Tax On Overtime

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32351, 17 July 1970, Page 12

Tax On Overtime

Sir,—Mr Kirk has again put forward the suggestion that tax rates should be reduced on overtime earnings. Is Mr Kirk suggesting that a man earning $3OOO per annum

with no overtime should pay more tax than a man earning $3OOO which includes overtime earnings? If so, I would be interested in an answer to the following. Why should I, as a salaried worker, be penalised because it is not practicable for me to be employed on a wage-plus-over-time basis? I work considerably more than 40 hours a week.—Yours, etc., 90 PER CENT. July 7, 1970. [Mr N. E. Kirk, Leader of the Opposition replies: “Because there is a shortage of labour, because it is necessary to encourage extra production, and because it is necessary to offset the cruel effects of continuous price rises on the purchasing power of the people’s earnings, the following proposals were made in the course of my Budget speech: (1) that the rate of taxation applying to overtime earnings should be reduced: (2) that taxation on the total earnings of shift workers should be reduced by 10 per cent: (3) that the adjustment in income tax should have been so arranged as to give effective relief to those earning the average wage or less and extending upward to include the middleincome group. For example, technicians, supervisors, chemists, accountants, management, and the small business people. These proposals are related to extra effort, extra production, improved productivity, and the need to encourage the acquisition of skills and to retain skilled people in New Zealand instead of losing them abroad. People like “90 Per Cent’ would be better off under these proposals than they are under the 1970 Budget which gives annual tax reductions of $1191.13 to a married man on $13,315, but gives to the married man on $3OOO per annum only a miserable 18c a week as reduction.”]