Public Finance debates
A series of three debates on the theme "It's time..."
Organised by the Chair in Public Finance (Victoria University of Wellington), and the Government Economics Network (GEN)
- "It's time… to tax the internet"
- "It's time… New Zealand extended charging for public infrastructure"
- "It's time… New Zealand adopted a social insurance approach to welfare"
- Each debate is set for 1.5 hours: Two individuals will each present for 20 minutes; then ‘Commentator’ for 10 mins.
- One individual will be the ‘proponent’ and make the case for, while the other individual will be the ‘opponent’ and make the case against.
- A third individual, the 'commentator', will provide some 'middle ground' comments and provide some stimulus for discussion and Q&A with the audience.
- A straw poll show-of-hands will be taken at the end of the debate to determine the ‘winner’.
- Light refreshments will be provided after the debate to facilitate further informal discussions.
All speakers are asked to make the case strongly either for or against each of the above propositions - to inform, identify the strengths of the arguments/evidence used to support particular views and to enhance the debate ‘atmosphere’. Similar to past debates, it will be made clear at the outset that the views and arguments expressed by all the speakers do not necessarily reflect either their own personal views nor the official policy or position of their employers.
The Public Finance Debates 3: It’s time… New Zealand adopted a social insurance approach to welfare
Several countries provide working-age welfare and retirement income funded from specific earnings-related ‘contributions’ (taxes) rather than funded out of general tax revenues as in New Zealand. These contributions are also sometimes related to the individual welfare payments received by beneficiaries, though this link can be ‘loose’ (as in the UK) or stronger (as in the Netherlands). What are the merits of each and should NZ continue to avoid social security taxes on labour? Or should New Zealand copy the ‘Kiwisaver approach’ applied to retirement income, and apply it also to working-age welfare where some benefits are directly tied to individual’s ‘welfare accounts’?
Date: 2 December, 2013, Monday, 4.00 - 5.30pm (followed by light refreshments)
Location: Victoria University, Old Government Buildings, Lecture Theatre 1, 15 Lambton Quay
Please RSVP by noon, Nov 29, Fri: to cherry.chang@vuw.ac.nz with subject heading "Debate 3".
The Public Finance Debates 2
Date: 12 November 2013
Time: 3.00pm
Venue: PWC, Level 16, 113-119 The Terrace, Wellington
Various ‘big public infrastructure’ projects in New Zealand (e.g. Auckland rapid transit, new harbour crossing, Transmission Gully) are likely to require substantial funding in the near future if they go ahead. Also, Auckland (and to some extent, Wellington) suffer considerable road congestion presently. Is it time to start road congestion charging and/or other types of infrastructure user charge to fund these investments and to enable greater infrastructure investment than a tax/debt constrained government could otherwise afford? What are the pros and cons?
Date: November 12, Tuesday, 3.00-4.30pm (followed by light refreshments)
Location : PwC, Level 16, 113-119 The Terrace, Wellington
RSVP to cherry.chang@vuw.ac.nz with the subject heading “Debate 2″ by noon Monday 11 November.
The Public Finance Debates 4 - A discount rate of 8% for public sector projects is too high
Date: 23 November 2012
Time: 3.00pm
Venue: Lecture Theatre 1, Old Government Building, 15 Lambton Quay
Time: 3-4.30pm, drinks and canapes 4.30-5.30pm
Many public spending decisions involve major long-term investments such as for infrastructure or healthcare. Therefore, the choice of discount rate can have far reaching consequences such as ‘roads versus hospitals’ as well as ‘hospitals versus home-care services’. With different government departments in New Zealand using different discount rates (8% is a common choice), this debate will seek to clarify the merits of different approaches to setting those rates, and debate the case for high versus low discount rates. For further information, please view flyer.
Please RSVP by 5pm, Nov 22 to cpf-info@vuw.ac.nz
The Public Finance Debates 3 - The New Zealand Government should sell 100% of its SOE stake, not 49%
Date: 24 October 2012
Time: 3.00pm
Thank you to those who attended our 2nd Public Finance debate on 28th September, which addressed the question of whether New Zealand would be better off with lower tax rates on capital. The proponent, Michael Reddell and the opponent, Robin Oliver, delivered entertaining and robust presentations with John Creedy as Commentator challenging both to “show us the evidence”. A highly unscientific show of hands at the end showed strong majority support against cutting capital tax rates. A summary (with notes from presenters) and photos from the debate are available on our website.
Our next debate, on 24th October, will turn to the controversial topic of state asset sales: if the government is going to sell SOE shares, why not do it properly and sell them all?!
“If there is a good case for government selling shares in an SOE, why not do it properly and sell them all?”! Many economists have made this case for full privatisation of state production rather than leaving the Crown with a majority shareholding. However, retaining a 51% stake is exactly what the current government is proposing in its new ‘mixed ownership model’. The two contributors will debate this ‘full versus partial’ privatisation case with the aim of highlighting the key economic arguments and evidence.
Proponent: Paul Dyer
Opponent: Lew Evans
Commentator: Arthur Grimes
Please join us on: Wednesday 24th October at 3.00pm (note different time & date than previously provided). There will be drinks and canapés after the debate for an informal discussion with your peers. See attached flyer for further details.
Where: Old Government Building, Lambton Quay, Lecture Theatre 1.
Please RSVP by 23rd October.
The Public Finance Debates 2 - New Zealand should tax all its capital income at 28% or less
Date: 28 September 2012
Time: 3.00pm
Venue: Old Government Building, Lecture Theatre 1
"New Zealand should tax all its capital income at 28% or less"
Debaters: Michael Reddell (Proponent) vs. Robin Oliver (Opponent)
Professor Norman Gemmell (Chair in Public Finance, Victoria) and Dr Girol Karacaoglu (Head, GEN) chair a series of four debates based around some prominent NZ public finance "key numbers".
These debates aim to provide opportunities for informed discussion, rather than political rhetoric. All speakers have been asked to either strongly make the case for or against a proposition to clarify the debate, separately from their personal views, and we would like to thank all the speakers in advance for their enthusiasm and participation. Without their input, this new venture in 'policy debates' would not be possible.
In the second debate of this series, the arguments will centre around whether New Zealand should "Go Nordic"? Some Nordic countries tax capital income at about half the top rate on labour income, in part to attract and retain capital while keeping a strongly progressive labour income tax system.
- Could such a system here help to improve New Zealand’s alleged slow, capital-shallow growth?
- Or are the benefits from common or similar tax rates across all income types in New Zealand more pervasive?
This debate will address these fundamental questions; see further details.
Note that the views and arguments presented should not be attributed to, or associated with, those agencies employing any of the speakers.
Drinks and canapés will be provided from 4:30-5:30pm after the debate to facilitate informal discussions; to reserve a place RSVP tocpf-info@vuw.ac.nz by Thursday 27 September.
Staff and postgraduate students are most welcome – please RSVP or call the Chair in Public Finance Administrator, extension 9656.
The Public Finance Debates 1 - A 0% cap on real per capita government spending growth would be a sensible objective for New Zealand
Date: 28 August 2012
Time: 4.00 pm
Venue: Old Government Building, Lecture Theatre 1
Whether public spending should expand or contract, and how fast, is a politically charged subject, with different views appearing to depend as much on personal preferences or political ideology as on rational economic principles. However most agree that some ‘fiscal rules’ are required to ensure that the government’s budget (spending, tax revenues and deficits) is sustainable both now and into the future. Recent New Zealand governments have used public debt targets as a ‘rule’ for achieving this. However targeting a specific growth rate for public spending is an alternative: a ‘public spending cap’ aims to limit that growth to a specified maximum. The current New Zealand government’s confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT describes a ‘spending cap’ that would limit public spending so that it only grows to allow for the effects of inflation and populations growth (i.e. constant real per capita spending). This debate will aim to assess the economic arguments for and against this spending objective in the current New Zealand context utilising evidence, where possible, from spending caps implemented elsewhere.