The policy options currently on the table involve a change in the tax mix that deliver the same amount of revenue to the government. Whether the total tax take is too high or too low – whether government is too big or too small – is a different issue. The aim of the current proposals for tax reform is to find a better way to collect the same amount of tax revenue. What is meant by a better way? One that is more conducive to economic growth, fairer to those who can least afford to pay, easier to understand, more difficult to avoid and cheaper to comply with and administer.

Compared to GST, income tax is easier to avoid, more costly to administer, more complex and, as a result more unfair. Its interaction with welfare benefits warps the incentive to work and thus impedes economic growth. So what sort of advantages might an increase in GST coupled with a revenue neutral reduction in personal income taxes actually deliver?

GST also covers a wider base, such as tourists, not just income earners.

In some preliminary analysis with an economy-wide model I investigated the impacts of raising GST to 15%. This would raise enough revenue to fund a uniform proportional reduction in all personal income tax rates of about 10%. For example the 38% rate would drop to 34% and the 21% rate to about 19%.

The changes may not look like much, but the wider economic effects are quite dramatic:

1. An increase in employment of 17,500 full time equivalent jobs.
2. An increase in real income of an average $250 per person per year.
3. An increase in real household spending of $420 per household per year.
4. An increase in aggregate household savings of $280m, contributing to a lift in aggregate real investment of almost half a billion dollars per annum.

That sounds all very worthwhile to me. Note those increases to income and spending are not from redistribution – they are from the higher economic growth.

The uncertainties notwithstanding, it is clear that the macroeconomic gains are significant for what is in effect a fairly minor shuffle of the tax mix. One wonders what sort of gains could be generated by more fundamental reform of the tax and benefit system. If the incomes of New Zealanders are ever going to catch up with the incomes of Australians, tax reform is likely to be an important step in the process.

A very good point. It is a pity land tax has been ruled out.

A video of starving calves is above.

I recommend people go read the story, which is pretty shocking. Extracts:

New Zealand’s biggest privately held dairying operation allowed dozens of calves on one of its massive farms on North Island’s central plateau to slowly dehydrate to death earlier this month, triggering a MAF investigation but no prosecution. …

Poor management and the pressures of massive debts obtained during rapid expansion meant this farm was so poorly managed that none of the staff trained the calves to drink milk, allowing them to die of dehydration in a muddy pen even though their trough was often full.

The Crafers have been prosecuted numerous times on various issues such as releasing effluent into waterways.

After interest.co.nz obtained the video, producer Bryan Spondre and I visited the farm where the calves had been kept to find out more. When we drove up next to the calf shed we were confronted by farm manager Sam Webb. He told us to: “Get the f**k off this property. You have no right to be here.”

Bryan started taking photographs of the shed and Sam Webb manhandled him back into our car before swearing abuse and grabbing at Bryan’s camera.

“I’ll take both of you bastards out,” he yelled.

Webb then punched Bryan through the open window of the car door. The punch was so hard it dislodged Bryan’s contact lens. We drove off and the picture published to the left shows Webb yelling at us as we left: “F**k off you c**ts.”

Where’s the picture of the black eye?

Go read the full story, and the questions Bernard has for MAF and Fonterra.

An excellent piece of investigative journalism.

Also a few days ago they had an interesting story about how John Key’s interview in the Wall Street Journal helped ANZ National secure $1 billionf of finance:

Last week ANZ National CEO Graham Hodges went to the United States for a roadshow to promote this US$1 billion bond issue. Its success was no sure thing.

Time and again, Hodges says, investors told him Key’s interview in the Wall St Journal had reassured them, despite the uncertainty of a potential credit rating downgrade. Sometimes it’s a struggle to get foreign investors to look past the shorthand of credit ratings and the headlines of research notes. Key’s interview made them sit up and take notice.

Hodges said it seemed to strike a chord.

It turns out the interview was a crucial factor in the success of the bond issue, the first long term issue by a New Zealand bank since July last year. It is likely to set the tone for more.

Stuff like this you just never see in most other media.