by Catherine Delahunty
The Minister of Education has seen fit to cut money in the Budget for adult and community education funding except for courses related to literacy and numeracy. Programmes offered through secondary schools are set to disappear after an 80% cut. She picked out weaving, salsa dancing and Moroccan courses provided by community education programmes as particularly undeserving.
She reckons the Adult and Community Education (ACE) sector needs “tightening” to a focus on literacy and numeracy. Two hundred co-ordinators and two hundred tutors will lose vital part time jobs in this “reform” which will no doubt be justified by the Govt as necessary in the recession. If the Government had a vision of sustaining communities through hard times they wouldn’t cut these programmes.
People need to participate in education at a basic level in order to participate in their communities and re connect with learning. It is not just about reading and writing in English even though both are important. It is not just being able to use a calculator or learning to count your change at the shop. It is about an entire sector which developed a clear understanding of its own value through the Koia Koia Report.
The report names some key goals for ACE, which were; building life long learning, social cohesion, emerging needs (including literacy) and needs identified by communities themselves. Te Tiriti of Waitangi and Maori education was prioritised.
I worked with these goals as an adult educator for more than ten years. The money was always tight but the rewards of seeing people participating in adult education were fantastic. The tutors are incredibly dedicated people with great skills in encouraging their students to become confident learners to start with cooking and craft skills and then try more challenging subjects, it works!
Price Waterhouse Cooper did a study of the economic contribution of the ACE sector and concluded that its value to the economy was massive:
The estimated economic impact of the ACE sector is between $4.8 and $6.3 billion annually. This equates to a return on investment of $54 – $72 for each dollar of funding. Each dollar of government funding generates a return of $16 – $22, but this is further leveraged through private contributions to the sector, including those voluntarily added such as unpaid volunteer labour.
So we all lose from this. Literacy is vital, weaving is extraordinarily positive and practical and Moroccan cooking could be the most cost effective course you ever took in a recession.
National have cut another lifeline to communities. They don’t get ACE and they sure don’t get what community building is all about.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Health & Wellbeing by Catherine Delahunty on Wed, June 3rd, 2009
Tags: ACE, adult education, Budget, Catherine Delahunty, cuts, Education, politics
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Yep, well said Catherine. And its worth remembering that quite apart from the cooking and weaving and dancing classes, adult education also provides extremely useful skills training like public speaking and self defence and sign language….we can’t afford to lose these programmes, they build community connections and self esteem and life skills, often to those who need it most and who may be alienated from mainstream education.
For the Minister to write adult ed off as ‘hobby’ classes is misleading & unfair and short sighted in the extreme….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Te Tiriti of Waitangi and Maori education was prioritised.
I worked with these goals as an adult educator for more than ten years.”
but you never figured out that the treaty was an imperfect beast, it being impossible to get an agreement on sovereignty at that point in time and in those circumstances. To people such as yourself the treaty is like the shroud that Christ is thought to have worn (but may not have); of course as a leftist it gives you an issue to jump up and down about, without which your contribution in the great scheme of things is only so-so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They are hobby classes.
There is nothing stopping people taking them, all the government has said is that they are cutting the funding and diverting it to where it is needed more. If you have a reduced tax take, you have to reduce services ,or you have to borrow more money from your kids.
These courses are hardly out of reach in terms of personal cost.
Perhaps you should consider ways in which we can lift out economic performance so we can pay for these nice-to-haves?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, BP. clearly you didn’t read the post. With an ROI of at least 54:1 economically, you still consider these as “nice-to-haves”? I worry about your economic literacy, my friend.
For many of the participants, they are out of reach economically. But even if they were not, with that kind of ROI, why would you axe them except for ideological reasons? I thought you believed in rational expenditure?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The key economic benefit is in increased income from adults qualifying for higher paid employment.
It’s not from learning to fly a kite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The key economic benefit is in increased income from adults qualifying for higher paid employment.
It’s not from learning to fly a kite.”
Its not quite that simple. Firstly, the adult student, whose experiences of education may be negative, and whose belief in his/her (usually her in my experience) abilities may be very low, may gain sufficient confidence in her ability to learn through learning to fly a kite that she then goes on and does a regular university course, increasing her earning potential.
Also, the economic gains could also come through people gaining sufficient self-confidence to keep themselves out of jail or on drugs, giving up smoking (a huge drain on the taxpayer), or keeping their mind active and not getting Altziemers (excuse spelling) with the resulting burden on our health system. The benefit of an active and participating community is also something that needs to be taken into account for its own sake and not simply economic gain.
I am not saying that all the ACE courses should stay, there may indeed be better ways to spend our tertiary education budget (such as higher pay rates for tertiary teachers)
but rather that we should take a rather broader approach in our cost/benefit accounting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are a lot of things that would be nice-to-do, but when we’re spending more than we earn, something has to give.
The scarce resources need to go where they deliver the biggest return. Some of those courses will deliver negative returns to the taxpayer, even if they do make a marginal difference to the individual.
So the challenge to Catherine is to tell us where we get the extra money from to fund activities that produce some benefit to the individual, and negative returns to the taxpayer? I agree it would be nice to fund it all, but that requires money. Where do we get it from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some more complex economic concepts are quite difficult to grasp BP so why dont you investigate (SIT) Southern Institute of Technology (the polytech in Southland) who offer ZERO fees!
how ridiculous! all that money disappearing? and yet has been a major factor in Invercargill avoiding almost certain demise
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Typical of a Minister who has no understanding of the portfolio that she holds. Her perception of education I would suggest is typified by the idiotic response from BP who seems to think that education has something to do with economic benefits! Actually dancing has a very positive economic benefit. Participants are fitter, more agile, healthier, more mentally alert, and therefore less likely to become hospitalised as they age, than non-dancers (you should try it sometime BP). Perhaps the same could be said for kite flyers.
But that is not the reason for dancing – nor pursuing any other educative activity for that matter! Education BP, is about personal development – it always has been, and always will be. To tie education to a meal ticket is to underestimate its value and to hobble it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
macro leave him alone -a nation of consumers is far easier to deal with than a nation of thinkers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Idiotic response, Macro.
I agree that all education is good. Does that therefore mean we should spend money we don’t have providing everyone with any education they desire because it produces some good?
Perhaps you think we should.
Fine.
Tell me where we get the money from?
>>actually dancing has a very positive economic benefit.
So now you are arguing in terms of economic benfits?
It is false to suggest that because government allocates funding elsewhere that hobby learning will somehow stop. I play a number of musical instruments and sing, and I’ve never had $1 from other taxpayers in order to do so.
If you’re demanding money from me, then yes – I want to see positive economic benefits for that spend. Like the Minister, I see questionable level of return on hobby courses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>and yet has been a major factor in Invercargill avoiding almost certain demise
So you’re proving my point. If it produces a positive economic return, you’re all for it, as am I.
But that report does demonstrate that ALL courses produce a positive economic return. Only some. So what happens to the courses that don’t? They need to be subsidised. Where are you getting the money from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
typo: doesn’t demonstrate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s the thing. Let’s say the spending is to be retained, for the benefits you’ve outlined.
Fine.
What other area of Education are you going to cut to fund it?
Nothing?
Fine.
What other government service – health, welfare, etc – are you going to cut to fund it?
Because we’re looking at years of deficits. We spend more than we earn. And you want to reduce those earnings even further by adding a carbon tax at some point.
So, please, tel me – where are you going to cut spend?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How about we cut the unemployment benefit to the tutors who we are paying to tutor these courses?
One of the thinks that people learn when they take a course in kite flying (which I assume also includes kite making) is how to follow instructions. This leads on to checking their work. Both are very vital skills in the manufacturing sector. Cooking classes also assist in learning how to follow directions from someone else. Therefore these courses improve the employability of the students, and that has to help the economy. Even just keeping the students out of trouble (e.g. with IRD, Work & Income, etc) helps the economy by avoiding an unnecessary drain on resources.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP-
NCEA only came in around 2002.
Up until then, the education paradigm failed 50% of every cohort of 15-16 yr-olds sitting school cert, every year. Standard bell curve ranking system, not an achievement scale.
That adds up to a lot of adults with low skills, who have been taught to believe that they have ‘no brains’, by an education system that failed them based on 1959 thinking that required a large pool of unskilled workers to arrive on the workforce market every year.
Community education courses have always been ‘gateway education’ providors, which empower unskilled adults to go on and take more academic courses as they build confidence in the new-found ability to learn and achieve.
We don’t have a large need for unskilled workers anymore, not now that ‘the market’ has seen fit to remove industrial jobs to places like China and Vietnam, where factories pay labourers far less that the minimum wage necessary for a decent life.
So, perhaps ‘the market’ should be picking up the bill of re-educating these unskilled citizens, who’ve been failed by the very same education system that popped you out at the top end of the bell-curve?
Or would that be too much pragmatic justice for you to swallow?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP is asking where the money comes from though, and the answer is not lower taxes so it is unlikely he will be happy with it, but he is correct that the budget has to move towards balance rather more definitely than it drifted into deficit.
I don’t agree with the methods of National and I don’t agree with the sanctity of the wealthy, or very much else that they promote. but like death and entropy, the gozinta has to match the gozouta or the system breaks.
gozinta and gozouta are technical terms I learned at JPL. – really !
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
The point of ACE is that it is a lot easier to teach someone who knows nothing. Finding someone to learn from gets harder (and more expensive) as you know more. The people ACE helps have nothing to start with so expecting them to pay is simply wishful thinking. They can’t.
Bigger gains for lower costs is the point. It doesn’t conflict with yours about there needing to be a balanced budget but I really dislike seeing arguments passing each other in the night rather than making contact and striking sparks.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Weaving and Moroccan Cooking Are Not Useful”
The first sane thing Mad Cath has said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
katie , do you mean higher taxes? Because there aren’t higher taxes to be had. The tax pool is shrinking. Higher taxes will not bring in more money, quite the opposite.
Please tell me what service you will cut to fund this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This budget is for bankers and other commercial interests Wiping adult education is a direct application of the fundamental industrial ethic of consumerisation dating from the 1920s. In those days it was laid down that popular attitudes and social linkages were to be supplanted where they tended to look away from the commercial market place for the satisfaction of material and social needs. The basic impulse of industry was to use advertising to actively channel social impulses towards the support of corporate capitalism and its priorities and individuals should not be allowed to develop their own potentialities free from industrial control.
Hence, ot even learning to cook Moroccan style can be allowed because this can so easily be the thin edge of the wedge that allows individual control of self determination to take hold, thereby threatening the viability of the fast food industry. Who knows where this might end? The commercial sector might lose it’s captive cash cow or even find itself subordinated to the needs and aspirations of the community at large.
So if you can’t distract the general population from self expression by a diet of trivia and mass advertising, block access to alternatives by wiping adult educationn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the point of the ROI is that by funding ACE, less money needs to be sent elsewhere for example the health budget (dancing classes mean fitness, cooking classes means better nutrition….
Sure maybe some classes have less return than others, but who is going to pick and choose? The Minister? No, the only reasonable way to approach it is to bulk fund the sector with emphasis on areas with the most demonstrable returns {btw I dont imagine this is basic literacy as a night class in reading is unlikely to lead to a job}. And not funding ACE would be stupid, given that the ROI shows it saves more money than it sends.
So Bp, your question is like saying where will the $2 come from for paying the parking meter? Well, if the alternative is a $1OO fine [about the right ratio] then it would be very false economy to try to save money by not paying it.
p.s. good point michaela
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I should add that my point about literacy above is incorrect. Literacy classes will have large benefits, but they are likely to be more to do with the ability to participate in society than direct employment benefits. That would make them on par with many of the course that look to now be cut.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Hence, ot even learning to cook Moroccan style can be allowed because this can so easily be the thin edge of the wedge that allows individual control of self determination to take hold, thereby threatening the viability of the fast food industry.
Jesus wept. At what “university” are they teaching such nonsense? The public subsidy for Moroccan hobby courses will undermine McDonalds?
I put it to you that most people prefer McDonalds hamburgers to Moroccan cooking lessons, for issues of cost, convenience and taste.
You may not, and that’s fine. No one is forcing you to go to McDonalds. Or Morrocan cooking classes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Has anyone actually read that PWC report?
No one is arguing that literacy, numeracy, business courses etc aren’t worth funding. They are, and National is doing so.
The report says there is difficulty in quantifying the benefits to the taxpayer of other factors. Hobby courses would be nice to fund, but when you can’t prove the economic benefit, then we must assume it isn’t there.
It would be nice to fund these things, of course, but you’ve yet to tell me where you’re taking the money from. Unless you grow the pie (economy), then there is no new funding to be had.
Nandor – the analogy is false. You’d need to prove a connection between Moroccan cooking classes and economic benefit to teh taxpayer over and above the cost. There is no ticket to be paid. I suspect that the only result will be that middle class housewives will pay $5 extra for course, as these seem to be the people who take such hobby courses, my wife being one of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This trimming of ‘non essential’ educational programmes pongs of the old ‘three ‘R’s thinking – ‘ cut to the bone and focus on readin’, ritin’ and ‘rithmatic’.
I also smell chalk, leather straps and rattan cane. Richard Worth would prick up his ears over this issue, I’m betting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BTW:
Cook Morocco!
Use the internet.
Watch the food channel
Go to the library and get a book on Moroccan cooking
Ask a friend
Form a group
Pay the whole extra $5 for a course, that the taxpayer funded subsidy doesn’t now cover.
Perhaps, in magic money tree land, we should employ a personal guide to ensure every person does one of the above. Heaven forbid it should be left to the individual, whom without 24/7 baby sitting, would never get out of bed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>cut to the bone and focus on readin’, ritin’ and ‘rithmatic’.
We spend billions more per year than we earn, Greenfly. Unless you figure out a way NZ can earn billions more per year, then you’ll have to settle for cuts in expenditure.
Oh, and don’t we have a carbon charge coming up? That’s just add to the fun!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, how about investing in better education for all so that we become more productive? Sounds like a good way to help NZ earn more money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – cuts in expenditure only make sense, in light of what you preach, if they result in savings. If your cuts reduce economic growth then they are mistakes. It’s a matter of deciding which cuts do or don’t pay. Cutting willy nilly is stupid
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cutting R&D was stupid. Stupid NAct Government!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Which courses are economically productive, jarbury?
Or perhaps all education provides economic benefit by virtue of being education? In which case, we should order up 100 more hip-hop research tours. Each and every week. Surely they will lead to income above the cost, because all education naturally achieves this feat?
Surely…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It sounded like all of them had excellent returns on investment – so in that case the answer would be “all of them”. Maybe it is worth criticising the way in which the ROIs were calculated, although on that note I could tear to bits the way the Waterview Connection’s benefit-cost ratio has been calculated as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Humming, bro. U iz hardcore. Subliminal! (ps: I need $1000 for some turntables. Send me the cash! I’m sure you’ll see a return!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We need more sociology graduates! Order up an extra 100,000! I’m sure it will be worth every cent! Teach them hip-hop too! Hip-hop sociologists!
Now we’re being productive!
Meanwhile, we’re borrowing from our children to pay for all this.
Vote For me? Lumber Me With Debt, more like….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What makes you think that would have a good return on investment BP? Once again, I think your best attack point would be to criticise the way ROIs are calculated.
I have no idea how they are worked out. I only know how cost benefit ratios (which are similar) for transport projects are worked out, and I’m enormously suspicious of them. So I think perhaps you would have some good suggestions about how to improve ROIs for adult education.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the sad reality is that we have a bill for services we can’t afford. We have to make cuts somewhere.
Personally, I would rather have spent $1B on childhood education than on a set of rusty rail cars that will cost us hundreds of millions each year until sold again, but what do I know? I’m a right wing nutcase.
Greenfly will be along soon to ignore the point I’m making, and do some selective cut n pasting….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not that I want to drag the argument on to the buyback of the rail system, but I imagine that in the long-term it was decided that buying back the rail system was a better idea than to subsidise Toll. Yeah they paid too much, but that’s last year’s news.
Think of investing in education as making sure you have enough money to pay for your bus ride into work. Even if you need to borrow money for that bus ride it’s still worth the while because once you’re at work you can make back far more money than what you spent to get there. The alternative is to say “oh damn I don’t have the money for the bus” and simply stay at home.
Point being that if you have a good enough return on investment it can be worth stretching yourself to pay for it. Though, as I’ve said above, I think it’s definitely worthwhile questioning whether the return on investment is actually good enough to justify what you do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually Bp, having a look at the report, it doesnt say what you suggest at all. It clearly outlines a series of multifacteted benefits from ACE, including the reduced health, justice costs and increased economic returned from skill increase but also self esteem, community cohesion etc.
AS for benefitting the middle class predominantly, the report belies you.
”A feature of the return is that the profile of ACE participants shows a large proportion from a lower socio-economic demographic. Because of this, there is a greater marginal return in improving the outcomes for these adult learners. ”
So despite your various irrelevances above, the fact remains that the demonstrated ROI indicates substantial economic benefits from the range of course offered by ACE and that to cut them will cost more than it saves. It is economically an own goal, but works politically because the people who will lose out the most are the poor.
btw as for the hip hop tour, my understanding is that it was a kind of showcasing of NZ hip hop talent. Given the money made from NZ music, it was probably a good investment. I havent done the sums so cant say for sure. Youd never guess from the media beat up though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’m a right wing nutcase.”
The most lucid comment I’ve read all day!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s a lot of truthiness about this discussion. The assumption is that all education endeavors will show positive ROI, but the report does not say that.
But lets say we can’t split it out. Too hard. So we maintain funding for the lot.
Fine.
What other education service will you cut instead?
We have limited revenue. We can’t afford everything we want to do.
We can’t go on borrowing. You can’t get more blood out of the stone by way of tax.
Your options are to cut services somewhere else, or grow our earnings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The most lucid comment I’ve read all day!”
Whatever. Better than being away with the fairies.
You tell me how we afford everything we want to do whilst running deficits, then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
There are tax changes that would work better than just cutting, and I don’t agree that more money can’t be had. It just can’t be had from the middle-class that has traditionally been milked dry in this country. If I graduate into a job that comes with an attached effective marginal tax of 62% and someone on 3 times my income pays tax at HALF that rate… something is very fncking wrong. I told Cullen and I wrote to English.
Cullen said there aren’t enough people on the larger incomes to make a difference, neglecting entirely the effect of the perception of fairness for
the people being squeezed. Those are the folks who leave for Oz. Which alters the tax take in a way he did not consider.
English hasn’t yet responded in any language.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Folks
The challenge in the report is that they have determined that there is an indirect-intangible return on the investment, and then gone on to allocate a tangible value to the intangible benefit.
An example. It is suggested that learning bellydancing improves fitness and therefore health, and so ascribes an indirect benefit of reduced cost in the health system. However, the reduction will not be realisable as the ‘benefit’ will potentially be spread too thinly over the population to allow us to do with one less nurse or doctor or ??? other health professinal; hence it is an ‘intangible benefit with no financial value. What they then do is ascribe an “if consolidated” dollar value and claim it as a return. While it IS VALID in economic terms, it is NOT VALID in financial terms and so does not affect the country’s budget for public expenditure.
WHat does affect the budget is removing the subsidy from intangible benefit creeation, and leaving it to the individual to fund as they see fit.
In real terms, we have exceptional assets in our schools that are woefully under utilised. THe facilities sit unused for some 80% of the time (168 hours in a week, 35 teaching hours in a week, unused time = 133 hours. Doesn’t take into account holidays and vacations). Allowing these facilities to be used at no charge by adults in the community is socially responsible; expecting the users to pay for tutors and consumable items is socially equitable as it does not advantage the few at the cost of the many. Providing teachers of ESOL is a social investment as it facilitates higher output/productivity from those members of society not able to effectively communicate as adults.
I wonder how long any one commenting here would be able to survive spending 20% MORE THAN THEY EARN YEAR AFTER YEAR? I know I wouldn’t last two years!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said, Strings.
The Greens have no answer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>there aren’t enough people on the larger incomes to make a difference
There aren’t, BJ. And those that are there have the accountants to make it look otherwise. Too costly to go after, too little return.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
Are you missing the point that Cullen missed? People LEAVE because they feel they are unfairly taxed. Not the wealthiest, but the folks in the middle. The most productive. The youngest and most vital. The best educated…. but not the wealthiest.
That “brain drain”, the net migration to Oz and points beyond, that is a cost to the country. The problem is that it is an indirect cost.
It isn’t whether it is “cost effective” to go after the wealthy on the basis of what THEY pay, but whether it is cost effective in terms of perceived fairness and what everyone else does with their money.
We’ve set things up so that the people who ACTUALLY get off their butts and change stuff – THEY change countries.
THAT is the price of the bogus tax regime we live with and I’d ask you to consider that price as you consider the cost of continuing to support the inequity. Cullen left before I could answer him. You however, are here.
In truth, if the wealthy are so negligible in terms of their contribution push the tax still further so that THEY are the ones inclined to leave and the more productive (still productive) folks in the middle stay. I think the wealthy won’t (mostly) leave anyway but I don’t really think it makes a big difference. You just told me it doesn’t.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings, well that’s the point isn’t it – you critique the ROIs for each programme and work out which ones provide the greatest benefit and which ones provide the lowest. That would be one way to decide how to “cut”.
However, if they’re all measured to have significant benefits then maybe you should look elsewhere to make your cuts.
Somewhat fortunately, governments aren’t that much like households. The USA’s debt after WWII was well over 100% of its GDP, yet it then launched into nearly 30 years of sustained economic growth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>people LEAVE because they feel they are unfairly taxed
It’s got nothing to do with “fairness”. They don’t know what the guy next to them is paying. It’s to do with having more money in their pocket at the end of the day.
>>That “brain drain”, the net migration to Oz and points beyond, that is a cost to the country.
Agreed.
>>We’ve set things up so that the people who ACTUALLY get off their butts and change stuff – THEY change countries
Yes. I did, too. I came back here to relax in semi-retirement. F**k the socialists, I say. They got everything they deserved.
You can’t tax the wealthy unduly. We have very good accountants
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With 2009 being the ‘Year of the Natural Fibre’, – chucking the weaving course for adults is a masterstroke from National! They just can’t help themselves, can they.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think the economy will miss a few hippies with their spinning wheels….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While out fishing on Frog’s pond, for a Myopic Irritating Commenter , I quickly hooked… a BluePeter ! Too easy and of no nutritional value, so I tossed him back!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
They don’t know what the guy next to them is paying.
I think they DO know. It isn’t like the tax RATES are a secret.
Moreover, if you scratch this sore spot you’ll find that the “perception of inequity” is WAY more effective at motivating people to change their situation or protest, than the simple lure of a few extra bucks to spend. That’s not economics, it is human nature. If we are all suffering together but everyone is seen to be equally loaded, we system can tolerate a lot more before we start to b!tch and moan.
Which, by the way, also explains some of the attitudes we take to the folks who aren’t working but we think they should. Except that THEY can’t read, follow directions or believe that they can be paid for anything they actually have the ability to do.
As for the accountants… that argument appears in every country. The thing is that there are diminishing returns on both sides and an aggressive taxation department doesn’t necessarily pay for itself when it goes after wealthy folks… striking a balance is necessary so that the wealthy don’t reach for even bigger “hired guns”.
Sweden does reasonably well and has managed to make the marginal tax approach a monotonically increasing percentage of each additional dollar earned. We aren’t anywhere close to that condition. We could be.
Basically I don’t think that the tax would or should fall that heavily anywhere but that improving it would pay us something.
Not likely to be enough to cover the holes in the budget, but I think you’d be surprised at the difference between a “perception of unfairness” and a straight financial incentive, in motivating people to do something.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>> Myopic Irritating Commenter
Asking how we pay for your wishlist is myopic?
BJ,
I hear what you’re saying, I just disagree. I don’t think people really care what the guy above them is paying, as long as the published tax rate is higher. What they really care about is their amount of take-home pay.
I’m all for flat tax, BTW. I’d even swallow a CGT, so long as they made it tax neutral.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My wish list? I wish Key would get on with building that cycleway! It seems to be on the never-never. I was about to suggest that he personally ‘turn the first sod’…then realised that he’s just done that! (goodbye Mr Worth!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury
That is indeed the point. When you look at ACE it is reasonably clear that there is NO TANGIBLE ROI on it. Ergo, it is a matter of personal choice and desire, and should be left to individuals to buy or not buy as they deem fit.
It would be interesting to look at a number of government costs on the same basis – particularly some of the demographic and gender based cost centres.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings
If you look at just the people trained by ACE who are likely to get jobs as the direct result of ACE training, then the ROI of courses such as those being ridiculed appears low – below break even. If the tutor was previously unemployed, the investment is actually lower than it appears as you would save their unemployment benefit, and the tutor may benefit from the experience of teaching an easy course before moving on to teaching more difficult practical courses.
However if you take off the blinkers and look at the wider results of this type of training you may discover other worthwhile benefits, such as improved language skills amongst the students. Even learning how to organise their lives so they can get to classes is useful when they actually start a job and need to know how to get to that job on time. However the boost in the confidence of the students may be the biggest gain, allowing them to go on to other courses or – shock! horror! – apply for a job.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)