How to cut goverment

[charrison]

linkage

All farm subsidies were ended in less than two years. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately and have continued to decline. Today, the average New Zealand tariff rate is a mere 3.2 percent-virtually unilateral free trade. In fact, over 90 percent of all imports now enter the country completely free of any quota, duty, or other restriction.

Taxes were slashed. The top rate is now 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The average income tax level is just 21.5 percent. There are no capital gains or real estate taxes at all.

Since 1984, the New Zealand government has been engaged in a massive privatization effort, selling off at least 22 state enterprises. Its most dramatic success was the sale of Telecom NZ. Pre-privatization, this state communications firm boasted 26,500 employees, many of them in do--nothing jobs. Lean, modernized, and in private hands, it now employs 9,300 and faces competition for the first time from such companies as MCI in long distance and Bell South in cellular.

The country has not suffered some privately engineered communications nightmare; rather, it has gone from antiquated technology to a 97 percent digital system rated second on the planet by the World Competitiveness Report. Telecom NZ is no longer a drain on the public treasury. It actually pays taxes.

New Zealand's public-sector work force in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing of any government anywhere, its public-sector work force stood at less than 36,000-a reduction of 59 percent. The Ministry of Transport, when it owned and operated everything from the ports to a national airline, employed 4,500. Its entire staff now occupies the equivalent of two floors of a typical downtown office building.

 

[Gravity]

Despite the fact that I now work for state entity, I agree tht privatization is the key. However, the other evil is corporate greed from the likes of Enron, abusing their public trust for their own gain.

 

[Kappo]

This does no good for libdems. They WANT people to have to DEPEND on the government. How else could they get voters?

 

[tec699]

It will never fly in America. We have people that literally put down millions of dollars for a job in congress that pays $60,000 a year. Case in point is Corzine from NJ. The guy is a millionaire 20 times over. During the last election he payed close to 6 million dollars for election funding. The job he was after only pays $50,000 a year. The guys a millionaire!

It's because he's getting kickbacks and he caters to the special interest groups. They suck the system dry.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Kappo
This does no good for libdems. They WANT people to have to DEPEND on the government. How else could they get voters?

Have you not been paying attention to the last few years, the republicans have joined the ranks of the big goverment parties.

 

[SuperTool]

NZ also spends $150 per capita on defense vs $1000 for the US. Being a superpower aint cheap
Also, their current top tax rate is not all that different from ours, so I am not sure what you are whining about there.
Also, if you look at govt budget per capita, it's a little higher than the US 7.5 vs 6.6 k/year, while their GDP per capita is about half 20K vs 36K of the US.
Their budget is 37% of GDP vs. US 19% of GDP, though it may be closer if you include state budgets.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So this is apples to oranges comparison. I like NZ, but different strokes for different folks.

 

[Spencer278]

So is your point that the US shouldn't have a goverment operated telephone network?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
NZ also spends $150 per capita on defense vs $1000 for the US. Being a superpower aint cheap
Also, their current top tax rate is not all that different from ours, so I am not sure what you are whining about there.
Also, if you look at govt budget per capita, it's a little higher than the US 7.5 vs 6.6 k/year, while their GDP per capita is about half 20K vs 36K of the US.
Their budget is 37% of GDP vs. US 19% of GDP, though it may be closer if you include state budgets.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So this is apples to oranges comparison. I like NZ, but different strokes for different folks.

Well there is much to learn from their goverment downsize. Downsizing their goverment in the end reduced unemployment, raised incomed and raised tax receipts.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
So is your point that the US shouldn't have a goverment operated telephone network?

My theory is that charrison gets aroused from reading words like "cuts", "rates", "government", and "percent" in the same paragraph. He just wants to share his joy with the rest of us, can't knock him on that.

I'm not sure what his point is. That a nation of goat herders and hobbits have a lower tax rate than us isn't all that significant. I don't know how New Zealand can in any way be compared to the United States. Nor do I see any direct quotes or stats about the average New Zealander on his quality of life compared to before this revolucion...

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Kappo
This does no good for libdems. They WANT people to have to DEPEND on the government. How else could they get voters?

Have you not been paying attention to the last few years, the republicans have joined the ranks of the big goverment parties.

Yes, I pay attention.

The difference is that the libdems NEED people to rely on the government in order to pad thier wallets with government money and look like they are heros. Without a big government they would have almost no power.

The republicans need a bigger government to make sure everyone does what they are told. They rely on the government to cater to big businesses to be able to pad THIER wallets. But they would still retain power if you slimmed it down (probably moreso if you actually make people work, although tons of people would complain that they arent supposed to have to do anything for themselves, it's the government's job - you dont hear of very many self-made people being liberal democrats).

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
NZ also spends $150 per capita on defense vs $1000 for the US. Being a superpower aint cheap
Also, their current top tax rate is not all that different from ours, so I am not sure what you are whining about there.
Also, if you look at govt budget per capita, it's a little higher than the US 7.5 vs 6.6 k/year, while their GDP per capita is about half 20K vs 36K of the US.
Their budget is 37% of GDP vs. US 19% of GDP, though it may be closer if you include state budgets.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So this is apples to oranges comparison. I like NZ, but different strokes for different folks.

Well there is much to learn from their goverment downsize. Downsizing their goverment in the end reduced unemployment, raised incomed and raised tax receipts.

Where does it say that in the article? I don't see that mentioned, or cause and effect relationship established.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Kappo
This does no good for libdems. They WANT people to have to DEPEND on the government. How else could they get voters?

Have you not been paying attention to the last few years, the republicans have joined the ranks of the big goverment parties.

Yes, I pay attention.

The difference is that the libdems NEED people to rely on the government in order to pad thier wallets with government money and look like they are heros. Without a big government they would have almost no power.

No, they'd do alright, there no real alternative for most people. The republican party in it's current form is a very repulsive one.

The republicans need a bigger government to make sure everyone does what they are told. They rely on the government to cater to big businesses to be able to pad THIER wallets. But they would still retain power if you slimmed it down

I doubt it, they would lose their power base, their money. Take the money from the current republican party and it's over for them.

(probably moreso if you actually make people work, although tons of people would complain that they arent supposed to have to do anything for themselves, it's the government's job - you dont hear of very many self-made people being liberal democrats).

Here's an op-ed from the nytimes, the actual one's been archived so I'll quote the whole thing.

By DANIEL H. PINK

WASHINGTON

Each of the Democratic candidates vying to replace George W. Bush has a serious electability problem. The problem has nothing to do with their biographies or temperaments ? and everything to do with a significant, but unnoticed, structural divide in American presidential politics.

Each year, the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group, crunches numbers from the Census Bureau to produce an intriguing figure: how much each state receives in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.

For example, according to the most recent data, for every dollar the average North Dakotan paid in federal taxes, he received $2.07 in federal benefits. But while someone in Fargo was doubling his money, his counterpart in neighboring Minnesota was being shortchanged. For every dollar Minnesotans sent to Washington, only 77 cents in federal spending flowed back to the state.

Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50 states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax dollar they send to Washington. Thirty-three states are Takers; 16 are Givers. (One state, Indiana, has a perfect one-to-one ratio of taxes paid and spending received. As seat of the federal government, the District of Columbia has no choice but to be a Taker, and is therefore not comparable to the 50 states in this regard.)

The Democrats' electability predicament comes into focus when you compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states ? while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse. George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states.

Consider:

78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.

76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.

Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.

Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12.

Juxtaposing these maps provides a new perspective on the political landscape. (Interactive moment: Color in the blue and red states ? then you'll get the full picture.) Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party ? their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states ? the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers ? are left to carry the load.

For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution ? and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It's shrewd politics.

And it puts the eventual Democratic presidential nominee in a bind, should he try to rally those who believe they aren't getting a fair shake from Washington. If the Democratic candidate won all 16 Giver states plus the District of Columbia in November, he'd collect only 254 electoral votes, short of the majority needed to capture the White House. The electoral votes of all the Taker states, by contrast, add up to 273 ? two more than Mr. Bush won in 2000.

Is there a way out for Democrats? Maybe not. With Republicans holding the purse strings, it's the Democrats who are being taken

The perception may be that Democrats are the big spenders, but that's not the case and if dederal spending, subsidies, and such were cut drastically or eliminated all together, the ones hurt the worst would be the republican states. If the democrats would take a hit from a cut in spending as you say, the republicans would take an even bigger hit.

 

[Dissipate]

More Linkage

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
NZ also spends $150 per capita on defense vs $1000 for the US. Being a superpower aint cheap
Also, their current top tax rate is not all that different from ours, so I am not sure what you are whining about there.
Also, if you look at govt budget per capita, it's a little higher than the US 7.5 vs 6.6 k/year, while their GDP per capita is about half 20K vs 36K of the US.
Their budget is 37% of GDP vs. US 19% of GDP, though it may be closer if you include state budgets.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So this is apples to oranges comparison. I like NZ, but different strokes for different folks.

Well there is much to learn from their goverment downsize. Downsizing their goverment in the end reduced unemployment, raised incomed and raised tax receipts.

Pray tell, why should tax receipts be raised? Why not downsize government AND revenue? Why not let the free market keep ALL of its wealth?

A lot of politicians have figured this out about the free market, they know that if they let the free market do its thing and then just bleed even a small percent, they can more than make up for the "lost" tax revenue by riding the economy's increased productivity. Just look at the U.S. government, by implementing a mixed economy it has gained more wealth and power than the communist government of Russia could ever dream of.

Therefore, these mixed economy advocates are even more dangerous than the socialists/communists in some ways! So, we must bear in mind that while there are benefits to be had from their proposals, their proposals are still in the end proposals that increase or maintain the government's wealth and power.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
NZ also spends $150 per capita on defense vs $1000 for the US. Being a superpower aint cheap
Also, their current top tax rate is not all that different from ours, so I am not sure what you are whining about there.
Also, if you look at govt budget per capita, it's a little higher than the US 7.5 vs 6.6 k/year, while their GDP per capita is about half 20K vs 36K of the US.
Their budget is 37% of GDP vs. US 19% of GDP, though it may be closer if you include state budgets.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So this is apples to oranges comparison. I like NZ, but different strokes for different folks.

Well there is much to learn from their goverment downsize. Downsizing their goverment in the end reduced unemployment, raised incomed and raised tax receipts.

Where does it say that in the article? I don't see that mentioned, or cause and effect relationship established.

Will look for a better article when i get back. Heard more detail on the radio this afternoon, from the economist that architected the cuts.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
NZ also spends $150 per capita on defense vs $1000 for the US. Being a superpower aint cheap
Also, their current top tax rate is not all that different from ours, so I am not sure what you are whining about there.
Also, if you look at govt budget per capita, it's a little higher than the US 7.5 vs 6.6 k/year, while their GDP per capita is about half 20K vs 36K of the US.
Their budget is 37% of GDP vs. US 19% of GDP, though it may be closer if you include state budgets.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So this is apples to oranges comparison. I like NZ, but different strokes for different folks.

Well there is much to learn from their goverment downsize. Downsizing their goverment in the end reduced unemployment, raised incomed and raised tax receipts.

Pray tell, why should tax receipts be raised? Why not downsize government AND revenue? Why not let the free market keep ALL of its wealth?

It was intended to be revenue neutral, but people complied with the lower tax levels, rather than trying to find loopholes.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
NZ also spends $150 per capita on defense vs $1000 for the US. Being a superpower aint cheap
Also, their current top tax rate is not all that different from ours, so I am not sure what you are whining about there.
Also, if you look at govt budget per capita, it's a little higher than the US 7.5 vs 6.6 k/year, while their GDP per capita is about half 20K vs 36K of the US.
Their budget is 37% of GDP vs. US 19% of GDP, though it may be closer if you include state budgets.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So this is apples to oranges comparison. I like NZ, but different strokes for different folks.

Well there is much to learn from their goverment downsize. Downsizing their goverment in the end reduced unemployment, raised incomed and raised tax receipts.

Where does it say that in the article? I don't see that mentioned, or cause and effect relationship established.

Will look for a better article when i get back. Heard more detail on the radio this afternoon, from the economist that architected the cuts.

I posted linkage to the better article right above the post you quoted.