Fat Old Git wrote:Perhaps if they addressed bracket creep, at least at the lower levels, there wouldn't be quite as much need for social services and the working poor might be a bit better off.
An extra 10 bucks per week or functioning health and education sectors.
It's all well and good for Robertson to crow about surpluses but that's basically admitting that the tax take is too high. Give it back Grant
I’ve got a startling new idea, how about spend it on social services and society ?
I realise that it might not excite as a few more bucks in your pocket DD , but I’m sure you’ll survive the trauma.
You guys do realise what a surplus means right?
The govt isn't allocating it to health, education or social services . Your arguments are total strawmen
The surplus is not allocated, but more funding is going to social services as the split is different.
Nationals plan was to provide tax cuts and pay down debt to a specific target through surpluses higher surpluses.
Labour scrapped the tax cuts, delayed the debt target and opted to spend more money on social services. When labour says 3.1b to health, what do you think that means exactly? The budget includes information on funding and, for memory, it’s basically a third from cancelled tax cuts, a third from delayed debt target, and a third from revenue forecasts increasing.