Letters page
Too taxing
The Reverse Robin Hood would be a more appropriate name for Gareth
Morgan’s tax reform suggestions (“What to watch out for in 2010”, January 30). He talks about a tax reduction. For whom? Let’s compare the tax people would pay under Morgan’s proposal of 25% on all income to what they would pay now using 2009 tax rates.
The IRD tax calculator has been used to calculate the 2009 tax figures below.
Under Morgan’s proposal, a person with an income of $20,000 would pay $1680 more tax; an income of $30,000 – $2080 more tax; an income of $40,000 – $2360 more tax.
On an income of $65,000 the amount of tax is nearly the same, and after that the higher the income the better off you are. On an income of $100,000 you pay $4540 less tax under his system; on $500,000 you pay over $60,000 less tax.
But that is not all. Morgan wishes to add a new tax to “fund the tax reduction”. For those lower-income earners – who didn’t get a tax reduction – there is a whole new tax for them to try to find the money to pay. A tax based on their capital assets.
An example of one – and it is only one – of the groups who would be most hurt by his proposal is retired people. A retired person living alone in their own home, receiving national superannuation with, say, $5000 a year in investment or other income – so an income of about $24,000 a year – would have to pay extra tax of $1840 plus a tax on their home and other assets.
The current median annual income is about $28,000 (Statistics NZ). That means half of New Zealanders have an income less than $28,000. The tax increase for those on $28,000 – $2000! Plus the new capital tax.
When I looked at the composition of the Tax Working Group as shown in their report, I could see nobody who represented the majority of New Zealanders – those on middle or lower incomes.
This lack of interest in those least likely to be able to afford new taxes - (eg, land tax) is apparent in the - group’s recommendations. Morgan’s 25% of income plus a capital tax plan, which he says was considered “too - bold and risky”, merely represents one of the more extreme of the proposed “poor-to-rich” money transfers.
Rachael Dean, CA, CIA, AIA, ACIS, ACCM (retired)
(Cambridge)
ROYAL STANDARDS
The editorial “Right royal mates” (January 30) does well to caution those who favour New Zealand becoming a republic. Might I add another caution? An elected president is likely to be supported in his or her campaign by wealthy corporates or greedy acolytes, who, after their man or woman has been elected, will be expecting paybacks. Remember George W Bush and Robert Mugabe? On the other hand, the royals are above politics, expect little or nothing in return for their services and bring a long-established wisdom to the job.
Bernard Redshaw
(Nelson)
WEIGHTY ISSUES
The thought-provoking articles by Geraldine Johns and Jane Clifton (“Too fat” and “Tipping the scales”, January 23) warrant further comment. Johns’ article implies the importance of overweight and obesity as public health priorities may have been exaggerated. However, excess body fat, no matter how it is defined, is the most important modifiable risk factor for diabetes, a disease that has reached epidemic proportions in many countries. Reducing excess body fat can substantially reduce the risk of developing diabetes in high-risk individuals. Excess body fat is also convincingly related to two of the most important cancers in New Zealand: bowel cancer and post-menopausal breast cancer.
Attempts to rank the importance of excess body fat and other causes of chronic diseases, such as raised cholesterol and raised blood pressure, are unhelpful and may ultimately be misleading as the full effects of the comparatively recent increases in obesity prevalence are still to emerge. Arguments over what term should be used to refer to excess body weight are similarly distracting, and deflect attention from the profound public health effects that are still to become fully apparent, and that require urgent attention.
Arguments over the relative importance of exercise versus food intake as causes of obesity suggest this question is still contentious. The World Cancer Research Fund commissioned the most authoritative systematic review of relevant scientific and medical literature; this clearly found excessive intake of energy-dense (high fat, high sugar) foods, lack of physical activity and excessive inactivity to be independent major causes of excess body fat. Avoiding and treating obesity requires attention to all these factors.
We acknowledge the limitations of current terminology and measurements, which are common to many generic tools. However, professional bodies and health organisations worldwide find body mass index (BMI) used in conjunction with waist circumference to be a useful practical approach. Although BMI on its own may be an inappropriate measure of body fatness in elite athletes, only a very small proportion of the population resemble the All Blacks’ physique. In most New Zealanders (adults and children of all ethnicities), appropriate use of BMI provides a good indication of health risks associated with body fatness.
Page 1 
