Pages

15. maaliskuuta 2019

Tolkkua Uudessa-Seelannissa

Näin se nyt vaan on.

5 kommenttia:

Olavi Koskela kirjoitti...

Suoraa ja oikeaa puhetta senaattorilta. Kyllä täkäläisillä poliittisesti ylikorrekteilla vässyköillä olisi helvetisti opittavaa.

Lauri Stark kirjoitti...
Kirjoittaja on poistanut tämän kommentin.
LS kirjoitti...

Tuo on ainakin hyvä alku.

Toinen asia missä Uusi-Seelanti todellakin näytti (1984-1993) mallia maailmalle:

Maurice P. McTigue - Rolling Back Government: Lessons From New Zealand

As we started to work through this process, we also asked some fundamental questions of the agencies. The first question was, “What are you doing?” The second question was, “What should you be doing?” Based on the answers, we then said, “Eliminate what you shouldn’t be doing” – that is, if you are doing something that clearly is not a responsibility of the government, stop doing it. Then we asked the final question: “Who should be paying – the taxpayer, the user, the consumer, or the industry?” [...]

When we started this process with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When we finished, it had 53. When we started with the Forest Service, it had17,000 employees. When we finished, it had 17. When we applied it to the Ministry of Works, it had 28,000 employees. I used to be Minister of Works, and ended up being the only employee. [...]

We achieved an overall reduction of 66 percent in the size of government, measured by the number of employees. The government’s share of GDP dropped from 44 to 27 percent. We were now running surpluses, and we established a policy never to leave dollars on the table: We knew that if we didn’t get rid of this money, some clown would spend it. So we used most of the surplus to pay off debt, and debt went from 63 percent down to 17 percent of GDP. We used the remainder of the surplus each year for tax relief. We reduced income tax rates by half and eliminated incidental taxes. As a result of these policies, revenue increased by 20 percent. Yes, Ronald Reagan was right: lower tax rates do produce more revenue.

What about regulations? The regulatory power is customarily delegated to non-elected officials who then constrain the people’s liberties with little or no accountability. These regulations are extremely difficult to eliminate once they are in place. But we found a way: We simply rewrote the statutes on which they were based. For instance, we rewrote the environmental laws, transforming them into the Resource Management Act – reducing a law that was 25 inches thick to 348 pages. We rewrote the tax code, all of the farm acts, and the occupational safety and health acts. To do this, we brought our brightest brains together and told them to pretend that there was no pre-existing law and that they should create for us the best possible environment for industry to thrive. We then marketed it in terms of what it would save in taxes. These new laws, in effect, repealed the old, which meant that all existing regulations died – the whole lot, every single one. [...]

We lowered the high income tax rate from 66 to 33percent, and set that flat rate for high-income earners. In addition, we brought the low end down from 38 to 19 percent, which became the flat rate for low-income earners. We then set a consumption tax rate of 10 percent and eliminated all other taxes – capital gains taxes, property taxes, etc. We carefully designed this system to produce exactly the same revenue as we were getting before and presented it to the public as a zero sum game. But what actually happened was that we received 20 percent more revenue than before.

Lauri Stark kirjoitti...

Se on joo hyvin sanottu.

LS kirjoitti...

LS: Fall Of The Cabal

God Wins

Lähetä kommentti

Kommentoinnin säännöt:
1) Pysytään aiheessa.
2) Relevantti suora kysymys edellyttää vastausta.
3) Käyttäkää nimimerkkiä, jotta on selvää, kuka puhuu.