Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Some facts on tax and waste

If the government spent $100 a year:

  • $20 would go on health;
  • $18 would go on education;
  • $13 would go on superannuation;
  • $11 would go on other benefits, including family support, the accomodation supplement, and ACC;
  • $7 would go on other expenses;
  • $5 would go on police and the courts;
  • $5 would go on repaying Muldoon's debts;
  • $4 would go on core government services;
  • $4 would go on roads;
  • $3 would go on defence;
  • $3 would go on the DPB;
  • $2.25 would go on the invalids benefit;
  • $2 would go on student loans;
  • $2 would go on the unemployment benefit;
  • 75 cents would go on the sickness benefit;

0.0054 cents would go on hip-hop tours.

Kindof puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

(Data from this handy chart, courtesy of Span, with additional data from the Budget 2005 summary tables and estimates for Vote: Social Development.)


What realy matters is Return on investment.

money spend wisely might give you everything you need and give you more money back afterwards - money spent poorly might have no effect at all.

Not that I trust national to spend the money any wiser.

Posted by Genius : 8/30/2005 06:57:00 AM

I note the benefits add up to 34%.
It seems strange to not add them up into a single total except in that it makes them look smaller

Posted by Genius : 8/30/2005 07:19:00 AM

I think it makes a great deal of sense to split them out genius. People have quite different views of those benefits, or at least their recipients. Interesting to see for example how small unemployment benefits are as a proportion of the whole - I would never have guessed that.

Posted by stephen : 8/30/2005 08:15:00 AM

And how much of the education money has gone on sub-degree courses which less than half complete or even turn up to?

Posted by David Farrar : 8/30/2005 08:33:00 AM

DPF: about 13 cents, according to National's own factsheet. If you extend it to include the entire polytech and PTE system (which is what National is talking about when they talk about "sub-degree courses"), then that's $1.25.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/30/2005 09:36:00 AM

The Hip Hop numbers show up how misguided the outrage over the trip is. In terms of return on investment, how much tax would Scribe be paying? If we could influence young people to choose a career in music, not just performing but in all of the other facets of it, would we not make a profit on the $26,00 investment?

Posted by Anonymous : 8/30/2005 09:54:00 AM

Typo there,I meant $26,000.

Posted by Anonymous : 8/30/2005 09:57:00 AM

Shockingly, no figure appears for overseas aid. Which could help to explain why the OECD regularly criticises NZ for being miserly on this front.

Posted by Anonymous : 8/30/2005 11:29:00 AM

Overseas aid would be about 25 cents, as I recall, compared to the UN-recommended 70 cents (which is still far too low).

Posted by Commie Mutant Traitor : 8/30/2005 12:20:00 PM

So if they only need to spend a hundy why do the Govt feel the need to tax to a $8bn surplus?

Posted by Anonymous : 8/30/2005 07:21:00 PM

Stephen, I think seperating out benefits is rather like seperating healthcare out by who benefits "healthcare for the rich, healthcare for maori, healthcare for middle class, health care for poor, healthcare for asians....

People may have different opinions on those catagories but it probably depends quite a bit on which group they belong to or associate with.

Posted by Genius : 8/31/2005 08:20:00 PM

Muldoon's debts (and those accrued before him) would be about $1.50. Debts accumulated in the following fifteen years would be the remainder of the $5. Actually about $3 by the end of the 80s, when we were selling off all those assets to pay off debt (in reality, to pay for tax cuts for the rich). National in the nineties actually increased debt too. Muldoon was irresponsible. What does that make the rest of them?

Posted by Anonymous : 9/02/2005 02:51:00 AM