Many still better off with UF
For immediate release
Monday, 22 August 2005
Families, superannuitants, students, low income earners still better off with UF
In spite of National's much postponed tax package being big, bold and expensive, significant number of voters will still be better off with United Future's alternative, according to the party's finance and revenue spokesman, Gordon Copeland.
"It might be hard to get the perfect tax plan, but National's attempt still has some significant holes in it," Mr Copeland said.
"For example, teenagers, university students, and all others doing part time work or earning less than $17,000 a year, will still be better off with United Future. That's because our offer includes a zero tax rate on the first $3000 earned each year, versus National's 15% rate.
"Superannuitants will also be way better off under United Future: $1110 per annum for a married couple versus National's measly $320 per annum.
"However it's really couples with children who remain the big winners with United Future.
"According to Treasury, the average family gross income for a couple with children is now $82,370 per annum. At that level families will be better off with us by up to $4795 per year or $92.21 per week.
"That is a massive difference and the lack of income splitting remains a significant design flaw in the tax plans of both National and Labour.
"I must stress that United Future will continue the Working for Families assistance, in net terms, as a floor, right out until it is fully implemented in 2007. National's plan to cancel the extra $10 per week per child in 2007 is a retrograde step and bad news for families."
Mr Copeland also announced that the worth of the United Future tax relief package will be about $2.5 billion by the third year: way ahead of Labour but more affordable than National.