Written By:
- Date published:
11:53 am, February 12th, 2008 - 10 comments
Categories: john key, national, spin, tax -
Tags: john key, national, spin, tax
John Key tells us that he would cut ‘wasteful government spending’ to pay for upper-bracket tax cuts bigger than Labour’s cuts. But do the facts match the rhetoric?
Remember National’s wastewatch website? It listed $900 million in ‘waste’ since 1999 only 0.2% of government spending, which won’t pay for many tax cuts. And most of the supposed ‘waste’ was building new prisons, hardly waste.
While Key talks about restraining government spending he hasn’t actually announced any spending cut policies, just the opposite. Last month alone Key announced: $100 million for boot camps for 1000 problem kids; $15 million for bonus for early student loan repayments, more if early repayments actually increase; uncosted extra spending on prisons from repeal of bail laws; uncosted increase in spending on Court security; uncosted increase in funding (up to $2 billion) for leaky homes.
Key needs to be truthful. He needs to say what spending he would cut. Instead, he announces increased spending at every turn. How would he pay for monster tax cuts? Magic?
I am happy to exchange a cut in judith tizard’s massive travel bill for a reduction in the amount i pay in tax – or are you suggesting that this is taxpayer money well spent?
Top stuff rjs – that’ll be maybe a third of a cent per worker. Please try again.
I remember looking through wastewatch, and even taking all of the stupid content into account, it came out at about $4 per worker per year. I suspect Key’s definition of wasteful spending is very different to that of your average New Zealander.
John Key
he flips, he flops
like a mullet in a net
moving a lot
but going nowhere
glazed eyes fixed
on an imaginary prize
sprout. That’s, that’s beautiful.
rjs131. A sense of scale might be useful.
“Growing the spending at a lower rate” is speech for cuts in real expenditure.
A Key government which grew spending in the state sector at 1%, with inflation at 2-3% and with necessary expenses rising in cost along similar lines, would either result in less capability to deliver of the same services or cuts in services deemed politically “wasteful”.
I think you will see a significant cap on govt employment. They won’t cut but won’t grow. I’d expect some of the smaller departments merged and a close look at some of the programmes being pursued and associated PR budgets.
I see Labour are going to inflate house prices further with taxpayer subsidised loans. Brilliant…
insider. Are you listening the the speech? Because I’m pretty sure the PM just said subsidising loans is precisely not what they’re doing. rest assured we’ll have a post on the speech on due course.
Just read it steve.
“It’s not a problem which can be solved by throwing a lot more money at mortgage subsidies – that would only drive prices up still further.”
” in July this year, we will launch a shared equity scheme targeted at new builds to help people in high-cost areas get onto the home ownership ladder.”
insider. do you know what a shared equity scheme is? It’s not a subsidised loan. The government buys part of the house in conjunction with the home buyer. The home buyer has to put out less moeny but they get less equity too. no loan subsidy but more affordability.
It still would put upward pressure on prices, but the scheme is limited to new houses for first home owners. that’s not going to have much effect on the broader market.
“but the scheme is limited to new houses for first home owners. that’s not going to have much effect on the broader market”
Erm… do you want to recant that now, or be made to look like a complete and utter fool in six months time?