Comments

Hi Baljeet, you raise a very good point about the distribution of benefits arising from the increase in the tax threshold. We didn't consider distribution much in the blog. In retrospect it's something we should have focused on more. It would be interesting to compare the lost revenue resulting from the tax threshold change with the increases in social welfare spending included in the budget. I suspect you're right: that the former would outweigh the latter considerably. Thanks again for your comments, and for raising this important issue. Matt

Educational philosophy, language, and culture will determines the behaviour of citizens. So the linguistic and cultural diversity is our strength and opportunity but unfortunately our .... system is unable to use these strengths to make prosperous country. Inclusive quality education and politics matters for quality development. What do you think? Is there any opportunity to develop partnership with your organisation to work in Nepal?

Hi Matthew, it is people earning more than 30,000.00 dollars who are going to benefit the most. Its like we are taxing poor man's beer to subsidize rich man's wine. What I mean is that we have imposed additional tax on beer to recover part of tax revenue losses resulting from new threshold. Beer is mostly consumed by average or below average consumers. On the other hand we have given enough tax benefit to the rich (those earning more than 30, 000) that they will be able to buy few additional bottle of wine every week despite new tax on wine. I think poor are generally made worse off relative to the rich. With few thousand dollars of additional income (resulting from new threshold) we have given rich people more choices, while, on the other hand we have marginalized the poor more. I think it is fair to claim that all benefits we have provided to the poor through subsidize scheme is far less than few thousand additional dollars that we have given to the rich through a single new threshold. So poor are paying a cost for being poor. Lets not forget the new inflation that is going to kick in due to net salary rise of high income earners and its impact on real income of the poor. I wonder whether this factor was considered before deciding new minimum wage, it is fair to claim that net income gained by high income earners due to new threshold is approximately 50% of total income of minimum wage earners.

Hi Baljeet, Thanks for the comment. The text should have read middle-income earners, as we were indeed referring to those earning between $16,000 and $30,000. Thanks for pointing out the error, which we've now corrected. Matt

I wonder how new tax threshold will benefit low income earners as claimed by two economist. I believe that it will only benefit those earning above $16000 which includes policy makers, politicians and cabinet ministers. I don't think that a person earning 16000 or less will benefit anything from the new threshold. May be the two economist would like to provide more explanation on this.

Bob, I'm with Ash on this one. That Bloomburg Data for Health initiative was one of the Innovation Exchange's first, and was announced more than two years ago. I challenge anyone to find any progress report in relation to it. Even though we've just decided to give them another $4 million! There is nothing on actual progress on the Innovation Exchange website, and the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.org/program/public-health/data-health/" rel="nofollow">Bloomburg website</a> is written entirely in the future tense. What little there is about the project in the public domain certainly sets my alarm bells ringing. $100 million sounds like a lot, but over 4 years and 20 countries, that's about 1 million per year per country. That's enough for a couple of workshops, a few pilots and some study tours, and I fear that there is little more to the Bloomberg initiative than that. I really wonder what sustainable impact this project will have, especially in a country like PNG, one of the 20. One of the problems with the Innovation Exchange is that it seems to be authorized to fund projects but not required to report on their progress. Its website is heavy on photos and light on reports. It's all very well to ask questions, but there comes a point when you have to report the answer you've found.

The idea of New Zealand increasing foreign aid spending under the existing frame work is insane! Throwing away tax payer dollars at a ill-defined goal (economic development) without better measurements of success is not a good idea. Merging aspects of the defence and foreign aid budgets would provide a way forward. Putting the infrastructure in place to put the PPP on a more sustainable/active basis would be a achievable/measurable goal.

Blind Freddy could have predicted the mess the results of the recent PNG, General Election has apparently descended into. In fact, many who have some inkling of PNG politics already did. In the age old PNG fashion of attacking the result and ignoring the person or people responsible, everyone appears to now be casting around for someone, anyone really, to blame. If someone wanted to blame anything or anyone it’s easy to find the real answer. You don’t even need the eyeglasses and hearing aids being offered by former PM Sir Mekere Morauta. The current system of PNG of government and a democratic election of a Westminster Parliament is basically foreign to the vast majority of PNG people. The system was thrust upon them by well-meaning but hopelessly out of touch people in the past and was gratefully accepted by those at the time who saw their opportunity for personal gain. Those like Mr Koim who are educated and experienced have been outmaneuvered by those who are able to manage the PNG politics at the village and clan level. In other words, the educated elite are in reality disconnected from the majority of the rural population. Those who live in the various regional areas are in turn totally disconnected from other regions who are seen at best, as competitors for the benefits promised by would be leaders. In the past, people from other areas were seen as the enemy. There is no national, holistic PNG spirit. It only begins to start to show its head when someone from the outside points out what’s wrong or in a sporting match when PNG is playing against another nation. It reminds me of a slogan on a 'T' shirt seen in NZ where the wearer claimed 'I support New Zealand and any team playing against Australia'. Half the PNG nation is under 20 and many don’t have any expectation of getting viable employment except subsistence farming irrespective of what education they receive. PNG election rallies are just a time to enjoy letting off steam. No one really believes what is being said anymore. Kinda reminds you of political statements in the rest of the world doesn't it? So what’s the answer? Clearly no one in any vague sort of position of power that might help correct the situation has any real idea. The obvious lessons of history are just too tough to chew on. Both Canberra and Waigani prefer a softer, more electoral nourishing ‘kaikai’. In the meantime, the corrupt will continue to rule, exactly like those so called ‘Robber Barons’ did hundreds of years ago in Europe.

A good over view of the 2017/2018 Budget. Non sale of assets and poor estimation has been exposed which raises serious questions on the realisation and fullfillment of the budget.

I did survey work at MELAMAU Plantation where Maclay lived and have seen the plaque in his honour .. abut early 1970

Have you compared ODA as a % of central government spending across OECD countries? Would be interesting to see.

Thank you Jerry, I really appreciate the comment. Terence