by frog
Tax cuts. Cullen says his will be smaller but won’t negatively affect the economy or public services. English says his will be bigger but doesn’t want to play that up too much in case he gets caught in the chewing gum trap Cullen found him self in last election. Or worse, he could end up trying to explain how he is going to cut that money out of the government’s expenditure, without quantifying it in numbers of nurses or kindergarten teachers.
Meanwhile Paula Oliver at the Herald highlights an important issue that could get lost in the tax cut debate this budget.
[T]he fact is that when taxes are cut by any amount, however big or small, that amount automatically becomes money that could have been used for something else.
It’s a question of priorities.
So, what are our priorities? English will tell us that tax cuts are important for growth. Cullen won’t challenge this claim because for both National and Labour all growth is implicitly good. If things are bigger than they used to be that is inherently good. We need to grow bigger coal mines and bigger dairy farms to feed our bigger mega-malls filled with bigger amounts of consumer goods imported from bigger countries. To pay for that we need to grow bigger credit card debts and borrow bigger mortgages. Ah, step back and admire the beauty of unlimited economic growth.
If tax cuts provide incentives for growth, shouldn’t we only give them to the things we want to grow? And if things that should be shrinking are actually growing shouldn’t we give them an incentive to change that behaviour?
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Parliament by frog on Thu, March 27th, 2008
Tags: Bill English, GDP, growth, Michael Cullen, tax, tax cuts
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
We need to pay for growing welfare, health care, housing and education demands. The shopping is a bonus.
How are you going to fund it our needs? Where is your economic strategy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
getting pretty thin that margin between left and right ok fwwog,
especially when yous take into account that Key NAT already know to
buy back NZ RAIL= $750 million fwwog, what do yous think
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No thoughts on ‘fiscal drag’ though frog?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That means tax cuts to exporters doesn’t it? But with strict environmental standards.
Oh and tax cuts to bureaucrats too, the taxes that pay their salaries I mean. I was hearing the other day that the Hawke’s Bay district health board has a manager for every bed. Something has got to change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam, In the health sector “manager” means salaried staff members and consultants, ie doctors, surgeons, matrons, most radiographers, anaesthetists, lab technicians and some people who actually have manager in their job title. Pretty much only leaves nurses and porters on hourly wages rates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
they talk about not cutting essential public services but there is one service in particular which is actually a nasty big ‘disservice’- costing hundreds of millions and creating only negatives (including the need for more and more prisons).
the criminalisation service is a very poor one indeed (under the auspices of public health) and i do not want the fucking police in my house stealing my pot, or sneaking around undercover (making people paranoid and nasty), or spoiling the health and safety and human dignity of my friends who need the medicine, and destroying lives because of a NON CRIME.
Prohibition is all hypocritical lies in terms of its evidence base, and all negative in terms of what it delivers, without protecting anyone. (Anyone ever seen the cost-benefit analysis that proves prohibition is essential? – THERE AINT ONE)
this sick service delivers up to 20,000 convictions a year a nice little turnover for the police courts corrections and prison mongers and keeps the media happy with lots of crime related stories…and then we have an entire population subculture who are alienated from the system makin no postive contribution to NZ (the underclass) at more expense to us hard working taxpayers.
I do not want my tax money spent on 47,000 bureaucrats, policy analysts and grifters – and MPs – all supposedly TACKLING social problems, but never by pulling the pin on the one thing that is going on in NZ that is truely toxic and abusive: CANNABIS LAW ENFORCENT.
wake up greens. you are neglecting the big smoking election issue and its gonna bite you on the bum, Frog, 3rd election in a row – mark my words…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How big a slice of tax cut would you like?
I’d be happy to get back the 18cents a litre I’m paying for motorways, busways and rail upgrades in Wellington and Auckland. Has Jim Anderton forgotten where is electorate is? Doesn’t he know or care that this tax abuse is costing the Canterbury economy $150 million each year?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)