This I strongly agree with. Subsidies should be targeted to those who most need it. It is ridiculous that Eric Watson gets subsidized doctors visits. And it is very inefficient to tax people to then just give them that money back in subsidies.”" …end of quote…

David, I wonder is there any evidence for the idea that it is more inefficient to tax people and give them the money back in subsidies, than it is to target the subsidies. It makes intuitive sense, because there will be friction in the system as the money oasses into and then back out of the bureaucracy. I’ve heard the opposite can sometimes apply, that setting up a bureacracy to target who should get the subsidies can be very expensive, and it often doesn’t work anyway because the wealthy structure their finances so as to appear poor and get the subsidy. I know this happened at university, with allowances being claimed by many students with well off parents. I guess it varies from case to case. Do you know of any specific evidence on doctors visits?

WT

I don’t think Somalia is a legit counterexample. Every(?) advocate of small government seems to stress the need for a strong and capable law and order system to prevent citizens from infringing on its citizens’ various rights e.g. property, life. Something that Somalia certainly doesn’t have. Private bodyguards don’t count.

# KiwiGreg (782) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 0 Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am

“An example of this approach is Singapore. But what about the counterexample of Somalia?”

If you really dont understand the difference there is no point in arguing with you. If you are just making wank statements because you dont actually have an argument against small government there is no reason to argue with you.

I’m not looking for an argument, thanks. I think the “small government” mantra is ridiculously simplistic and Somalia is an extreme counterexample. Your fit of pique simply informs me that you recognise the need for a certain level of government and this is what discussion should concentrate on. It’s a simple trade off, tax vs spending. What do we cut?

Furthermore, I would say this: Brash stumbled when Ryan challenged him on what was the evidence that his approach would actually deliver and his reply was to the effect that he was just guessing. I don’t think that is good enough.

I remember when Key was promoting the example of Ireland’s tax breaks. That seems to have fallen off the agenda very quickly now Ireland has it’s own massive problems.

There is no simple fix and Brash’s Tina doesn’t work for me.

Says the PM and Finance Minister and having a former leader come out with recommendations (right or wrong) means nothing when it is DEAD before it even gets out of the water.

Thing is I am suspicious about why Brash was appointed by them as the head of the task force in the first place (with a scope and personnel for such predictable recommendations) when they were obviously going to reject the recommendations…

Which just means that “something” must be done about it, not anything.

but there is no political mandate for bold steps

Says who? I remember Key campaigning on the fact that the equivalent of Eden Park was leaving for Australia every year and that something had to be done about it.

National was elected on the basis of correcting the imbalance – so where’s their solution? It’s not good enough that we now have fatuous statements like “its too tough” – we knew it was going to be tough, but we also knew that it had to be done, otherwise we would have re-elected Helen Clark and her mob of economic vandals for a fourth term.

The fact that Don Brash was the head of the report speaks volumes, if they had found someone less divisive (former National Party leader from so recently who still has the Hollow Men stigma attached to him) they might have come up with similar radical steps (if the mandate was for radical steps i.e. to catch up with Australia in the time frame would take bold steps), but there is no political mandate for bold steps. The government has indicated already that it is not going to concentrate on the economy while taking risks with it’s social policies.

Yes it is right wing economic report and I wasn’t surprised to see the recommendations or the response, some on the centre left are up in arms about it and stuck in a timewarp, fact of the matter is Key and English have already effectively killed it. Sure the ax is now blunt but Key and English will continue with their death by a 1000 cuts instead of one chop instead…

This report will the be the centre stone of ACT’s 2011 Election Manifesto…

Cheers…

If you really dont understand the difference there is no point in arguing with you. If you are just making wank statements because you dont actually have an argument against small government there is no reason to argue with you.

Stuff Australia, they’ve got their own problems- time we looked after ourselves and stopped foreigners getting rich on our assets and hard work. Oh and keep Fonterra as a co-op for the benefit of our farmers.

“Without even looking at Brash’s recommendations I could have told you that they will be rejected out of hand by Key. The entire taskforce was never designed to produce any viable suggestion. Regardless of the merits of Brash’s recommendations, there was never a chance that Key would follow them.” and

“I had not realised you could assassinate someone twice…”

An example of this approach is Singapore. But what the counterexample of Somalia? And the fact that the majority of countries whose standards of living we aspire to do not live by the small government philosophy.

So what I would like to see from the taskforce is this: instead of parroting 1980s ideology, provide us with compelling, rigorous economic proof of the proposal that in New Zealand, the smaller government it recommends will lead to outstanding economic growth in the New Zealand context.

Failing that, it’s just a recycling of an unimaginative, tired, mantra that has no relevance to New Zealand.

Anyone who wants an Australian standard of living will have to go and live there I guess.

A couple of things to keep in mind:
Being devoted to the dollar god is bad religion.
The best things in life are not things.

Even now Bill English is starting to openly admit what David Farrar has thought all along, that New Zealand will never catch up to Australia never mine approach parity with a real first world economy.

I can’t see the problem with levvying taxation. It is necessary to have taxation in order provide services and infrastructure etc for a civil society…. but where the problem lies is that instead of providing for the common good, governments are involving themselves in stupid wasteful schemes which burn our money with little or no result. I refer to like ‘conservation’, families commissions etc, supporting intergenerational welfare fraud, stunting business and development thru the RMA, giving billions of dollars of our money to Maoris etc etc etc.

If a dedicated knife were to be taken to all the bullshit and waste, then we would actually be able to thrive as a country. Its not the amount of taxation that is the problem; its the stupid wasteful and often corrupt way that it is spent.