You know what I hate? Post-modernism.
The Herald-DigiPoll asked voters "Do you think the Budget will help Labour's chances in the election?". As if it wasn't bad enough that the budget was judged by how well it's been judged, now it's being judged by what the pollsters say about how well people think other people are judging it.
Isn't it the pollsters' *fucking job* to tell us whether the Budget will help Labour's chances in the election? Has their sample of 425 respondents each done their own polling?
The survey also asked whether people think the budget will make them better off. Again - how many of those surveyed actually know details about the budget, apart from the "tax cuts"? And how, pray tell, will knowing what 425 randomly selected individuals think about the budget better inform us about the budget?
The other two questions published from the survey are focused on the "tax cuts". Back at the budget lock-up (when Cullen delivered the budget to journos before the speech), everyone scoffed when they saw it. The ones who didn't were a) too busy laughing, b) too jaded to care, c) economists, or d) not paying attention.
But hang on, the reason for the laughing was because of the hype surrounding it (funny, I can't seem to find the original DomPost article claiming that there were going to be tax cuts - could have sworn I saw it on their front page). It was like expecting an engagement ring, and getting a chocolate bar - there was nothing wrong with the chocolate bar, it was just the shock/comedy of getting something so far removed from expectations. But were those expectations justified?
John Pagani: "Cullen always said there is no room for cutting the tax rates themselves because he thinks there are higher priority uses for the money, so it was obvious that any changes would only involve moving the thresholds.
"I was also not surprised that the cuts would not take effect for a few years. The way the fiscal planning cycle works, the government doesn't often announce tax changes which take immediate effect. An exception: a change of government. The top tax rate was increased immediately after this coalition took office in 1999."
It seems that there was never an intention to make dramatic changes to the tax system. Cullen's failure to reduce expectations before the budget might have been some kind of elaborate PR double-blind-dead-man's-bluff-gambit that went wrong, or just a cock-up with Outlook, but let's keep our eye on the ball here - it doesn't necessarily make the budget bad.
The Right has called this budget nothing short of "highway robbery", their main beef being that the government is taking taxes without providing services, all to strengthen its own position to Nanny-State over us in the future. Philosophically, it makes sense - the Right sees taxes as something that belong to taxpayers and should be spent for his/her well-being.
And while demographic and economic projections suggest that we will be facing a much tighter financial situation in the future and that it would indeed be prudent to save now, prudent doesn't mean necessary.
Choosing to splurge now and pay for it later with interest is imprudent - but fuck it, why not? (My $50,000 student loan can attest to my commitment to this school of thought.) There is a genuine (and not altogether unreasonable) choice between spending now and saving up for spending later, so why shouldn't the taxpayer decide, rather than the government?
It's a complex question, whether the state is just a glorified service-provider or whether it has responsibilities to a community, something more than the sum of its members. Five years of studying political philosophy has taught me that this question is so complex and imponderable that, in fact, it can only be satisfactorily resolved with guns.
But while the underlying question is somewhat tricky, this particular case contains a spanner for the neo-liberal conception of the state (that it is there to provide services for taxpayers): If the present generation wants a tax cut now and pension in the future, it'll be the next generation who'll have to pick up the tab. So much for individual responsibility.
It is, of course, not a fault of the theory, but a fault of the system - for providing pensions and for allowing old people to vote. But nonetheless, it does mean that the prerogative for hoarding money should remain with the government. In fact, those on the Right should be applauding such a move, for ensuring that baby-boomers save for their own retirement rather than force future generations to subsidise them.
Well, come on then. Applaud.
Fine. Be that way.
All this inter-generational subsidy stuff ties into student loans, of course. More on that next week, when I'm back from my three-day holiday, which I'll spend eating fish in Kaikoura.
For political junkies who have been good enough to plough through all this fiscal/philosophical stuff, I'll leave you with a PR view of the budget, from John.
"I was working in talkback radio at the time of the 1991 'Mother of all Budgets', and I clearly remember people, including media commentators, calling that one 'boring'. And every budget since has been called boring. I don't think they're boring, but you need to know enough about some technical issues to get excited about the policy choices going on. So they are... ummm, a wonk fest.
"The budget is handled in an effective way, PR-wise - this government has some skilled practitioners at the top level! But that's not the main reason things are done the way they are. The process is transparent and predictable because it is sound economics to be transparent and predictable. Key economic decision-makers - like businesses - hate surprises. And, it should be noted, 'no surprises' is a trademark of this government's political management, mainly because voters don't really like surprises.
"Fiscal planning has come a long way since Sir Robert Muldoon, Roger Douglas and even David Caygill's budget, when we would teeter on the edge of our seats waiting for the next bombshell. As recently as the early 90s the government didn't even really have a good idea how much money it had - fiscal planning was hair-raising. Thanks to a number of reforms (for which mostly Ruth Richardson and Geoff Palmer can take credit, though I don't know anyone who seriously opposed the ideas), the government's budget strategy is well-signaled. There are multiple updates throughout the year disclosing economic performance, Treasury publishes up to date Crown finance figures and Ministers have to give plenty of notice of major policy changes. But transparency and predictability also mean you get a budget day of just one or two highlights.
"Remember also governments spend the weeks before the budget announcing all the little bits and pieces that would otherwise be lost in the wash. So an extra $50m for childcare is pretty big stuff - it's the same as the cost of the paid parental leave scheme! (Why did Labour resist paid parental leave for so long, yet support childcare subsidies? Beats me.) But schemes like this would not get much attention at all on budget day, so it gets the treatment in advance.
"On the other hand, the government didn't want front page attention for the extra $63m it's putting into overseas aid, because aid is unpopular. So that didn't get a pre-release and the only people who notice are the aid-sector workers who will be very supportive..."