My guess: National's Tax Cuts

If I was the National Party, I'd make my tax policy overall (including the already-come pledges) worth about $3, $3.5bn or so.

My major steps would be:

* cut the 33c rate to 31c
* cut the 21c rate to 20c
* increase the threshold of the 33c rate from $38k to $50k
* increase the threshold of the 39c rate from $60k to $70k
* cut the corporate tax rate to 30c

I haven't costed these, but the purpose is to offer a broad-based tax cut, while focusing most benefit on people above the average wage in that $40-$60k band.

Am I right? I guess, eventually, we'll find out! It'd be the largest election bribe in history, but National has a long track record of going down that path, so I'll not be remotely surprised if they try it again.

Update: DPF has helpfully done some costings on the proposals above, so I can crank up my estimates. Graeme Edgeler has also pointed out my mistake with the personal tax rate on the lower middle band.

So here we go again:

* cut the 33c rate to 30c
* cut the 19.5c rate to 17c
* increase the threshold of the 33c rate from $38k to $50k
* increase the threshold of the 39c rate from $60k to $75k
* cut the corporate tax rate to 30c

That will probably be a bit closer to $4bn. It'd save Don Brash and Helen Clark a lot of tax. It wouldn't save me much, and it'd save people on battler-style incomes piss-all.

Comments

[rightkiwi]

It is not possible to bribe people with their own money, so a tax cut can never be called a bribe.

It is possible to bribe people with other people's money, which is why Working for Families is a bribe.

[Jordan]

What-ever.

[ZenTiger]

You call it a bribe, I call on the government to create a REAL budget (you might need to check the meaning of that word in the dictionary) with expenditure capped for a few years at the current 53 billion (up from 32 billion pa when Labour came in).

See what it is like doing more with less, like the people Labour have been constantly un-bribing every time they raise the taxes.

Yes, to increase taxes must be an un-bribe, since reversing your increases are conveniently labelled "bribe"

[ZenTiger]

I think Jordan likes to use the word Bribe to explain tax cuts because he is a great believer in warping the language to promote communist ideology.

If NZ struck oil and were rich enough to no longer levy taxes, it would not be considered a bribe not to take the money they no longer need. If they continued to do so, it would rightfully be considered theft.

If I rent a house, I can negotiate with the house owner on the rate of rent. If rates go up, he can argue that my rent goes up and I need to pay the higher rent to enjoy living in his house.

If I negotiate to paint the house and increase the maintenance, we can agree to lower the rent. It isn't a bribe, its a negotiation.

With the election, the parties who wish to provide services to tax payers negotiate the rental rate, and sometimes that can mean a reduction in profits for the government (less surplus), or it might mean we personally undertake to pay for some services (tolls on roads).

When Jordan's Government acts like he calls the shots, and any negotiating by the opposition is instantly labelled BRIBE, whilst he can set up PERKS for students, like an INTEREST FREE loan scheme, and laud his social humanity and long term vision for NZ as being fiscally responsible and fair to all tax payers, then I get to call him a COMMUNIST.

Its closer to the truth than calling an across the board tax cut a bribe.

Or does redefining words upset you Jordan?

[David Farrar]

It is not even worth debating with some people that giving people their own money back is not a bribe. They seem convinced it all belongs to Michael Cullen.

But let us look at the costs of Jordan's predictions:

* cut the 33c rate to 31c

$190m

* cut the 21c rate to 20c

$325m

* increase the threshold of the 33c rate from $38k to $50k

$1140m

* increase the threshold of the 39c rate from $60k to $70k

$150m

* cut the corporate tax rate to 30c

$615m

Only a modest $2.4b so significantly less than what Jordan said.

[Paul]

David there's no saving the likes of you hard done by theft victims.

Hasn't anyone ever told you it's a happy place out there in non-victim land.

Nobody has stolen your money, you've entered into a social contract by living and working in this country, don't like it, sod off.

I've had a guts full of the selfish bastards who play the bloody victim all day every day.

Act like the self maximising individuals that you all calim to be, and self maximise by getting creative accounts to keep YOUR money, but please keep off the roads, hospitals, schools etc etc or: bugger off.

my money - my ass!

[ZenTiger]

Wrong Paul. Keep your guts full.

During an election, we can enter into a new social contract. Don't try to make out that the government has every right to take as much money as it wants, without being held accountable.

And since you've summarised the rules of use of services so well, then all the beneficiaries and government workers can keep off the roads as well.

Or by your logic, if you contribute nothing, you are entitled to use the services, but if you contribute something, we are not?

Why don't you get back to work and pay off your student loan and demonstrate some use to society?

[whaleoil]

Entering in to a social contract as you put it i fine until they take more than is required for that social contract, then it becomes theft. It is a social contract when every one pays their fair share. It is theft when 11% of taxpayers pay more than 50% of the tax.

It is a social contract when the most needy get a hand up, it is theft when government largesse is available to chosen "special" groups.

It is a social contract until we are continually lied to then it is theft.

It is a social contract when outcomes are more important than incomes, but when there is no improvement in outcomes then it is theft.

Despite 6 years of Labour the Rich are getting Richer and the poor get the picture. Labour sucks.

[Paul]

True Zen,

election time is the time for the contract to be renewed, but I don't see National giving no tax policy statements out there.

Nationa will charge you tax, Labour will charge you tax, even act will charge you tax. You guys just don't like labour, don't hide behind some trumped up libetarian views of tax.

As for the beinificaries etc. You have no understanding of the social umbrealla aspect of social democracy. those who can, help out those who can't.

that's called a civil society.

And the guts is still full. when I hear the poor in this country moaning because they haven't had a second holiday in Brissy this year, then I will think we are addressing the rich/poor gap.

The rich moan, and it's called legtitimate political debate. the poor moan and it's shut up and get a job your leach.

[dogsbody]

Paul, your "social contract" seems to consist of the total negation of rights, such that the majority can extort as much as it likes from the minority.

Surely I'd remember signing a contract like that?

A couple of decades ago Britain had some marginal tax rates which exceeded 90%. Can you justify that? Was such outright theft just part of your imagined "social contract"?
If not, then by what principle was it wrong?

And your other recent posts suggest that it's not just property rights you don't care about. It appears that the majority - under the guise of "social norms" - can do anything it likes and that, being done in the name of "society," it is by definition good and proper behaviour.

As an example of unenlightened thinking yours compares very well with much of the last century's vile creeds, or much of what goes in the Middle East today.

You might not care to believe it but refugees are, by definition, fleeing countries dominated by people with your mindset.

[Graeme Edgeler]

By cut the 21% tax rate to 20%, I presume you mean cut the 19.5% tx rate to 18.5%?

[rightkiwi]

The "social contract" is not worth the paper it's not written on.

[Paul]

I knew this one would get a wind up.

how precious the rights of the few are paramount over the many.

It didn't take long for that word 'right's to pop up.

You're all freakin muppts for living in such a middle-eastern-nazi-mussolini- franco-che rueva-Kruschev come nanny state. As I have stated before it must be aliving hell for you hard done by folk of the right in this communist nanny state hell hole.

Funny, bugger all will change under National, just some cosmetic torry window dressing (read removing the heart of the nation). But if bribing you guys with that is all it takes, nice principals people.

I don't remeber singing a contract, please. You're also not chained here either.

There's an island out there called me.

[GPT]

So you spend my money on you call it targetted assistance to ordinary kiwis or some such. National says we will not take as much of your money off you and its a bribe?

[dogsbody]

Paul, so there's no principled defense of your views, just an invitation for those who don't like being robbed to leave the country. All your previous vain talk about wheeling out the philosophers was just so much hot air. What it comes down to is good old fashioned might-is-right.

At least that's refreshingly honest.

Perhaps we can apply your thinking to other crimes? Rape provides obvious gratification for the assailants and if you don't like it you can, in your words, "sod off." It's exactly the same principle: the law of the jungle with the veneer of democracy to silence any doubts we may have.

But I can't help thinking you're missing a trick. Surely if the good of society demands that we steal other people's earnings it would, by definition, be harming society to let them leave as you suggest? Best confiscate their passports I think. And get them up an hour earlier each morning. Remember, they're working for *us*.

[Jordan]

ZenTiger, don't be silly. Politics is and always has been a battle to frame issues and win the debate by controlling the language. If either side of politics tries to deny this then it deserves to be laughed out of town (like Brash was on TV last night).

And tax is *never* rightly considered theft. By definition, theft is the illegal taking of something that is not yours. Taxes levied by Parliament are not illegal. Like it or not.

[Chris]

Try telling Sir Robert Jones that

[weizguy]

Try telling Sir Robert Jones anything...

[dogsbody]

Jordan,

- "theft is the illegal taking of something that is not yours. Taxes levied by Parliament are not illegal. Like it or not."

So if parliament authorises something that automatically makes it okay?

The confiscation of other people's property? Clearly.

Slavery? Ethnic cleansing? All okay if they are the law of the land?

Parliament is the mob, pure and simple. It can pass whatever laws it likes. That doesn't make it right, and it is *principles* we are talking about, not narrow legalistic arguments.

[ZenTiger]

Jordan, don't be silly, Politics has always been about pointing out how the other side reframes meanings and twists words. I was just pointing out how much reframing you were doing.

Paul, you lefty students are the one who accepted the bribe. Stop having a hissy fit simply because we are arguing degrees.

Cullen has encouraged us to become more interested in our investments, and my tax money certainly is an investment into my home (country). I'm therefore very interested to ensure we spend on sensible projects, we provide for our fellow members, we do not sit idly by and allow greed, corruption and waste to go on under our noses.

And don't assume I am a National voter - I agree, they are somewhat similar to Labour. Although I doubt they'll rip the heart out of the country, Labour have already eaten it.

I look forward to the day when National are in power, because, according to your logic, you will have to shut up and be grateful we are living in something close to a middle-eastern-nazi-mussolini- franco-che rueva-Kruschev come nanny state where there is no real cause for you to complain.

I still will not be satisfied, because I believe it can be better than this. Too much has happened to ordinary kiwis that gives you cause for telling us not to want something better.

If you can't get your head around a tax cut not being a bribe, then start with the concept that taking less tax is bribing people with their own money.

[tim barclay]

I assume tax cuts will be quite significant if Don is to have any chance of implementing them. I guess those on lower incomes will not get much because they do not pay much in the first place, though not all people aspire to be on low incomes (i.e. professional people who are recent grads, and self employed tradespeople). But I ssume the poor and the aspiring poor will scream. Too bad I say work harder and you too will share in the spoils.

[Logix]

ZenT,

But it IS NOT your money anyhow! It is a colossal failure of imagination to be unable to understand that every cent you earn, is in reality NOT all yours. You come by it because you participate in a system; you do not earn it entirely and solely from your own individual, in isolation, efforts.

It is only in pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies that it is possible to aproximate the idea that all personal wealth is solely the result of your own endeavours. The moment however we begin to form large social groupings, and differentiate into skill and occupational specialisations, is the beginning of our interdependence on each other, and the need to regulate the nature of that interdependence.

As an isolated individual you are free to live absolutely according to your own wishes. If however you want to benefit from the enormous benefits that come from participating in modern society, you will need to moderate your wishes according to the boundaries set by that society.

For those of you who still argue the 'tax is theft' line or want to dismiss the concept of a "social contract' I really do recommend that you go a live in a country where the tax rate is zero and they do not have a government. Last I looked Somalia would appear to be an ideal spot. I'm not being facetious, I'm quite serious that because you are such talented and capable person it really is a shame for you to be languishing in such a socialist little backwater like New Zealand . Living in a zero tax country would such a liberating experience for you; it would allow all your personal brilliance to be unleashed on a unsuspecting world, unfettered by the irksome restrictions this benighted country imposes on you.

[Jordan]

Parliament is the law. Our Parliament is very moderate and operates in a sound human rights framework. "Parliament as the Mob" - well, you'd go back to 1930s Germany for that.

[Lucyna]

Curious, then Jordan. How did Germany in the 1930's operate outside of the law? From what I've read so far (and it is perepheral at this point, hence the interest), they passed laws and then acted within them.

[Tiberias]

Many of the worlds richest people agree with Logix, so if you don't believe him, believe them:

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/press/2004/NotAlone_pr.html

[ZenTiger]

Hahahha Logix. Is this where you logically deduce that the government is obliged to collect all of your money and send it to Somalia? How far does socialism go to the principled left? No further than the borders for most.

Just imagine if Helen had decided to do her civic duty and raise the tax rate to 90% and send the extra money to Somalia. Like that would have helped. Maybe a few poor sods would have suggested the money could have been better utilised.

Lets justify why Helen can increase the top tax rate from 33 cents in the dollar to 39 cents in the dollar so you and Paul can keep chanting "take more take more" to all those on $70000, whilst talking about the .0000001 percent of the worlds population that has millions.

I'm not arguing that all taxation is theft, you guys are. I'm saying that to take more than required amounts to theft.

You are making assertions that are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.

So, cut the pseudo-intellectual crap and answer the real question:

In this country, do we have a right to debate the way the taxes are levied on the population, and is it reasonable to have a say in how the money is spent?

You have been doing your best to build an argument that this is not allowed. That to do so makes us ungrateful and unaware.

As you realise, I am a talented and capable person, so take me seriously when I say you are suffering from delusional logix.

[RWDB]

Logix,

Engaging in another classic lefty tactic I see. Losing the argument? Simply choose an imaginary viewpoint your opponent doesn't have on a totally separate issue, and argue against that instead.

How on earth do you get from "tax cuts are not a bribe" to "all taxation is theft"?

It IS your (generic) money. The government, rightly or wrongly, confiscates it. Price of living in "society"? Or theft? Doesn't matter, because in any case is your money they are taking.

And taking less of somebody's money is not bribery. Therefore you are wrong, and Jordan is a liar, a fool, and a partisan hack.

A quick "sorry" from both of you will suffice as an apology.

[Logix]

No apology forthcoming.

"How on earth do you get from "tax cuts are not a bribe" to "all taxation is theft"?"...because the former phrase is usually justified by the latter.

And by your next paragraph in which you appear to amply confirm the point. "Doesn't matter, because in any case is your money they are taking.'

If you are going to argue with me, at least try not to contradict yourself in two consecutive paras; even I can spot them. Try and space them out with a little more padding.

[ZenTiger]

Zen: In this country, do we have a right to debate the way the taxes are levied on the population, and is it reasonable to have a say in how the money is spent?

Logix: No, it's not your money anyhow.

Zen: hahahahahahahahaha

[RWDB]

"Taking" doesn't imply theft, moron. Get a dictionary or get stuffed.

[Logix]

"In this country, do we have a right to debate the way the taxes are levied on the population, and is it reasonable to have a say in how the money is spent?"

Sure do...just what we are having. But we keep getting bogged down at square one by the silly notion that somehow "tax cuts are not a bribe because it is your money in the first place". If I conceded that then in the next breath I get told that "all taxation is theft".

Well I don't. As someone very succiently put it recently 0% Tax = Anarchy, and 100% Tax = Slavery.

Curiuosly enough if you think about it, all human societies before the Industrial Revolution were largely slave owning economies. Viewed from this point of view the pre-Industrial was essentially a primitive form of communism, in which all humans were the "property/subjects" of ruler. Taxation for the majority of serfs was 100%, in return for which they were given food and lodgings.

It has only been the advent of the technology to exploit low cost hydrocarbon energy that has allowed the Western to move away from slave/serf ownership. In taxation terms (the debate we are having) the nett rate of tax is now somewhat less than 40% of GDP and New Zealand is most certainly typical of most developed nations in this measure.

On the other hand extremists will run the arguement any tax you do not personally assent to, ie "I'm saying that to take more than required amounts to theft." Therein lies the crux...how do we agree on "what is required"? and "Who decides?". Well that is what we have Parliament for. It makes decisions in the large for all of us. It's determinations are the definition of legality. Therefore taxation, at whatever percentage it is set, and as long as the Budget is confirmed in Parliament is legal, and ipso facto cannot be theft. So let's get over it and move onto more interesting lines of discussion.

[Logix]

RWDB,

In your own words,

"The government, rightly or wrongly, confiscates it. Price of living in "society"? Or theft? Doesn't matter, because in any case is your money they are taking."

Now if you look carefully you will see the words "confiscate" and "theft", in close proximity to the sentence "Doesn't matter, because in any case is your money they are taking."

Now maybe I am just guilty of reading entirely the wrong meaning into this paragraph and my shoe size IQ has failed to grasp your higher meaning, or just perhaps you might care to re-phrase it into words of one syllable or less that is the natural vocabulary of us grunting morons.

[RWDB]

Your quote from me basically says "If taxation is theft, or if it is not, is not relevant."

Do you understand how the word IF is used?

"If you had a trunk, you would be an elephant."

DOES NOT MEAN

"You have a trunk."

Likewise,

"If taxation is theft, or if it is not, is not relevant."

DOES NOT MEAN

"Taxation is theft."

Get it?

[Brian S]

Logix, you wrote:

"For those of you who still argue the 'tax is theft' line or want to dismiss the concept of a "social contract' I really do recommend that you go a live in a country where the tax rate is zero and they do not have a government."

Two questions:

1. Why should a person have to leave a country if they think they can establish that the system they are living under is unjust?

2. Libertarians like contracts. The social contract we have in NZ is implicit. It is certainly far far better than the social contract in North Korea. But because it is implicit, it is vague. In an actual contract, both parties have a document drawn up and sign it voluntarily. So why not actually have a genuine social contract?

[Bernard Woolley]

Brian S: Hear hear. I'd like to see a little more clarity around this so-called social contract - I want to see where it says beneficiaries have the right to sit around on there arse drinking and smoking whilst I'm working damn hard to support them. Doesn't sound like a very far contract from my perspective...

[ZenTiger]

Or TVNZ personal spending $52,000 on a booze up Bernard. Or the Prime Ministers Office spending $45,000 on a calendar.

But what do you mean "working damn hard" to earn money?

Haven't you heard? It's not your work anyhow.

The "not your money" theory makes it clear that you are paid an arbitrary amount for your production that is not so much based on skill as an opportunity to work.

If you fail to exploit that opportunity to work, those that have exploited the opportunity to work, will be exploited to provide for those that haven't.

You need to apply this wisdom with the other precept: to reduce taxes is to cut services.

Thus, taxes can never be reduced because services can never reasonably be cut. In fact, under Labour, waiting lists have grown, so there is a clear case to continue with a steady increase in taxes.

Anyway BrianS and Bernard: I'm with you 100% on some more clarity with a social contract.

[Logix]

"DOES NOT MEAN "Taxation is theft."

So now we have that old chestnut out of the way, and that taxation is legitimate and legal.

Therefore this makes the phrase "a tax cut cannot be a bribe because it was your money anyway" quite meaningless. It's like contending that "my car can do 220kph, but the govt will only let me do 100kph, therefore they are stealing 120kph from me".

In one sense I will agree with you that tax cuts are not a bribe, because what you gain directly into your pocket, you loose somewhere else in public services... but I somehow don't think that is the sense you mean it in.

Another argument is that less tax = better economic efficiency. Again this line of thought may have some merit, but the evidence is not convincing. If were so clearcut as the extremists claim, then with 180 odd different countries in the world, you might expect that one of them would have stumbled upon the magic formula of slashing taxes dramatically and trumped the rest of us with it's unequivocally dazzling performance. Unfortunately as far as I am aware the jury is still out on that one.

So what is the optimum nett taxation level? And just what is the purpose of taxation anyhow?

One line of thought is that we should cut taxes to say 20% to pay for a bare bones core govt only. In this scenario everyone gets to pay for their own health, education and social security. Again if we could point to a modern nation that successfully runs this model I might have more confidence. (The USA comes closest in tax terms; but I am not persuaded of the outcome.)

The single aspect that I deplore of this kind of minimal tax model is that it tends to amplify extremes of wealth and poverty. If we lived in a world were the huge majority of people could be morally depended on to act with wise self-interest (as opposed to selfishness) and to spend their wealth on themselves, their family and the less fortunate in their community in a constructive manner, then the need for compulsory taxation would reduce.

But sadly we haven't gotten there yet. Taxation is used as a tool to moderate the social excesses that result from unchecked "free market" capitalism. Politically the pendulum will swing a bit one way or the other over time. At election time it is very tempting for right wing parties to play the "tax cut" "it's your money card" as a short-term inducement to the voters. But does this amount to a "social contract"? From the outset the electorate has had little support for the low tax offerings of the ACT party, so it is reasonable to suggest that most people are aware that there is a trade off here.

[Paul]

". Therefore you are wrong, and Jordan is a liar, a fool, and a partisan hack.

A quick "sorry" from both of you will suffice as an apology."

"As you realise, I am a talented and capable person, so take me seriously when I say you are suffering from delusional logix."

Holly shit who's the dellusional one here, or is it a case of premature inflatulation. The contidition where modesty is set aside and the significance of ones own importance results in too much hot air.

[ZenTiger]

Paul, you quote different people to prove what point exactly?

And lest we deviate again:

Zen: In this country, do we have a right to debate the way the taxes are levied on the population, and is it reasonable to have a say in how the money is spent?

Logix: No, it's not your money anyhow.

Zen: hahahahahahahahaha

[ZenTiger]

"Another argument is that less tax = better economic efficiency. Again this line of thought may have some merit, but the evidence is not convincing."

Nope, that's changing. Countries around the world have finally being trying it after breaking the orthodoxy of higher taxes. And it's working.

[Bernard Woolley]

"you might expect that one of them would have stumbled upon the magic formula of slashing taxes dramatically and trumped the rest of us with it's unequivocally dazzling performance"

Umm, Ireland?

"From the outset the electorate has had little support for the low tax offerings of the ACT party"

I think the 'reactivist worm' might say otherwise, I think that is more a case of a small party struggling to get their message out.

"that most people are aware that there is a trade off here"

Most reasonable people recognise that there is a trade off here. However, that trade off will be ignored when the government is claiming record surpluses, and we have seen the tax take increase SIGNIFICANTLY since 1999 when Labour was elected.

[Gooner]

"Another argument is that less tax = better economic efficiency. Again this line of thought may have some merit, but the evidence is not convincing."

Well, the evidence of more tax = Muldoon when country nearly went bust, saved only by tax cuts.

[Logix]

Well strictly speaking is really is not your money, it is the Reserve Bank's.

And yes I will keep provoking you with the idea that it really is not your money. None of it, not one single cent of all the money you have ever earned is yours.

Money is two things; a medium of exchange and a store of value. As a medium of exchange it only has purpose if you can exchange it for some other goods or services. ie the moment you get it, it is only of value to you if you give it away for SOMEONE ELSE'S goods or services. Another way of looking at this would be to imagine the uber-richest person in the world who had ALL the money. For what?

Money is only of value in a communal setting when it passes from hand to hand.( It also liberates people from a barter economy, which in reality amounts to a form of serfdom.) The efficiency of that communal setting is a key determinant.

As individuals we usually act to maximise our short-term benefit. More mature people learn to postpone immediate gratification and invest in their future, but society outlives any one individual and has longer term interests. If you examine most government spending you will see that much of it is ultimately directed to long term goals that are beyond the immediate reach of most individuals, or groups or even corporations. Government also acts as a backer of last resort, absorbing risks that are beyond individuals to absorb and it does that to prevent short term individual failures from becoming a terminal loss.

Is it a perfect system? No more perfect than anyone of us are. Before we can get any clarity around the "social contract" it would be essential to determine what the underlying motivation for it would be. Personally I would sooner pay more tax and have a few "dole bludger's" sitting on their arses smoking (all 3.7% of them) than having the unemployed become homeless, impoverished and permanently alienated from a productive life. It's called generosity. While I can afford it, I don't mind. "Taxes buy me civilisation". Oliver Wendell Wilkie (I think).

[dogsbody]

Logix,

- "But it IS NOT your money anyhow! It is a colossal failure of imagination to be unable to understand that every cent you earn, is in reality NOT all yours. You come by it because you participate in a system; you do not earn it entirely and solely from your own individual, in isolation, efforts..." etc etc

What a very strange thing to believe.

The complexity brought about by the fact that we specialise and trade appears to confuse you.

Such division of labour brings about enormous productivity gains, and consequently enormously higher salaries. But the efficient worker owns all of his income just as much as an inefficient one does.

Obviously such a society is highly interdependant. But what of it? We pay fully for all the goods and services we require. We don't owe it a thing any more than it owes us anything.

[Paul]

The point being Zen, the only thing fueling this most ridiculous argument is the equal measurements of self adoration and arogance.

taking the rights selective belief in the social contract, one should also drive on the wrong side of the road, tolerate (not condone) murder etc etc.

" I want to see where it says beneficiaries have the right to sit around on there arse drinking and smoking"

Nice stereotypecasting there Bernard. I'm still a little worried about you lot over there at Sir H's.

How does one reconsile ones aparent detestation of the public service while adopting the persona of those so thoroughly entrenched in the ratain of the civil service. If this is a piss take, it's hard to see who's taking the piss (my Money's on Hacker on this one).

To quote a review of YM & YPM.

"Yes, Prime Minister is political satire at its finest. It exemplifies the battle between elected officials, whose terms are temporary but who want to make their mark in the history books, and members of the the Civil Service, whose jobs are permanent and who want things to stay the way they are. The two shows illustrate the constant battle between the two sides with the latter having the advantage."

Does Sir H's really want "want things to stay the way they are"?

[Logix]

"However, that trade off will be ignored when the government is claiming record surpluses, and we have seen the tax take increase SIGNIFICANTLY since 1999 when Labour was elected."

As a percentage of GDP core govt spending has decreased in the last five years. The forecast increase is perhaps more modest than you are imagining.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/forecasts/befu/2005/2foexpenses.asp

[Bernard Woolley]

Logix, I made this graph from treasury data on tax outturn, conveniently coloured for the blind to see what has happened to the tax take since Labour has been in power. And these are actual recorded figures by treasury - not forecasts that you show.

http://photos13.flickr.com/16543612_77c4acb546_o.png

[Logix]

Doggy,

As an individual in isolation you economic value is close to zero. it is only when you participate in the system that your potential value is made real. Neither is our participation in the system a nett zero game as you imply by "We pay fully for all the goods and services we require. We don't owe it a thing any more than it owes us anything." This may be true in the short-term, but it is not in the long term. For most people less than 1/2 of their total life is economically productive, nor can we ignore the legacy that the previous generation have left us. (Nor incidentally do we get to take any of it with us.)

The economic system we are all part of has intrinsic long term value. Taxation is simply one means by which we invest in it.

[Logix]

Bernard,

If you look at the x-axis of the graph I linked to you will see that it starts in the year 1999. Now by my calculations that is six years ago. In the past. Not a forecast.

It then extends forward to 2009. That part is a forecast.

More importantly the Y-axis on these Treasury graphs also shows expenditure as a percentage of GDP. If you look you will see that in the period 1999-2005 this number has FALLEN, ie gotten smaller.

The absolute numbers in your graph simply reflect the growth in GDP under the current Labour govt, while in fact Labour has decreased expenditure as a percentage of GDP in the last six years.

[Bernard Woolley]

Yes % of GDP has fallen against the strong economic growth that likely would have still occured if we had another government in power. What will be interesting is to see how the next government handles the downturn expected in the next 12 months, with property expected to decrease by up to 25-30% according to unoffical Treasury figures. In a shrinking economy, its no suprise that Govt Exp. as %GDP is expected to rise again - the overall economy will have shrunk.