Budget Notes
May 19th, 2011 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarOn the fiscal side the news is pretty good. The Government almost returns to surplus in 2013/14 (a modest $700m deficit) and from 2014/15 onwards surpluses are projected. This is a huge turnaround from the fiscal outlook Treasury revealed in December 2008 which was for at least a decade of deficits – in fact for deficits to continue beyond 2023.
This is probably the first time in 70 years that a Government has actually cut spending in election year. They were planning to spend an extra $4 billion or so over the next three years, and instead will be spending around $1 billion less.
The Government is putting $5.5b into a Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Fund, and over the next three years has reduced spending in other areas by $5.6b. The key difference is the spending savings are not one off, but will remain (if the Government does not change).
The Earthquake Fund is in addition to the $3.3 billion EQC is expected to pay out, bringing the total Government contribution to $8.8b. This will go on repairing local and national infrastructure in Canterbury plus welfare support and a contingency for AMI Insurance.
The changes to KiwiSaver are three-fold.
- Employees will get $10 a week instead of $20
- The minimum employee contribution rate will increase in 2013 from 2% to 3%
- The employer contribution will also rise to 3% in 2013, and from 2012 any employers contributions will be subject to tax at the employees PAYE rate
KiwiSaver funds are projected to still reach $60b in 10 years time. And someone on the minimum wage who joins KiwiSaver at 18 will have $195,000 when they retire which would provide an additional pension of $11,500.
The changes to WFF are minor – reducing the cost from $2.8b/year to $2.6b a year. Over seven years to 2018, the abatement rate will increase from 20% to 25% for those earning over $35,000 a year. This will produce higher effective marginal tax rates for those on WFF.
I asked the Minister if he was concerned that it lifts the effective marginal tax rate for those of WFF to 58%. He responded that it was a trade off, and that as there have been tax cuts in past years, most WFF recipients will still have a lower EMTR, but acknowledges some may be higher.
I also asked if the savings from the WFF changes were worthwhile, especially as they streatch out to 2018 for full implementation. His reply was that over time they add up to making the scheme more sustainable.
The abatement rates will increase at the same time as WFF payments are inflation adjusted so a family on $40,000 will still get an increase in nominal terms. A solo parent on $90,000 a year with two kids will have his WFF reduced from $19/week to $7/week. A two income family on $61,000 with two kids will go from $116 a week to $112 a week in April 2012.
Labour says the wealthy are not paying enough, but those deemed “rich pricks” by Labour in its last term of Government (earning over $60,000) are still forecast to pay 61% of gross income tax next financial year. I estimate that probably represents 85% to 90% of net personal income tax.
Part-sales of four SOEs expected to free up to $7b of capital , which will go towards acquiring $35b of new assets in the next five years. This will be a great boost to capital markets.
This budget reminds me of the 2009 budget – both were shaped primarily by external forces. There isn’t a lot you would sensibly do different. The 2010 budget remains for me the bold budget where some risks were taken and big changes made.
The budget is politically astute – it gets NZ back into surplus earlier and minimises the impact on most people. But it has not dealt with many of the issues raised by the Savings Working Group, such as the excellent idea to tax people only on their real returns from investments, not their nominal returns. The Minister said the idea is not yet ruled out, but is complex. Hopefully they might be saving that for their election manifesto.
Tags: Budget
May 19th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
OK, John Key to keep welfare for middle income NZ, keeps ETS, smacking still gets you in jail, and oh, just return him for 2 more times, and then he’ll show $700 million profit.
PM doesn’t seem to be such a hard job.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I forgot: when thing I wouldn’t be able to promise was a magic fairy to liberally sprinkle economic growth. But I’m not good in “responsible” government.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
What’s the rest of it? The Kiwisaver changes will save less than $1b a year.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
That sums up the National Party’s vision and strategy for the NZ economy.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Why is someone on $90,000 in need of a government handout? Just lower taxes and be done with it! No vision budget.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
I remember someone in some KB thread a few days back getting 20 demerits awarded because he predicted this sort of analysis from Farrar on the budget.
If KB demerits were an actual negative, they should be reversed.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Did anyone notice the round of applause from the so called right (oh sorry now centre right) that next year we will “only” be borrowing $100,000,000 per week! Well done chaps, well fucking done.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Still folks you have to admit so far it makes Goofys protest march look a bit stupid really.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
“which will go towards acquiring $35b of new assets in the next five years.”
Vote:DPF – what are these new assets, what’s their income generation and what is the hit to the deficit of losing income from the sale of current assets?
May 19th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
This is annoying
The employer contribution will also rise to 3% in 2013, and from 2012 any employers contributions will be subject to tax at the employees PAYE rate
So they force an extra % out of my employer, then tax ME on the whole lot, so really they are just taking the extra percent for themselves. Look forward to the table which shows before and after on Kiwisaver, as it sounds pretty shit.
National, the new stealth tax party it seems.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Is there really nobody here who doubts the silly assertions that underly this deceitful budget?
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
All I can say is that it is rubbish we will be back to a surplus. .. they are assuming a big turnaround in the economy.
The treasury constantly gets forecasts wrong, so why should we believe them now?
Remember they expected a big turnaround last year too but that didn’t happen.
Our economy was powered by the housing boom – now the housing boom has crashed, people have super sized mortgages and are paying them off.
How can the government think that suddenly people are going to start spending?
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Feels like a bit of a letdown to be honest. Why can’t they prioritise growing the export sector? Doesn’t appear to be anything in there for this. Just seems like it is being ignored to an extent. It is the ONLY way we will become a wealthy nation. It really is just a ‘keep everyone as satisfied as possible’ budget rather then anything bold.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
I was happy to lose government subsidy into Kiwsaver. But why tax contributions. The only use for that is to feed the bottomless pit.
Vote:They needed to project out 10 years or so, and foretell it becoming compulsory and about 15% total.
Overall — very timid. And no long term view.
May 19th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
What a turnaround.
Vote:We were headed for a decade of deficits and permanent mediocrity.
This is the rebuilding budget that will grow the economy and deliver prosperity.
National deserves to get over 50% in November.
May 19th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Manolo (4,153) Says:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
The budget is politically astute..
That sums up the National Party’s vision and strategy for the NZ economy.
Probably why they poll at 50% and ACT polls consistently around 1%. Sadly political expediency gets votes.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
@ Fisiani – Gosh, you have a lot of faith in Treasury forecasts. Good luck with that.
What I’d like to see is how the position changes if Treasury’s growth and revenue predictions turn out to be wildly optimistic (again). There is a pattern forming here and it would be interesting see what sort of difference it makes if that pattern continues.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Key just gave Goff a thrashing… And he’s just warming up.
According to Labour, if you’re not spending other peoples money, it’s not a plan.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
“You don’t live in Mt. Roskill Mr Goff you live on Fantasy Island”.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Denying access to course costs for those studying part-time full year will have adverse impact on those on the DPB, IB SB and ACC. It’s pointless and cruel stupidity to work test people to find employment when they cannot access training so they can get jobs. It’s just downright mean – cutting off a hand up to those most in need and very counter productive.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
“the Hobbit haters”…..Key is brilliant at tearing the arms and legs off Goff and Labour.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
The Hobbit haters would rather cuddle up to some Australian Union
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
SPC: if we had interest on those loans, we wouldn’t need to restrict access to them.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
The economy is set to pick up strongly next year, growing 4 per cent after treading water for a couple of years,
hahahah Can anyone remember when we had a 4% economy for real. Not a Gdp growth feuled by people going to prisons and floods washing away houese and roads etc.
Timber to go up 20% on top of the 7 already this year. Steel up 16% just recently Cement and so no housebuilding to speak off. (well other than CHCH and people won’t be able to bridge the gap between their insurance when it arrives and the new cost.)
If you are planning on the 4% then look out.
No assistance to small businesses and no export assistance. That’s where the dosh comes from.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Wussel wah wah wah wah…
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
BB, you are being dazzeled by the side show. The real issue is that the Nats. have done SFA. (never mind the smart arse words and games of keyand Co.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
PaulL
Vote:You don’t need interest to restrict access, just don’t fund stupid courses with no job prospects and demand B- average.
May 19th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Sideshows and words are very easy for Double Dipton English, who has so far delivered bugger all.
Vote:His pathetic performace as minister of Finance inspires little or no confidence.
May 19th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
@V2, yeah, but its always nice to see Goff get smacked down.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Of course they have done SFA V2, I was just saying that watching Key in the house is bloody entertaining.
As for the budget, hell I was not disappointed at all, I knew the gutless farming loving Nat’s would not do what is needed so it was no surprise at all.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
ciaron: implies the government has any idea of what courses are useful. Given the clowns that our government generally employs, I’d rather they didn’t make those decisions – it will all end badly. A structure that doesn’t create stupid incentives would fix the problem much better.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Interesting how there is now a reference to stakeholders buying into the power companies rather than a float to New Zealand mom and dad investors and no referrence to sale to only New Zealand stakeholderrs etc.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
John Key in response to Phil Goff’s lame budget speech: best budget speech I’ve heard in years. JK is ready for the campaign trail.
Witty, engaged, dynamic, on fire.
Great lines: Lab., the ringbinder party vs National, the iPad government.
Lab. budget is a ponsy scheme.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“I knew the gutless farming loving Nat’s ”
Don’t be so bitter BB do what I am going to do sell the sheep and buy a couple of cows.
In no time at all you will be paying fuck all tax and life will take on a rosy glow.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
And what about including the Accommodation Supplement?
Vote:Is that still 83%?
May 19th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
His pathetic performace as minister of Finance inspires little or no confidence.
Ha!! yeah, what we need right now is Mr Cullen to fix everything……….
Bwah ha ha ha!! haaaaaararrrrrrR!! ha ha!!
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
@ PaulL, I finished study last year. I had a job lined up before I finished, in which my starting wage is above my previous wage as a tradesman with 15 years experience. I can only say if I was faced with interest I would not have retrained. I agree with what you say, but I am adamant that interest free loans are a good thing, they just need to be given to the right candidates.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Have to say, seeing Key UTTERLY DESTROY Gooff was extremely entertaining after Phil threw his little cliché riddled tanty.
It just kept coming until Key was bouncing red rubble all over the place.
Fantasy island
Labour really have no idea, hell, even Russell Norman put the boot into them.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
The Government is expecting 170,000 new jobs to be created in the next four years.
______________________________________________________________________
Where and by whom ?
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
If we had interest on all student loans we would provide no incentive to graduates to work here for lower wages – people who trained to do work where there were skills shortages would simply go to Oz for the higher pay.
The cost cutting was entirely misplaced – people unable to access the dole because their partner is working simply study will still be able to claim living costs on the loan until they find a job. Whereas people over 54 or those studying part-time (all those on the DPB, SB and IB and ACC) won’t even be able to borrow for course costs.
That’s cutting off the hand up – while they are being work tested.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Stuff reports:
Finance Minister Bill English defended the changes by saying Working for Families payments had trebled since 2005 and families had received two rounds of tax cuts as well.
“What I would say to that family is that a strong and growing economy is the best assurance that they will be able to meet the cost of living. We have supported them strongly through a recession – borrowing a lot of money to do it – and these relatively modest changes are going to allow us to continue to support them at the same time they pick up a wage increase.”
Mr English acknowledged Working for Families was important for families but said it was a scheme that was “designed for the good times” and it had almost trebled in cost since 2005.
Yes, the same WFF labelled “Communism by Stealth” by John Key. Figure out Labour lite’s duplicity.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Manolo; thats not inconsistent. You can for instance observe that for John Minto, It’s important that Israel be held accountable for war crimes, without actually endorsing that position.
But we’re talking about the Dipton Double Dipper* here, so all bets are off
*h/t Philu (?)
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
SPC they fuck off to Aus anyway! The only difference now is that we have to pay for the interest while they study. I wonder how much of an incentive it actually is to stay here. I wonder if most people who stay would stay anyway even with interest.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Poor BB, happy to send you a few liters of milk when the cows calve, mixes well with Kahlua. Have one for the farmers when you pay your tax.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
DPF said…
The Government almost returns to surplus in 2013/14 (a modest $700m deficit) and from 2014/15 onwards surpluses are projected.
Pfft! Nonsense. Irresponsible spending will not get Mr English there. Besides, Treasury’s projection is always wrong because they’re using outdated models.
Black with a Ven said…
The Government is expecting 170,000 new jobs to be created in the next four years.
Good point there BWAV. Their psychics at Treasury told Bill English that. It makes him feel good.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
What made me laugh though was how by cutting WFF for incomes over 60k Labour says this was hurting poor families. When the same group gets a tax cut then thats a tax cut for the rich!
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
If we want people to stay, then we target that. Interest accrues whilst you study. Get a job and work in NZ, we write off $2,000 for every year you’re paying taxes in NZ. That rewards what we want, not what we don’t want. Broad brush schemes that give everyone free money are a bad idea if what we wanted to do was target people who were unemployed, were retraining, or who stay in NZ after they graduate.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
I also asked if the savings from the WFF changes were worthwhile, especially as they streatch out to 2018 for full implementation. His reply was that over time they add up to making the scheme more sustainable.
That is a ludicrous comment by the minister. WFF is a cost with no discernable financial pay off. There is no amount of money poured into it that is sustainable. Money invested in WFF produces no asset and produces no returns. It is simply a drain on the government, an election bribe set up by Labour and now embedded by National. What is the point of changing governments if everything instituted by the previous government, however cynical and self-serving, is maintained?
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Part-sales of four SOEs expected to free up to $7b of capital , which will go towards acquiring $35b of new assets in the next five years. This will be a great boost to capital markets.
But why is boosting capital markets desirable in itself? It isn’t. The trading of assets certainly can be valuable, but it is not an end in itself. The point is that assets end up in the hands of people who can best organise and discipline them to earn more with less resources. That’s what is valuable. The fact that the value of the NZX goes up $7 billion or $x00 million more is traded per day is uninteresting in any sense that matters.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Government expects this…government expects that. Pfffttt…they’re simply pulling figures out of their backsdes. If they climbed down from their ivory towers and felt the pain at the coal face of business in NZ today, they’d realise why the economy is so rooted and why the tax take is way lower then expected. And were on earth do they expect growth for jobs to come from? Where and what is the plan to achieve that? Where are the business and export growth strategies?? There ain’t none. This budget and government is all about smoke and mirrors….cloudcuckooland stuff.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Maybe the real irony is National clawing back WFF for those on 60,000 when their supporters objected to a top rate coming in at such a low level.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Economic growth next year of 4%?
Muhahahaha.
For Key and English, visiting Treasury must be very similar to this experience: Stay Away From The Light.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
“This is a Government of aspiration, not a Government of envy”, Mr Key said after thanking high-earners for their tax contributions.
On the Government’s work on Ultra Fast Broadband, the PM said “we’re an iPad Government – wirelessly walking around, helping New Zealanders connect to the world.”
Aspires to what??? State secret and secret squirrel ain’t gonna tell.
we’re an iPad Government. no. tirelessly walking around, helping New Zealanders move elsewhere in the world.”
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
You really have to laugh at the growth estimates.
Isn’t the inflation rate more than 4%, does that mean they are forecasting a drop in ‘real’ growth?
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
This is a good budget, you know why? because all the ‘usual’s’ on the extreme left and right are grizzling bitterly.
A good indication that things are about right.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Meanwhile the poor bastards in the middle just keep on paying the bills Shunda.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Money invested in WFF produces no asset and produces no returns.
Yes, assisting families to raise children that will be the future of our country has no discernible benefit whatsoever!
I mean, it probably even helps to create good citizens, how is that going to help reduce the crime rate!!
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Meanwhile the poor bastards in the middle just keep on paying the bills Shunda.
Yep, and I too am a govt whore, but I do prefer the new blue pimp to my previous pimp, at least now I get the occasional smile and wave
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
There is a worrying lack of coherence – investment in broadband and then cutting off course cost component of the tertiary loan for those studying part-time. Thus less people will be using broadband for part-time study while working or while on a work tested benefit.
The smoke and mirrors was on full-on mode – they say 75% will get a WFF increase (they only get the CPI adjustment in future years) while the 25% who get cuts (get less than the CPI adjusted amount, some even less than they do now).
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
I wish someone would present some cold hard figures about WFF so we could actually ascertain whether or not it is a good policy for New Zealand.
For example, knowing how much churn there was – administration costs (including those incurred by people at their accountant and those incurred by IRD) as compared to total amount distributed.
Right now, there’s this wierd argument going on where people go head-to-head with their ideological opposition for-or-against targeted tax breaks for people if they have children without actually arming themselves with the basic information about how much wastage is involved in this process.
Pragmatically, WFF may not necessarily be that inefficient when it comes to its administration. Alternatively, it could be an eyewateringly inefficient use of forcibly extracted taxes. We need this information to have a proper debate!
I’m bemused by the ideological opposition to WFF however, because this seems to come from those who also express great disgust with the proportion of children born into completely welfare dependent households. To my wife and I, WFF was a very minor consideration when we chose to have a child, and is certainly nothing compared to the income we are going to forego over the next few years. It did, however, occur to us when we were budgeting recently to cope with the imminent enormous change. Seeing as NZers pay thousands of dollars per capita per year on things like education and superannuation, the forty bucks or so a week I’m going to get off my PAYE while my wife isn’t at work isn’t exactly the most radical form of left-wing social engineering.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
The thirty grand a year I pay in bloody taxes to support all the other buggers children is of course serious left wing engineering hayek particularly as I paid for my children all those years ago with fuck all help from the rest of you all.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
I simply presume that whatever “churn” is going on, it’s still more cost effective to deliver support to families through targeted tax credits than through blunt tax cuts for all that deliver less to families (and do not take into account the number of children) and more to those without children and yet still cost more in total.
If I knew the actual cost though I would be able to assess whether it is more effective than alternative targeting programmes – such as universal child payments or a social wage to a non working partner with children or a mix of the two.
PS The best way to find out some of the detail you/we are interested in is probably in looking for the advice papers to the government when this scheme was first proposed and or any related study initiated since.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
When do you want your tax paid super to start John-boy?
In the old days people only got a universal family benefit per child and a family home mortgage rebate to help afford a mortgage.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
@Johnboy, would it be fair to say that you have previously opined about the evils of uneducated unemployed people having screeds of children, yet a policy which provides very minor tax breaks to working people with a kid (in an age of housing prices which mean even someone on a decent single salary will have a reasonably tough time paying rent + regular expenses) is the most outrageous social engineering. I mean we were thinking, as you say, about waiting till our early forties when we’d be set up in every way and it becomes easy, but ask any economist with expertise as a medical statistician what the effect of that would be on the economy and I really don’t think you’d like the result!
EDIT:
Vote:@SPC, thats good advice on how to find those stats, but I don’t really have time. I suppose I’m asking too much to want the pollies to show me the figures when they get out the pruning shears.
May 19th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
SPC. I got $3 per week child allowance rising to $6 just before I became ineligible and I paid up to 18% on my Housing Corp mortgage with no rebate that I can think of.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
hayek: When I bought my first house at 24 I earned $110/week. My first mortgage was $110/month my second mortgage was $104/month. I cleaned the shithouses and polished the floors at the old Hutt Valley Power Board building for 3 hours a night to earn $28/week clear. That paid the second mortgage and we brought up two children as well with my wife doing knitting and sewing to earn a few extras.
Don’t talk shit to me about how the young need help with their bills from the rest of us.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
@Johnboy. Sounds like your accommodation cost was less than 50% of your gross pay. It certainly isn’t for me, but I’m not interested in having a pissing contest with you about how much this and that costed for you when you were a young and how much it costs for me. I
Rather than talking shit to you, I’m asking why you think this is the most redolently left-wing programme among the plethora of expensive government initiatives. WFF is a relatively insignificant economic factor for me, but I think I’m justified in seeing it as a targeted tax cut rather than a handout. Sounds like from your example that you had a child allowance of some form too. I have no idea about what your background is, but I am also getting 10% deducted per week from my student loan, for example, because I have chosen not to fuck off to Australia or Europe like many of my friends and family have. This is not what I’m really interested in though.
What I’m really interested in is that the economics of having a child certainly seem to be affecting the average age of childbirth, particularly among educated women. That has a social, and an economic outcome.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
If it costs you more than 50% of your before tax income just for accommodation hayek I suggest you get a better job/more jobs/cheaper digs.
WFF is a Socialist HANDOUT not targeted tax. If it was to do with tax it would take the from of a tax cut.
Instead the Hag wanted to buy votes and as all socialists do wanted to make the peasantry feel grateful for her largess. That Keys Government carries on the charade shows you where their true colours lie.
I would prefer to see all income up to a certain limit, adjusted for family size and income, tax free and a fairly flat rate with maybe two steps after that limit.
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Where the poor get more and the rich less that’s a tax credit system where the poor get less and the rich get more that’s a tax cut system. If the purpose is increased support for families only one of the two ways works.
Universal child allowances combined with a variable income tax free threshhold (extra for 2 parents, extra for each child) is an alternative to tax credits. But the cost of universal provision prevents a lowering of higher income tax rates.
I think we are stuck with WFF uintil we get housing values down significantly in real terms (combination of no increase in the nominal values and rising inflation/wage increases).
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
@johnboy. WFF is administered by the IRD, the tax department. If it were a handout it would come from the Ministry of Social Development. Its basic effect will be to reduce my tax.
I am interested to see the way that it operates, and how efficient that is, but it certainly sounds a lot more efficient than your proposed “I would prefer to see all income up to a certain limit, adjusted for family size and income, tax free”. I can’t see how that would not be extremely complex and inefficient for someone to administer.
WFF is probably more efficiently administered than the child subsidy which you received when you were a young guy, which is good news for both me and you.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 3:38 am
Hayek, for 2010 (actuals) WFF transfers cost = 2,808 million.
IRD admin cost for WFF = 78 million, note this excludes policy advice costs re WFF and the cost to other departments – in particular MSD (Work & Income which actually frontlines WFF while IRD administers plus it also ties to Accommodation allowance, ECE and benefits for FTC). Unfortunately vote Welfare doesn’t breakout the cost for WFF and others but I would estimate at least another +50% in admin = ~117 million.
Therefore churn/deadweight loss = 4.17%. However this is just the visible cost, the hidden costs and distortions are also considerable but hard to quantify, NZIER, IRD/Treasury and even the good old 2025 Taskforce all have papers on these. Being:
- Big disincentives to raising incomes, as others have already said the marginal effective tax rates are huge for “middle income”(abatement 36.7K-70K p.a.) earners, exceeding 80% in many cases. Plus this situation was getting worse as the abatement threshold was frozen at $36,827.11 and over time more earn over this.
- Over time more and more capture of the benefits by “middle” & “high” earners, i.e. on $93K with 2 children could still get WFF.
- High income earners gaming the system via trusts, companies, income structuring, etc to gain WFF (though these “loopholes”are now being closed).
- Unfairness, Joe A. and Joe.B work side by side, doing exactly the same job for exactly the same pay of $50K. Joe A. has three children, Joe B. has a sick mother and a 19yo dependent on him, Joe A. actually gets $268 more a week ($14K p.a.) in hand than Joe B.
- Employers indirectly using WFF as a wage subsidy, keeping pay/labour costs low and resisting spending on productivity lifting capital.
Just consider, if WFF was abolished and the money ($2,925,000,000.00 per annum) used instead as an income tax cut we could have A UNIVERSAL PERSONAL TAX FREE THRESHOLD OF AT LEAST $11,200 (and this threshold excludes the massive cost and time saving of 887,000 citizens no longer having to do tax assessments). Remember WFF only started in 2005 six years ago, if National keeps it going for another six years (which seems likely) how entrenched, how economically distorting, how costly will it be by then? Is it not worth considering abolishing it and trying something else?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 9:04 am
@Joseph Carpenter: Thanks for those figures.
Government programmes of this proportion are bound to have a broad range of impacts, including distortions, I think that is not in contention. I think some of those distortions are potential problems, but have they been proven by economic research? Certainly for me, I wouldn’t see high marginal tax rates due to Kiwisaver losses as a disincentive to earn more. Those sorts of disincentives have usually been observed in people who are not otherwise employed feeling the abatement of their social welfare benefits, but I don’t think it can be extrapolated to WFF. Having said that I’m surpised by the amount that JoeA gets compared to JoeB. JoeB however gets other largesse from the state: his mother is on super, she gets free healthcare, she gets her free trips to Kawau Island, JoeB’s 19year old can go to uni and get a student allowance, etc etc.
I think my real point is that NZers seem to think tax breaks based on how many dependent kids you have are a fair and equitable way of doing things. From what you’ve said, the churn is not enormous as a proportion of the programme’s cost.
As for trusts: people will always do that to effect whatever tax thresholds there are. The only way to change that would be to have, say, a flat 17% tax on incomes, companies, trusts, and consumption. However I don’t support that and neither does most of the electorate.
As for your suggestion we could eliminate individual tax assessments….. NEVER going to happen!
Vote: