So what should National do?

So after accusing the Nats of wanting to borrow to pay for tax cuts, that’s what Dr Cullen is doing. Going into deficit to give modest tax cuts that STILL mean more tax is collected per person in real terms than was the case than when Labour was elected.

You see, if Dr Cullen had merely spent more to compensate for inflation since he held the Treasury reins, he would have increased spending by only 24.7% according to the Reserve Bank’s own inflation calculator. Now I know it’s a Labour government, you could say, well maybe he could have increased it by double that. No, government spending has increased by four times the amount necessary to make up for inflation since 1999.

Now what should National do? That’s what everyone is wondering. After all will it borrow more than Labour to give back more. Will it cut spending?

I don’t expect much from National, and it typically ensures that I have overestimated that. However , here’s an idea. Let’s say that National had remained in power in 1999. It is a fair assumption that National would have continued pretty much with the policies it had then. If we are to believe the Nats about efficiency in the public sector, then there is little need to grow spending beyond inflation is there? Yes population grows, but spending shouldn’t need to grow beyond that either.

Population growth since 1999 has been 6%, and with the inflationary factor of 25% on top of that, that means in order to maintain a steady state of spending, with no efficiency gains, government spending since 1999 should only have increased nominally by 33.2%. It has increased by 69%.

So National, if it was honestly maintaining the status quo of its policies, should be cutting spending back to where it would have been had it stayed in power.

National’s last full year in power saw total Crown expenses of $33.939 billion. It is now forecast for 2008 to be $57.364 billion. Had spending kept pace with only population and inflation, it should be $45.2 billion. National should be announcing spending cuts of around $12 billion.

What does that mean in tax cuts? Well using the Treasury handy calculations which are admittedly inexact as they don’t take into account the dynamic effect of lower rates generating increasing amount of revenue, this is what you could do:

Implement Dr Cullen’s new thresholds in full immediately ($80k for 39%, $42.5k for 33%, $20k for 21% and the new base rate of 12.5%). That’s $2 billion back in people’s pockets straight away, but that’s hardly enough.

Cut GST to 10%, providing modest relief on fuel and food prices to everyone. Another $1.7 billion

Abolish the 39% envy income tax rate introduced by Labour and cut the 33% rate to 25% along with company tax. A whopping $4.2 billion back to individuals and businesses.

Drop the 21% rate altogether down to the new lower 12.5% rate. Another $3.3 billion.

All up a tax cut of just short of $12 billion. You’d have company tax below Australia’s level at 25%, you’d have a two tier income tax structure with a rate of 12.5% up to $42,500 and 25% above that. GST would be down to a simpler 10%. Think how much more competitive that would look, think how kiwis in Australia and elsewhere may go, hmmm keeping 75% of my income instead of 60%. By the way ACT advocates might note that this goes beyond ACT tax policy from the last election , which advocated 25 and 15% as two tier rates, and no cut in GST.

That’s just if National had been prudent and spent no greater than inflation and population growth since 1999.

So do you think National will get that? Or is it addicted to pork as well? Was the government underspending in 1999 so much, or would you rather it spend like it was then and give you back the surplus? Are you getting value for money that means you'd rather pay the tax you spend now, rather than 12.5% on the first $42,500 and 25% on every dollar above (and a little less on goods and services)? Oh and don't mention roads, I haven't even touched fuel tax.

Cullen really is still taxing you more

So after accusing the Nats of wanting to borrow to pay for tax cuts, that’s what Dr Cullen is doing. Going into deficit to give modest tax cuts that STILL mean more tax is collected per person in real terms than was the case than when Labour was elected.

You see, if Dr Cullen had merely spent more to compensate for inflation since he held the Treasury reins, he would have increased spending by only 24.7% according to the Reserve Bank’s own inflation calculator. Now I know it’s a Labour government, you could say, well maybe he could have increased it by double that. No, government spending has increased by four times the amount necessary to make up for inflation since 1999.

So Dr Cullen has introduced a new bottom tax rate (for up to $14,000) of 12.5% (to please his supporters). A drop from 15% (after the low income rebate).

The raising of the 33% threshold from $38,000 to $40,000 is well under the rate of inflation since 1999. Had he inflation adjusted it, the new threshold would $48,000. The 39% threshold adjustment from $60,000 to $70,000 is also below inflation since the rate was introduced in 2000. The new threshold should be $74,000. So Dr Cullen is still taxing those people more than they were in 2000.

So why? What's the pork? Well the long list is in Dr Cullen's speech here, but here's quite a bit of it:

# Middle class welfare hiked up in the form of Working for Families (looking at National pointing at it to find something to get rid of in exchange for tax cuts). Recycling tax money so thousands of families are grateful they get “given something” from the state that was taken from many of them in the first place. Truly vile stuff.

# More subsidies so people in rural areas (who Telecom is forced to charge below cost for telephone line rental) can get broadband that they would otherwise get if they lived in cities (yet somehow people in cities don’t get the cheap rent, free parking and uncongested roads in return).

# More money to reduce class sizes, but nothing to link performance of the teachers to what they are paid (you can’t you see, because the teachers’ unions support the Labour party and are hard working people who work equally as brilliantly and nobody knows what a bad teacher is like).

# More subsidies for home owners and landlords to increase their property values by installing insulation and clean heating (South Island vote presumably).

# Rail pork, Dr Cullen wants to build the Marsden Point port branchline, a line that the profitable port company wont pay for (even though it apparently is wonderful for it) and which economic appraisal says is not worth the cost. He is Think Big man for rail, wanting a multi billion dollar underground rail link, a rail link to Auckland airport (even though most airport trips don’t start or end anywhere near the city) and one to the North Shore (even though that doesn’t stack up either), admittedly over 20 years. Of course it is a bit too much to expect users to pay even half the cost of that.

# Continuing the $30 million a year Jim Anderton transport pork for Gisborne/East Cape and Northland, essentially subsidising the roads used by forestry trucks (because charging them like is done overseas is clearly out of the question). Jim Anderton promised that forestry would generate jobs galore in those regions, although the share of the vote his party gets there doesn’t show they are grateful. Gisborne/Hawke’s Bay still has the highest rate of unemployment, so that’s worked a treat clearly.

# $27.8 million to the people living the dream of TV programme making with a Screen Production Initiative Fund (wonder why they can’t just borrow or spend their own money on filmmaking, I mean it’s such a difficult and gruelling profession). I’ve mentioned before how that lot are hand in glove with Labour.

# More money for the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, which of course does education, healthcare, immigration… oh no that’s right, it produces nothing but bureaucracy.

# $10.9 million so state radio can keep operating supporting statism . You be the judge as to whether a wide range of views on the budget and the role of the state get broadcast on it.

# $72 million to bribe the Winston vote elderly by giving them free off-peak public transport use.

But I'm not surprised. This is after all a Labour government, it believes in growing the state and in Nanny State. A tick for Labour is a tick for more government, all Dr Cullen has done is reduced how much he has increased the real tax take in future years. A tax cut? Hardly.

Why voting for Libertarianz can make a difference

It's rather straightforward. Assuming the Nats don't completely drop the ball and Labour can't be Santa Claus, the Nats will be the largest party in Parliament after the next election, by a reasonable margin. I'm expecting the 56% or so in the polls to be more like 45-46% on election night. Anyway, National wont need your vote to do this, hundreds of thousands of people know only that to get rid of Labour they vote National.
.
So National will be looking to coalesce with who? Like Labour it will prefer to go to the centre, like NZ First, United Future and, dare I say it, the Maori Party. That's what you face, none of that will scare the electorate at all.
.
ACT is proposing 20 changes in policy that are frankly no more radical than the sort of policies that were around in the late 80s, early 90s, IF that. A tax free threshold almost double that of NZ First, dropping the top tax rate (was National policy in 2000). Education vouchers was National policy in 1987 and more market oriented health care from 1990 to 1993 (but got seriously curtailed by lack of courage). ACC competition in 1999. Labour market freedom was 1991. Privatisation was policy from 1987 to 1999. The ONLY Act policy that is a shift beyond that is to shift social welfare to an insurance based model.
.
So what happens if ACT gets a sizeable vote, and National needs ACT to stay in power. Well ACT's policies get compromised. You get a smaller tax cut, you probably don't get education vouchers (but get bulk funding), you get ACC competition, but not insurance based welfare. You get RMA reform, but nothing too serious. In other words, you get what is already not that ambitious being less ambitious. Now if ACT pushed the 20 policies I suggested a few days ago instead, then you might get the compromise looking like ACT's CURRENT 20.
.
Ah, some may say a more moderate position gives ACT more room to say its policies are reasonable. Well shifting the goalposts to the left means the destination point remains closer to the left too. Rather unambitious for a party putting up the man who pioneered privatisation, proposed flat tax and shifting the entire social sector to insurance based models.

.
So how about Libertarianz? Ah your first point is "it's a wasted vote". Well let's just see how important your vote is. Don't forget, for all the hype your head is being counted along with a lot of others - it is a tiny influence, National isn't winning a seat just because of you, neither is anyone. What it SHOULD be is an extension of what you want. If you worry about what other people vote then you're making the influence of others important on your own decision.
.
Then you might say "well the policies are lunatic or too extreme". That's your judgment, but let's assume you want a lot less government and want some serious tax cuts and reform. Who is more likely to send the signal that there should be? The party calling for abolition of GST, the first $50,000 tax free and a flat tax, or the one calling for $10,000 tax free and getting rid of the 39% rate. The party wanting an end to state welfare, health and education or the one wanting to reform it with insurance or vouchers? The one wanting to cut it to core functions of law and order and defence, or the one wanting to cut it to - the level of Australia?

.
Imagine if there were 6 MPs who always voted no to more government spending on non-core activities and no to higher taxes and no to more regulation of people's day to day lives. Would you rather them or some National MPs? Even if Libertarianz fail to get 5%, imagine if 2% of the vote was for freedom. Other parties would start wondering why they didn't get the 2-3 seats those votes would entitle them too. ACT would certainly be more bold, and the next election more would notice they could vote for freedom too.

Look at the Greens. They influence government and policy considerably, with a core 5% of the vote on the hard left, and they certainly wield influence beyond that number. Shouldn't they be countered by a party of principle on freedom? ACT has had a chance to show it could be as radical as its founder once was, and as radical as it was in 1994. It doesn't seem to want to do that, although if the polls continue to show little change, it may change tactics closer to the election.

So voting for Libertarianz can make a difference, it wouldn't mean Libertarianz would be in government, and it might not mean it is in Parliament, but it does mean you've voted for individual sovereignty over your life, body and property, and for the state to exist to protect not to initiate force. So many people believe that, many vote for second best, and many more vote for third (?) best.
.
As the election campaign rolls on, we will see how all the parties perform and for now, I wont be making a final judgment, as much can happen. It is time to be bold politically and stand up for beliefs and philosophies, not pander to fears and prejudices. Your vote is a very small influence, so it should be one that says what you believe in - and that should be more than simply "I want rid of Helen Clark".

Sky defends itself against state broadcaster's whining

Sky Television's Chief Executive John Fellet has mounted an excellent defence of his company up against TVNZ's bleeting moaning and whinging about losing sports rights because it couldn't bid enough for them. Fellet is reported in the Dominion Post saying:
.
"a TVNZ submission to the Culture and Heritage Ministry calling for Telecom-like reforms to be imposed on pay-TV was "so incredibly filled with misrepresentation" that Sky intended to file a cross-submission to "jog their memory"."
.
He claimed that forcing it out of the market for sports programming saying:
.
"All the major sporting codes would go bankrupt if the Government prevented Sky from buying exclusive rights to sporting events"
.
Probably not all going bankrupt, but they would lose more players to overseas teams and codes because they would lose a lot of money, then you'd wonder why people might want to watch. You see after all, pay TV is a way for people to see games they may otherwise visit if they lived near the venue (or may prefer to sit in their own homes than go out to a match).
.
And to TVNZ's claim of being outbid by a broadcaster that people choose to pay for:
.
"Sky had been outbid by TVNZ for television series made by Warner Bros and Disney and had dropped out of the bidding for those made by 20th Century Fox. "We haven't won anything, we keep getting outbid, and then they are complaining they are paying too much for it - I don't know what to do."
.
Well indeed. He also points out that TVNZ opposed Sky buying Prime TV because it wanted Prime, a free to air competitor, to fall over. TVNZ naturally will never fall over because it is government owned.
.
One of those entities that have enjoyed suckling off the state tit, the Screen Production and Development Association is also concerned about Sky. No doubt because Sky doesn't think it is worthwhile to pay for the overpriced programming that it produces, even though it benefits from state subsidies. That association has long lobbied for the government to force broadcasters to screen local content and lobbied for taxpayers to pay for more programmes they may not wish to watch.
.
I'm sure it isn't looking forward to the Labour party led gravytrain becoming a bit less generous under the Labour-lite party. (though to be honest, who knows what National policy is?).

The thing is you don't have to pay for Sky TV, you are forced to pay for some programming on TVNZ and you are the taxpayers underwriting the risk of the business (and its devaluation under Labour in recent years).

Now you're going to subsidise coastal shipping

Not satisfied with having paid over the odds for the right to run trains on its own network, and the rolling stock. Not satisfied with that including a coastal shipping service (the interisland ferries), the government now wants to spend your money to prop up, wait for it, the competitors to the railways and the ferries, the coastal shipping companies.
.
It's not much money, $10 million a year over the next three years. Why?
.
Coastal shipping has not been subsidised in New Zealand since the 1980s, when the fourth Labour government cut the subsidies to the Stewart Island ferry service (which was operated by the Ministry of Transport) and the Chatham Islands shipping service. Funnily enough both islands still have services of course. Before that the Kirk Labour government propped up the Wellington-Lyttelton overnight ferry run by the then Union Steamship Company with the ferry Rangatira. The subsidies ended by the Muldoon government because of poor patronage and because competing rail and air services were profitable.
.
So what's changed? Well for starters, NZ First's Peter Brown is a shipping fanatic, he thinks it is the answer to many of the nation's transport problems. Harry Duynhoven is into it as well. So personal political missions sound like a good reason to make a decision don't they? So hey, why not prop it up. The goal is to double the amount of freight going by coastal shipping, which is because it is more fuel efficient, but here's the rub.
.
You see other than the ferries, coastal shipping is about moving containers and trucks. It competes with rail because rail doesn't feed those ships, trucks do. So the government buys one mode on the pretence of the environment and fuel efficiency, while subsidising another on the same basis, but it also insists on running the roads on a non-commercial basis.
.
The irony is if the amount of freight on coastal shipping doubles it could be largely at the expense of rail. You can barely wonder at the brilliance of paying over the odds for a business that you then undermine by subsidising its major competitors. Can transport policy get more stupid?