live in Auckland like the woman on the news. The idea that people are going to cycle everywhere is dreaming. They do in Holland, but Holland is flat . NZ is very hilly in many places. There are a lot of streets in Central Auckland that would be dangerous to cycle down and impossible to cycle up. People who don’t use public transport don’t use it because it takes longer in many cases. I have no option, and it takes me much longer to go by bus than it did when I had my own transport.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  April 5, 2018

            I have been unable to find Jacinda Ardern’s talk about the high price of petrol, so can’t say that she did say that she’d do something about this. Can anyone else remember it ? It was about the time that the 10c tax in Auckland was announced (it was 10c then)

  2. David

     /  April 5, 2018

    The missing thing in the spin is 5 billion of money allocated to our state highway system will get redirected to trams, cycle lanes, walkways, bus lanes in basically Auckland and this is still not enough.
    Labour get few votes outside of the main centres, they have few politicians from outside the main centres and not really much interest in what happens outside the main centres so I dont really have a problem with the extra tax for Aucklands trams for tourists. I also dont think it will change a single voters mind either way with the caveat that if there is a spike in the oil price they are buggared.

    • Blazer

       /  April 5, 2018

      yes abandoning Nationals roads of national significance is prudent considering their cost and the fact that only 4% of the population would reall…y benefit.

      • David

         /  April 5, 2018

        Its a National/Labour thing, one is urban liberal socially focused the other is more economically focused. For Labour its more important to put a bureaucrat on a bus and National wants to get a 40 foot container of milk powder to the port, the Greens want to shoot the cow and NZ First passes through collecting gifts from “friends” and looking to buy opportunities for Jones to enjoy the sound of his own voice.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  April 5, 2018

          Trams have another great fault, one that I hadn’t realised because they were before my time….they hold traffic up. They have to stop in the middle of the road and people walk through traffic, This was not an issue when there was very little of it, but imagine the chaos now – and the danger. I read this somewhere a while ago, written by someone who remembered trams. Trams, except as a tourist thing like the Christchurch ones, are a non-starter in this century.

  3. Patzcuaro

     /  April 5, 2018

    Currently we have an infrastructure deficit in roading and health to name two areas, how is this going to be funded? It appears that the current tax take is inadequate so more money has to be found somewhere. The alternative is to let roading, healthcare and the environment to continue to crumble.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  April 5, 2018

      Normal practice is to borrow to build infrastructure that will bring a return on investment. Trams and urban cycleways will not. Proper state highways will as Queensland proved decades ago.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  April 5, 2018

        There is nothing wrong with borrowing to progress some of these projects but there are limits to how much you can borrow.

        But take healthcare, you have to fund for capital expenditure whether out of tax or borrowing. If the money is borrowed then repayment must be funded over its useful life. Repairs and maintenance are not capital expenditure and must be fully funded annually.

        Auckland especially needs to reduce the number of cars on the road, so public transport has to be funded probably with some form of congestion charging.

        • PDB

           /  April 5, 2018

          How is building a tram service between the CBD and the airport going to reduce the cars on the road in Auckland? The Waterview tunnel has reduced cars on the streets in surrounding areas and already made it a quick journey by vehicle (car or bus) between the CBD and airport. How are bike lanes going to make it easier for those people in the outer suburbs using the motorway system to get to/through the CBD any faster?

          Is it fair to increase petrol tax where poorer people are more affected and the richer mob living nearer the CBD get almost all of the benefits?

          As for health ‘underfunding’ you are buying into the narrative the govt wants to project considering they haven’t even bothered to look into whether current funding is being wasted or not. National continued to ramp up spending throughout their term on health and yet it remains a bottomless pit. Middlemore hospital for instance has had a shit-load spent on upgrades in recent times considering 10 or so years ago it was a total dump.

          • phantom snowflake

             /  April 5, 2018

            I find your sudden and unexpected care for “poorer people” deeply touching. OR, the usual disingenuous BS from ‘Team Blue’.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  April 5, 2018

              A wonderful rebuttal of the reasonably specific points put forward by PDB.
              Poorer people are most effected, but all people are adversely affected bar a the very few who will be riding the trams.
              Pointing out the facts – that the Labour policies are very regressive is hardly being disingenuous.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 5, 2018

              Thanks HFD. Not much chance of you or “Pants” being mistaken for the mythical “Compassionate Conservative.”

            • PDB

               /  April 5, 2018

              Lefties like yourself Snowflake think you have a mortgage on caring for the ‘poor’ when in actual fact left-wing policies do the complete opposite, make them totally dependent on the state and therefore they become/are seen as simply vote machines for the left.

              This fuel increase shows Labour don’t give a rats ass about the less well off, nor do they give a toss about Maori (another group they seem to think they deserve votes from) who National have done far more for in the past 30+ odd years.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 5, 2018

              That you can’t even use the word poor without surrounding it with apostrophes is quite revealing. When you make claims such as that there is no poverty in New Zealand or that welfare benefits are adequate for all those in need, I am genuinely puzzled. I’m considering the possibility that perhaps you don’t mix outside the 1% and actually believe what you are saying is true.

            • PDB

               /  April 5, 2018

              Strawman there snowflake – I’ve always said the true number of people in poverty in NZ is miniscule to that we are told using faulty poverty measurements & welfare payments should be for those in need but unfortunately middle-class welfare is rife in this country. Your views are of somebody with no idea of how the real world works – the far-left is therefore a good place for you.

              I’m just a small business owner no where near the ‘1%’ so consider no more.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 5, 2018

              You make claims that are clearly contradicted by experiences I have in my work (e.g. one recently about benefits being adequate.) I would much prefer to think that you are naive and misguided rather than some of the other possibilities. At least you give me some amusement with your comments about “how the real world works” so it’s all good.

            • Traveller

               /  April 5, 2018

              Phantom. I resent the implication that blue people don’t care for others. They do. Anyone in any charity organisation can tell you that. Anyone in any neighbourhood and family likewise. Red people do so also.

              What they generally don’t do is virtue signal , shout from the rooftops and pat themselves and their mates on the back while doing so.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 5, 2018

              Traveller: Have reread my comments and I can see how they could be taken the way that you have read them. I’ll have to agree with you that there are plenty of generous and caring people of a ‘blue’ persuasion. Not all of ‘you guys’ are greedies. Am very tired of the ‘virtue signalling’ theme however; it’s just another way of saying that the right are sincere while the left are insincere, a very dubious insinuation.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  April 5, 2018

            The airport transport thing is surely one that should be at the end of the queue. There are shuttle buses and taxis going there now, If people had to walk into town, it would be different.

            Trams have one huge disadvantage; the obvious one that they can only go where the tramlines are,

          • phantom snowflake

             /  April 5, 2018

            VIRTUE SIGNALLING:
            A term that is far too often used to dismiss an opposing opinion that is based on morals, ethics, or ideals, when the introduction of such into a debate could critically undermine one’s stance.
            Waldon: “But you CAN’T flatten that building to build a Walmart! Not only is it an orphanage, but the roof is a rare bird sanctuary, it’s built over a graveyard AND an aquifer, hosts the only local live music night in the city on Wednesdays, and is a legally protected heritage site!”

            Developer: “Don’t listen to that virtue signalling hippy, boys, start up them bulldozers, we got a permit!”
            by Urban Savage March 17, 2017

            (UrbanDictionary.com)

    • Gerrit

       /  April 5, 2018

      Problem is Patzcuaro that the people being taxed are already well over taxed. I have yet to see how Labour will increase productivity to increase taxation by “growing the pie”.

      So far I see their efforts shrinking the pie, not growing it at all.

      Be nice if instead of adding a tax (or increase one to split hairs), the government instead focused on reducing state spending and on increasing productivity. Increase productivity increases the tax take allowing greater state spending. To get increased productivity the state needs to spend less and encourage the tradable (tax paying) sector. It is the government non trading (and non tax paying) sector killing the tax payers. Get rid of 75% of the non tax paying (except for GST) pencil pushers out of the state and into the tax paying tradable sector. That is how you grow an economy that can spend money on rail, road, schools, hospitals, etc.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  April 5, 2018

        I’ve not problem with ensuring all government expenditure is “productive”, it is always easier to spend others money.

        Everybody thinks they are over taxed but usually are only to happy to make use of government services when required.

        The tax base needs to be widen via some form of capital tax, this would spread the burden in a more equitable manner. Without some form of capita tax there is going to be a greater disparity in wealth which I don’t think is good for society in the long run.

        • alloytoo

           /  April 5, 2018

          “The tax base needs to be widen via some form of capital tax”

          Why?

          Capital Taxes never garner the take they’re expected to.
          They’re overly complicated and cost too much to administer, meaning if they’re supposedly part of a neutral restructure you invariably need to tax more to pay for the added administration. The added complexity means that Capital taxes also invite avoidance and evasion and weight down the economy with such unproductive endeavours.

          They are not good taxes, unless your reasons are ideological.

          Want a good tax?

          Here’s one:

          Impose a 5c levy on all cash withdrawals and eftpost/Credit card transactions inside or originating (IE from a NZ bank account) in New Zealand.

          Why is this a good tax?

          1. Because you are taxing people with money.
          2. Administration is done by a small number of banks and largely automated (very hard to evade). Low cost for the government to implement and administer. and easy to change the rate.
          3. The tax expands the base to include all visitors who transact in New Zealand.
          4. The rate is low, thus reducing avoidance.

          • Blazer

             /  April 5, 2018

            ‘No: Richard Woolhouse, CBI head of tax and fiscal policy
            The European Commission’s proposal for a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) is misguided, not only because it is unlikely to work, but because if it does, it would have a chilling effect on growth and would damage the UK and EU’s competitiveness.

            It is clear that Europe needs a relentless focus on growth, but by the Commission’s own official impact analysis, this tax could dent long-run EU growth significantly. The cost of the tax will undoubtedly be passed on to the customers of the financial sector – businesses, individuals, pension funds, pensioners and buyers of financial products – and harm their ability to grow and invest.

            Much of the debate has focused on whether these financial transactions would simply move outside the EU, but this misses the point. Either transactions move, we lose their direct economic benefit, and firms’ costs are increased as they have to look further afield to purchase the financial products they need; or the transactions stay in the EU but their cost to non-financial firms is increased because of the tax. Either way, firms in the real economy lose out and growth becomes harder.’
            So the FIRE economy would resist it…and they have the political…influence in NZ.

            • alloytoo

               /  April 5, 2018

              Pay attention,

              ” The cost of the tax will undoubtedly be passed on to the customers of the financial sector”

              This is a tax on the people/businesses transacting, not on the financial institutions. (that’s what we call a broad based tax) there is no cost (other than administration) for the companies to pass on.

              Once set up it would cost very little for said institutions to implement.

              Of course if you feel that the average tourist will avoided New Zealand because filling up his hire care will cost an extra 5c how do you think they would respond to an additional levy of 15c per litre?

          • Patzcuaro

             /  April 5, 2018

            Wouldn’t a 5c tax on all withdrawals place a harsher burden on the less affluent. The wealthy would pay more but the poor would feel the effect more.

            • alloytoo

               /  April 5, 2018

              True, but if you want to use arguments of fairness then it’s worth pointing out that the poor benefit from redistributive income tax disproportionately more too, both from and the % tax collected and state services received.

              Swings and roundabouts.

              The bottom line is that more efficient the tax collection is, the less everyone has to pay for more benefit that accrues to those that really need it. (rather than benefit accruing to bureaucrats and tax lawyers/ accountants)

              I would rather we spent less time thinking up complicated taxes that have the appearance of “Fairness”, but really just hurt everyone by being exorbitant expensive to administer and concentrate on targeting our interventions more effectively. (Basically Bill’s Social Investment approach) rather Ardern’s “Flashy Bribe” approach.

      • Blazer

         /  April 5, 2018

        pity the last govt didn’t take your…advice.

  4. david in aus

     /  April 5, 2018

    That video clip is damning for the Labour government. It will be replayed again and again.
    “There will no need for new taxes,” she said, to pay for their election promises. The “fiscal plan was fully costed”, she said.

    This is from the leader who said, “I believe it is possible to exist in politics without lying and by telling the truth”. Haha, nice one Jacinda Adhern.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/96651900/editorial-is-there-truth-in-politics

    Jacinda’s appeal was that she appeared to be a fresh, honest and empathetic.

    She and the Labour party are irrevocably damaged by this fiasco.

    • Blazer

       /  April 5, 2018

      the duties are clearly not new…nor is Labour the only party to….increase them.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  April 5, 2018

        A separate duty for Auckland is new.

        • Blazer

           /  April 5, 2018

          are you talking local Super City,that horrible creation that has turned into a ..runaway train?

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 5, 2018

            Small wriggly squirrel.

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              keep a shotgun handy like me..I blow them to smithereeens.

          • alloytoo

             /  April 5, 2018

            ..runaway train?

            Hijacked by Len Brown and Phil Goff’s Socialist agendas and now running out of other peoples money.

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              a creation of National/Act as everyone should…know.

            • alloytoo

               /  April 5, 2018

              National and ACT didn’t tell Len and Phil to spend like a drunken Labour government.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  April 5, 2018

            The Super City was a Labour project under Clark that was finalised under National.
            The spending it has done has all been under Labour Mayors.

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              do me a …favour…!

            • High Flying Duck

               /  April 5, 2018

              I was doing you a favour – it is always helpful to be informed.
              If you can quote the left wing MP’s who want to break up into 7 councils again, I’m willing to wait.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 5, 2018

              Total BS HFD, we’ve covered this before. A Royal Commission made recommendations which were similar to the ‘Super City’, and this commission was convened while Labour were in government. But that doesn’t make it a “Labour project”!!! Sheesh, you don’t know the difference between a Royal Commission and a Government??

      • david in aus

         /  April 5, 2018

        National and the past Labour governments have learnt that you don’t break promises, especially promises that can fundamentally expose your weaknesses.
        Helen Clark after seeing the electoral dissatisfaction with FPP, was very good in her first term to keep her promises. It led to a gaining of trust for them then to exploit later.

        National’s vulnerability has always has been health and education and they were careful not to cut funding.

        Labour’s vulnerability is the perception of Tax-and-Spend, my goodness, there is a serious lack of political judgment.

        Semantic parsing with terms such as non-taxes, excises and duties; makes them look even more duplicitous.

        • Blazer

           /  April 5, 2018

          how will infrastructure be funded other than by taxes…over to you.

          • Gerrit

             /  April 5, 2018

            They will always be funded from taxation. Problem is that to increase taxation without increasing productivity in the tradeable sector, means people are financially worse off.

            Now if everyone shared the taxation burden equally you may get buy in for higher taxation. But the targeted taxation that Labour are proposing with the petrol tax hits those who can least afford efficient means of transport available.

            So on them falls the greatest burden.

            Currently the electric car fleet (owned by rich people, councils, and corp orates) has a massive $600 per year subsidy from the government to run electric without RUC.

            “On 22 September 2016, the RUC exemption for light electric vehicles was extended until 31 December 2021.

            This will save the average electric vehicle driver approximately $600 per vehicle each year.”

            http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/climatechange/electric-vehicles/

            Meaning the low paid driving in what they can afford, are hammered by road user charges in their older and more inefficient petrol vehicles

            Add to that the new 25 cents (plus GST) tax and the richer get richer. .

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              the people screaming…do not appear to be the poor…maybe they’re screaming on their…behalf!

            • alloytoo

               /  April 5, 2018

              “the people screaming…do not appear to be the poor…maybe they’re screaming on their…behalf!”

              Perhaps Labour supporters don’t really care as much as the rest of us about poverty?

            • Gerrit

               /  April 5, 2018

              Blazer, yep and that is wrong? Come to South Auckland and ask the people here what they think and you will get the same answer.

              “It is not fair to hit us who cannot afford a electric or hybrid car.”

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              @Gerrit…or perhaps they are disingenuous squeals just motivated by a distaste for everything…Labour does.

            • Gerrit

               /  April 5, 2018

              Or perhaps you cannot fathom the dislike …for this extra taxation.

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              @Gerrit…as I have mentioned…any day of the week there is a price disparity of at least 20c a litre ,depending on where you purchase your fuel…in Auck.I can advise the cheaper options if you are not au fait.Sth Auck is one of the least expensive.

            • Gerrit

               /  April 5, 2018

              Pray tell Blazer. Will see if you are correct. One Gull has closed ( temporarily I think) and prices have sky rocketed in the nearby Shell and Mobil stations.

              Cheaper alternatives such as unmanned Waitome or NPD stations are non existant (as far as I’m aware in South Auckland). Nearest Waitome outlet is in Karaka.

            • Gerrit

               /  April 5, 2018

              Waitome = Waitomo

            • Gerrit

               /  April 5, 2018

              Hey Blazer, waiting…waiting…waiting…waiting for your sage advice on were the best South Auckland petrol pricing is.

              Do you actually live in South Auckland?

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              @Gerrit…sorry to keep you waiting boss…E.Tamaki rd Papatoetoe has a mobil and Z opp each other,further down -Otara,Caltex,Mobil…very competitive pricing in a 1000 m distance.There is a Gull opp DB.as well.

            • Gerrit

               /  April 5, 2018

              That ismall comfort for the people of Clendon, Manukau, Manurewa and Papakura. it is going to be interesting if Gull will maintain their pricing structure after being bought by Caltex Australia (not to be confused with Caltex New Zealand which is owned by Z).

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/100387035/caltexs-new-acquisition-could-lead-to-more-gull-pumps-in-nz

              Judith Collins started an inquest into the rort by the three New Zealand petrol distributors (Mobil, BP and Z). Wonder if Labour will continue this.

          • David in Aus

             /  April 5, 2018

            Spending is about choices. They have decided that their priorities are NZF reelection fund (regional development) and free 1st tertiary education etc. Wasteful spending.

            If their promises were fully funded, as they said they were, they would not need to lie about tax increases.

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              National did not address issues in health,education and defence…fudged many areas of need and left this govt to deal with them.

            • David in Aus

               /  April 5, 2018

              @Blazer
              “I believe it is possible to exist in politics without lying and by telling the truth”. Jacinda.
              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/96651900/editorial-is-there-truth-in-politics

              You are not a believer, obviously.

              Perhaps, Jacinda’s and your motto should be: Lie to get into power and do whatever it takes to stay there.

            • Blazer

               /  April 5, 2018

              you should know by now what a lie is or isn’t.National made lying…the norm.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 5, 2018

              I am no fan of dear Jacinda, but I see her as frantically trying to cover up with weasel words rather than lying (I prefer not to call anyone a liar unless I have proof) as she has grossly underestimated what being a PM means. I hate to think what she’ll be like when little Karl/a arrives. She is ‘not waving but drowning’ now !

              She may also be naively surprised by the reaction of people to these taxes.

  5. Kitty Catkin

     /  April 5, 2018

    Where are the replies and ticks ?

  1. Ardern: “the effect of any (tax) changes will not occur until after the next election” — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition