CrustyMTB wrote:As an example of the high quality of public service restructuring the Nats have already carried out, I have it on accurate authority that the National Library/archives merger which led to 55 redundancies has save $165,000 pa for the next 5 years. Well done.

While we're on about balancing the books why don't we means test the single biggest cost item in the budget (National Super) so my multi-millionaire uncle isn't collecting a taxpayer funded benefit, eh?

How does that work crusty?
seems about 3K per job per year - My guess is that they got paid more than that - they certainly would on the dole . . .

Presumably merging the two makes them only slightly more economical, and only because some jobs are removed. Eg they moved into a new, way more asspensive office building or they invested in a whole lot of crap or they gave the new bosses gigantic raises. Or a combination of those things.

Firing 55 people to save 165K per year seems well retarded. If only 10% of them folk needs to go on the dole for a year then that's the "advantage" wiped out right there.

Merging two depts would also cost a shedload especially IT systems and the like, hence the minimal savings. Shoulda got rid of the families commission first...

great uncle bulgaria wrote:

CrustyMTB wrote:As an example of the high quality of public service restructuring the Nats have already carried out, I have it on accurate authority that the National Library/archives merger which led to 55 redundancies has save $165,000 pa for the next 5 years. Well done.

While we're on about balancing the books why don't we means test the single biggest cost item in the budget (National Super) so my multi-millionaire uncle isn't collecting a taxpayer funded benefit, eh?

How does that work crusty?
seems about 3K per job per year - My guess is that they got paid more than that - they certainly would on the dole . . .

Those 55 would have paid more in tax than what they recon they saved

CrustyMTB wrote:As an example of the high quality of public service restructuring the Nats have already carried out, I have it on accurate authority that the National Library/archives merger which led to 55 redundancies has save $165,000 pa for the next 5 years. Well done.

While we're on about balancing the books why don't we means test the single biggest cost item in the budget (National Super) so my multi-millionaire uncle isn't collecting a taxpayer funded benefit, eh?

I agree, how the fuck is an increasingly small tax base going to pay for an ever increasing super head count. Ditch it now and you get my vote.

phunk wrote:Merging two depts would also cost a shedload especially IT systems and the like, hence the minimal savings. Shoulda got rid of the families commission first...

No argument from me. Generally I don't want people to lose jobs. Unless it's Christine Rankin. And the Families Commission is seriously pointless.

Here's a blog post I wrote last July, that is kind of related:

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/07/22/re ... -playbook/

I'm sure you could add your own observations to the list. I think it's very evident that John Key has a specific role to play, and it's a mistake to draw conclusions about the Government's performance from how nicely he smiles - which is, of course, precisely what they will be inviting voters to do in November.

That said, I have worked directly with him on the National Cycle Network project and have found him good on that. He has recognised that we have quite a bit of knowledge and expertise, and has been prepared to see that inserted into the project. He also seems genuinely interested in working towards our eventual vision of an eventual network of tracks and routes right across the country, with lots of different uses. Is that because he really thinks it's a good thing or because he thinks it's popular? Not entirely sure, but I think it's the first.

Obviously I could comment on National's dumb and self-serving policy and Labours failure to articulate a coherent alternative but you know I would go on and on.

Kevin, I'd be keen to see some actual numbers from somebody (ANYBODY) in Parliament about how their tax structure will actually work. I know it'd be complicated as fuck to put together, but I wanna know how things like the Labour tax-free five grand or the Green capital-gains tax might actually affect the bottom line.

It's scary how all the political parties make promises for different taxes and what not, but always seem so totally vague on how they expect it's actually going to work.

Kevin, if the Greens promise to do something to shut happybaboon up I'll vote for you.

great uncle bulgaria wrote:

CrustyMTB wrote:As an example of the high quality of public service restructuring the Nats have already carried out, I have it on accurate authority that the National Library/archives merger which led to 55 redundancies has save $165,000 pa for the next 5 years. Well done.

While we're on about balancing the books why don't we means test the single biggest cost item in the budget (National Super) so my multi-millionaire uncle isn't collecting a taxpayer funded benefit, eh?

How does that work crusty?
seems about 3K per job per year - My guess is that they got paid more than that - they certainly would on the dole . . .

I guess the point is it doesn't work.

Costs wise
1)The cost of consultants and change managers, 2) the cost of making long term employee's redundant, 3) litigation costs for those who fight the redundancy, liabilities (rents, infrastructure, existing contracts) which need to be wound up or run out unproductively over the 5 year period.

This figure won't include the losses in productivity during the consultancy period or after the merger while everyone's working out what the fuck is going on, or the loss of institutional knowledge which is hard to price. You could add on the loss of tax being paid on those salaries too.

To be open I'm not a fan of our national mania for re-structuring, there are times when it's necessary, but in my anecdotal experience far too often the consequence aren't properly priced and the next time the govt/ceo changes, the directing ego(s) has a different half baked idea and the organisation goes through the same shit again.

Happy, we are working to try and do exactly that before the election campaign. You may have seen that in this term of Parliament we have put a lot of emphasis on trying to put forward positive solutions, rather than just criticise Government actions we disagree with. Where those solutions have significant fiscal implications we have tried to spell out what the costs and benefits are, and where there is a net cost to say how we will fund it. So our Green New Deal packages all spelt out the number of direct and indirect green collar jobs that could be created and how much they would cost, using the same money the Government intended to put into stimulus; our Getting There package set out exactly how 50% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions could actually be achieved, and attendant costs, and our Mind The Gap package showed how we would use a Capital Gains Tax (not on the family home) to fund 7 other measures to reduce inequality (like the first $10,000 of income tax free - Labour's problem with partly copying our policy here is that they don't have a revenue stream to fund it, as you identify -, extending Working For Families tax credit to beneficiaries etc). We think people have a right to know what we would do and how we would pay for it.

The problem with tax comes because the effects of tax policy aren't independent of each other: if you change tax A, it in turn will result in changed behaviours that impact on tax B and so on. One of the big advantages the Government has in developing its own Budget is armies of economists with access to sophisticated economic modelling computer power, enabling them to make a decent stab at this. We don't have that, and also a lot of our ideas (more progressive income tax, but at lower levels because the revenue stream is offset by new eco-taxes and resource rentals etc) are very different from the taxes currently in place, so some of our assumptions have to be bigger. Still intending to give it a go though.

But E Dogg, he's right!

Fully agree on restructuring Crusty, having lived through a whole heap of it in the health sector over the last couple of decades. My sense is that people can make any structure work, but it takes time. What we've had in health, apart from a few brief years, has been wave after wave of restructuring, where the next wave arrived before people figured out how to start making progress again, leaving the system "in irons"

Kevin Hague wrote:
But E Dogg, he's right!

But even when he's right he gives the unmistakable impression of being full of shit. Surely there is a dungeon somewhere under parliament where they keep political dissidents?

Mickyfinn wrote:

great uncle bulgaria wrote:

CrustyMTB wrote:As an example of the high quality of public service restructuring the Nats have already carried out, I have it on accurate authority that the National Library/archives merger which led to 55 redundancies has save $165,000 pa for the next 5 years. Well done.

While we're on about balancing the books why don't we means test the single biggest cost item in the budget (National Super) so my multi-millionaire uncle isn't collecting a taxpayer funded benefit, eh?

How does that work crusty?
seems about 3K per job per year - My guess is that they got paid more than that - they certainly would on the dole . . .

Those 55 would have paid more in tax than what they recon they saved

Um, but their salary comes from tax in the first place...

phunk wrote:

Mickyfinn wrote:

great uncle bulgaria wrote:

CrustyMTB wrote:As an example of the high quality of public service restructuring the Nats have already carried out, I have it on accurate authority that the National Library/archives merger which led to 55 redundancies has save $165,000 pa for the next 5 years. Well done.

While we're on about balancing the books why don't we means test the single biggest cost item in the budget (National Super) so my multi-millionaire uncle isn't collecting a taxpayer funded benefit, eh?

How does that work crusty?
seems about 3K per job per year - My guess is that they got paid more than that - they certainly would on the dole . . .

Those 55 would have paid more in tax than what they recon they saved

Um, but their salary comes from tax in the first place...

Overly simplistic argument; 1) almost everyone has a tax funded segment of their income or costs, eg you drive a courier van then a large part of your operating infrastructure (the road) is funded by taxes. 2)The taxes and spending of the public sector are still part of GDP and have value in the economy, you just believe that the funding and management models within which they operate are less "efficient" than a "market" model ( these are vague and arguable terms).

Most of the discourse around this will be simplistic and spun until the policies offered bear no relation to the realities which are applied. My answer, longer electoral term to encourage a policy cycle longer than the lifespan of a hamster, ban all televised
coverage of elections so they cease to be beauty contests and ban all opinion polling in non election years.

Or make me the benevolent despot, I promise not to rule in my own best interests, honest!

All i am saying is that justifying keeping those jobs due to the tax income the govt gets doesnt make sense seeing that the salary is funded from taxes... its kinda circular.