Letters to the Editor: Proposed new taxes will further ruin our economy
Taxing debate
The Herald (September 12) should be applauded for two fantastic articles pointing out the dangers of the new taxes proposed by the political parties on the left: Sir John Key on the front page and Bruce Cotterill in the business section.
I am unashamedly a centre-right voter. But I have never voted for self-interest. Rather, I have always voted for what I believe to be best for our country.
Being centre right does not mean that I do not have a social conscience, as some might think.
In fact, I actually have a very strong social conscience.
I worry constantly about the decline in our economic status which, if not curtailed and turned around, could lead to ever-increasing hardship for those at the bottom of the financial ladder.
In my opinion, the proposed new taxes will further ruin our economy and, again, guess who will suffer most?
Steve Clerk, Meadowbank.
Suppression
In Friday’s Herald alone, there are two more stories about lawyers acting in unprofessional, unethical and unlawful ways.
In both these instances and in other recent examples, name suppression has been requested and granted by authorities – at least in the interim.
This luxury is rarely offered to “common criminals”, especially in instances of unprofessional or unethical conduct by other business community participants.
Why are “professionals” (lawyers, accountants etc) offered this option when it more often than not does not apply to the rest of the community?
In my view, the judiciary is far too protective of its own colleagues. The double standards applied by the judiciary (and the tribunals) when dealing with legal malfeasance are increasingly obvious to all.
The judges appear to be more open to requests for name suppression from those within their own profession.
While those same judges may think they are protecting their colleagues and legal professionals, in fact their apparent bias makes it even more obvious to observers that “not all people are created equal”.
Name suppression should only apply when other innocent but directly involved parties are affected.
Should name suppression continue to be abused by the legal fraternity, the public will inevitably lose even more confidence and trust in a judiciary that appears prepared to quietly protect its own from public scrutiny.
Indeed, open scrutiny should be automatically applied whenever there is unprofessional, incompetent or criminal conduct by anyone within the legal community.
The alternative is that all legal practitioners are tarred with the same brush as the offenders.
Which option is worse, I wonder?
Roger Hawkins, Ponsonby.
NZ v Singapore
The article by Bruce Cotterill (September 12) stating New Zealand can be like Singapore is fanciful, to say the least.
While the population of Singapore and New Zealand are similar, there are about 500 million people within 2000km of Singapore, compared with about five million for New Zealand. Furthermore, Singapore is a trilingual state, (English, Malay and Chinese) and on one of the world’s most important waterways, the Straits of Malacca, with about 100,000 ship movements per year. Both location and language means that Singapore is an ideal location for many businesses in eastern Asia, such that corporate taxes make up 35% of total tax revenue, compared with 17% of total tax revenue in New Zealand.
The reality is that New Zealand is the country in an “inconvenient location”, not Singapore.
Errol Anderson, Ponsonby.
We can be like Singapore
Bruce Cotterill’s article in the Weekend Herald is 100% correct. We lived in Singapore for over five years. Yes, the effective top tax rate was 24% and it was tiered, giving lower income earners essentially a tax-free income.
Singapore’s compulsory superannuation fund (called the Central Provident Fund) saw employers contribute 17% of a worker’s income into that fund each year – the employee 20% – so essentially compulsory saving of 37% per annum. This could be used to purchase housing to keep debt levels low. No wonder this island state has had the resources to build one of the best infrastructures for its citizens in the world.
I noticed last week that the Prime Minister has just had his salary increased to more than $2 million. What does this tell us? Also the country has no capital gains tax and other taxes that discourage innovation and wealth creation.
I suggest that Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and the Opportunity Party all have a decent look at why Singapore works so well on all fronts: health, education, infrastructure, to name a few. This is what Singapore did 50 years ago – looked at its peers globally, picked the best policies then elected the best people to implement them and paid them accordingly. Then they stuck to the plan – imagine if we did this in New Zealand?
John Roberts, Remuera.
Mighty muscles
As the two teams took to the field in Baltimore, did anyone else notice the significantly larger size and muscularity of the Boks over the shorter, smaller and, frankly, relatively “puny” build of the All Blacks?
The pack weights of each team were not made public, perhaps indicating that such comparisons “could prove odious”.
Larry Mitchell, Rothesay Bay.