Corporate welfare in New Zealand – 2015 budget update

I have updated my 2014 report on corporate welfare for the 2015 budget. My report was published today by the Taxpayers’ Union.

My key finding was that corporate welfare increased in the 7th budget of the National Party-led Government from $1.178 billion in its 2014 budget to $1.344 billion in the 2015 budget – see figure 1 and table 1.

Figure 1: Corporate welfare, Budgets 2008/09 to 2015/16

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years.

Table 1: Corporate welfare in Budgets 2008/09 to 2015/16, $million

08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16
Arts, Culture & Heritage

3

11

19

10

29

4

4

42

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

6

6

6

6

7

7

6

7

Communications

0

25

39

150

178

205

215

190

Economic Development

372

419

446

379

332

284

280

297

Finance

16

44

3

108

15

210

0

0

Primary Industries

700

0.3

14

0.0

43

65

77

180

Science and Innovation

0

4

0

0

0

112

219

269

Tourism

76

94

119

113

98

124

124

121

Transport

578

530

376

510

680

119

255

239

Total $million

1,751

1,134

1,022

1,277

1,382

1,130

1,178

1,344

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years.

Corporate welfare has ranged between about $1 billion and $1.4 billion per year in each of the seven budgets presented by the current National-led Government – see Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 2: Corporate welfare, Budgets 08/09 to 15/16 by Vote

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years; note: Vote Commerce and Consumer Affairs omitted in all years from Figure 2.

The predominant recipient of corporate welfare in this year’s budget, and all of those since 2008 is KiwiRail. Vote Transport accounts for a third of all corporate welfare – see Figures 3 and 4. Vote Economic Development is the next largest source of corporate welfare and accounts for 28% of the total since 2008 – see Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3: Distribution of total corporate welfare across votes, 2008/09 to 2015/16

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years.

Figure 4: State-owned enterprise welfare, Vote Transport and Vote Finance (KiwiRail), Budgets 08/09 to 15/16

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years.

$280 – $450 million in corporate welfare has been under the patronage of the Minister for Economic Development over the last eight budgets – see Figure 5. In this year’s budget, corporate welfare under the Minister’s hand has increased slightly from $280 million to $297 million.

Figure 5: Corporate welfare, Vote Economic Development, Budgets 2008/09 to 2015/16

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years.

Up until the 2013/14 budget, science and innovation spending was targeted at research that would not find private sponsors because it could not capture the returns from their discoveries – see Figure 6. Figure 6 shows that there is being rapid growth within Vote Science and Innovation of various forms of start-up and commercialisation grants in recent budgets.

Figure 6: Corporate welfare, Vote Science and Innovation, Budgets 08/09 to 15/16

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years.

Figure 7 shows that the Government is getting back into the business of subsidising agriculture. The Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) is an R&D grants programme for the primary industry sector. There are 18 PGP programmes underway with a funding commitment from government and from industry combining to $708 million by 2017.

Figure 7: Farm welfare, Vote Primary Industries, Budgets 08/09 to 15/16

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years.

Figure 8 shows that the National Party-led government is a major investor in ultrafast broadband – going where private entrepreneurs fear to tread.

Figure 8: Corporate welfare, Vote Communications, Budgets 08/09 to 15/16

Source: New Zealand budget papers, various years.

The corporate welfare in the Budget 2015 adds about six percentage points to the company tax rate. Should these corporate indulgences should continue or should the company tax rate drop six percentage points?

If that six percentage points on top of the company tax rate was renamed a business subsidies levy, how many businesses would want to pay it rather than developing their own business under much lower company tax rate?

It’s time for the government to wash its hands of Solid Energy and let it go bankrupt – updated

Government owned mining company Solid Energy lost $182 million last year. It is already received nearly $200 million in corporate welfare in bailouts from the New Zealand taxpayer. It’s time to call a halt.

The Christchurch-based coalminer is negotiating with banks in a bid to reduce its $320 million debt. In 2013, its annual revenue dropped by a third to $631 million.

Solid Energy invested heavily on a strategy that energy prices were going to go up and up. That investment strategy was against the market sentiment of that time, much less afterwards and the collapse of oil prices.

While Prime Minister John Key said on March 2 that it was not the Government’s preferred option to put more taxpayer cash into Solid Energy, Minister of Finance Bill English flatly ruled out cash, loans or guarantees. I hope Bill English wins that political struggle at the Cabinet table for the sake of the long-suffering New Zealand taxpayer.

What is worse, the government has indemnified the directors of Solid Energy against unspecified liabilities thus giving them an open-ended cheque-book, from what I can see, to trade while insolvent:

State Owned Enterprises Minister Todd McClay confirmed last month that the Crown has offered an indemnity to the board of Solid Energy last year, but would not comment on what it was.

Asked if directors had raised concerns with him that they might be trading while insolvent, English said: “Any director of a company like this has that question uppermost in their mind. They need to be sure all the time that they’re not trading while insolvent.”

Directors’ duties regarding trading while insolvent is the last line of defence against financial irresponsibility. There are both civil liability and criminal penalties for trading while insolvent under company law.

Solid Energy has already been a black hole for nearly $200 million in taxpayers’ money as well as considerable bank write-offs of loans.

The company appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee of Parliament this morning. It told MPs the company was solvent and marginally cash positive, but looking at another significant loss this year.

It should be a matter of policy that the government, any government, should not indemnify directors of any company, be they government owned or not, for breaches of directors’ duties. It’s a matter of the rule of law and of governments not privileging itself in the marketplace at the expense of the taxpayer.

What is the point of having a State Owned Enterprises Act and setting up these businesses as companies with a duty to be as successful as a company not owned by the government if they don’t have to obey the most fundamental safeguards in company law when push comes to shove?

If these indemnities have indeed been issued by the government for breaches of directors’ duties regarding insolvency, and it seems as though they have been, what is the Crown liability to creditors if Solid Energy is indeed trading while insolvent? These indemnities may allow the creditors to pierce the corporate veil and sue the New Zealand government.

In the revenge of directors duties, the directors of banks and any other creditor will have a director’s duty to sue the New Zealand government for all it can get as a result of these indemnities.

At a minimum, the New Zealand government will have to settle out of court or go all the way to the Supreme Court because hundreds of millions of dollars are involved from the bank write-offs, past and present.

Naturally, the ideological blinkers of the opposition party in New Zealand prevents it from saying the obvious, which is calling for the Solid Energy to be put in receivership. The Labour Party spokesman on state owned enterprise attacked the stewardship of the Minister of Finance as a shareholding Minister, but had nothing to say in terms of solutions, including putting the company into receivership.

The Green Party did a little bit better in 2013 when its spokesman talked about a need for a transition to sustainable jobs – the Green party code for layoffs:

“The National Government need to take responsibility for their mismanagement of Solid Energy and cut their losses,” said Mr Hughes.

“The banks that made risky loans to Solid Energy need to bear the cost of their mistakes”. “Coal is not going to be the fuel of our future if we are to stabilise our climate”.

“New Zealanders and Solid Energy workers need a just transition into more sustainable jobs – jobs that don’t fry the planet.”

“The longer this Government effectively denies climate change, the more taxpayer money will go to subsidising coal and its foreign backers.”

Things are getting desperate when the Greens find a corporate welfare so appalling that they actually oppose it, if only because of support for lower carbon emissions. That is one green hypocrisy too many if it supported a bailout of a coal miner.

The meaning of capitalism

Image

Build, and they will come – sports stadium welfare

Image

Mendicant NZ artist denounces neoliberalism and tall poppy syndrome in same breath

Man Booker Prize author Eleanor Catton from New Zealand managed in the same interview in India to denounce the neoliberalism of New Zealand’s current government and then denounce the tall poppy syndrome that cuts down artistic elites such as herself down to size when they become successful.

At the moment, New Zealand, like Australia and Canada, (is dominated by) these neo-liberal, profit-obsessed, very shallow, very money-hungry politicians who do not care about culture

This is tremendous a hypocrisy: to denounce a neoliberal philosophy that supposedly favours the elite over the working class and then complain about members of the elite such as herself are not supported sufficiently from the taxpayers’ tough:

We have this strange cultural phenomenon called “tall poppy syndrome”; if you stand out, you will be cut down…

If you get success overseas then very often the local population can suddenly be very hard on you. Or the other problem is that the local population can take ownership of that success in a way that is strangely proprietal.

Catton manages to denounce neoliberalism and the capitalist competition that entails but then gets quite annoyed over the fact the successful people aren’t rewarded and recognised by the country.

What hypocrisy. She denounces neoliberalism and then complains about been cut down because of her success. If you’re an opponent of neoliberalism, there is some obligation on you to argue for a levelling of income and wealth, including your own.

It betrays an attitude towards individual achievement which is very, uncomfortable. It has to belong to everybody or the country really doesn’t want to know about it…

I’ve really struggled with my identity as a New Zealand writer. I feel uncomfortable being an ambassador for my country when my country is not doing as much as it could, especially for the intellectual world.

Catton is particularly upset over the fact that New Zealand is expected to share her fame with them some way.  Obviously, Catton believes in private profits, private fame at social losses and public subsidies for the arts. Having to share what she earns is not part of her opposition to neoliberalism.

From each in accordance with their ability, to each in according to their need is the heart of the anti-neoliberal philosophy, or is it Robert Nozick’s capitalistic acts between consenting adults where it is from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen, especially if you’re a successful artist.

Such is the price neoliberalism is Eleanor Catton, like every other able-bodied adult, is expected to earn a living for themselves by producing something that someone wants a profitable global for them rather than expect a hand-out from the government simply because of the desire of the recipients to receive the money. In her case, her claim for government hand-outs is because she happens to be artistic.

Jim Hacker: “So they insult me and then expect me to give them more money?”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes, I must say it’s a rather undignified posture. But it is what artists always do: crawling towards the government on their knees, shaking their fists.”
Jim Hacker: “Beating me over the head with their begging bowls.”
Bernard Woolley: “Oh, I am sorry to be pedantic, Prime Minister, but they can’t beat you over the head if they’re on their knees. Unless of course they’ve got very long arms.”

R&D tax incentives: New evidence on trends and effectiveness | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

Figure 1: No relation between a country’s innovativeness and R&D tax credits

Figure 2. Proliferation of R&D tax credits in Europe

via R&D tax incentives: New evidence on trends and effectiveness | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal.

And the Oscar for “Best Tax Break” Goes to…

HT: http://economics21.org/commentary/oscars-tax-break-american-sniper-2015-01-16 and http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-this-years-oscar-nominees-got-government-handouts/article/2558717

No NZ government bailout for the Sky City Casino extension cost overrun

The SkyCity bailout: it is common for private sector mega-projects to fail

SkyCity is sniffing around the New Zealand government for a $130 million bailout. The initial project estimate was $402 million for a convention centre and enlarged casino.

SkyCity was very clear when the convention centre deal was announced that it would be at no cost to either taxpayers or Auckland ratepayers. That is a clear assumption of the entrepreneurial risks – both the upside of high profits and the downside of cost overruns and losses.

The literature on mega-projects suggests that large engineering projects frequently fail to achieve their intended financial and operating objectives. Nine out of ten mega-projects have cost-over runs:

  1. Miller and Lessard (2000) studied 60 large engineering projects with an average size of $1 billion. Almost 40% of the projects performed very badly and were abandoned totally or restructured after a financial crisis.
  2. Merrow et al. (1988) found that four of the 47 megaprojects they studied came in on budget – the average cost overrun was 88%. Of the 36 projects that had sufficient data, 26 failed to achieve their profit objectives.
  1. Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) analyzed 258 large transport projects (toll roads, bridges, railroads, etc.). Cost overruns of 50% to 100% and revenue shortfalls of 20% to 70% were common.

Table 1 below gives more details on cost overruns in rail, bridge and road engineering projects overseas. Cost overruns averaging 27.6% were found with rail having much larger cost overruns than road or bridge construction.

Table 1: Inaccuracy of transport mega-project estimates

Project type Number of projects Average cost escalation
Rail 58 44.7%
Bridge 33 33.8%
Road 167 20.4%
All projects 258 27.6%

Source: Flyvbjerg et al (2003).

Cost over-runs are not the preserve of the public sector. Merrow (2011) found that over half of large-scale engineering and construction projects – off-shore oil platforms, chemical plants, metals processing, dams, and similar projects – had poor results: Billions of dollars in total overruns, long delays in design and construction, and poor operability and revenue shortfalls once completed.

Alchian (1950) illustrated the unreliability of cost estimation with the range of bids made in tendering processes. When contractors bid for the same project, they routinely disagree over its likely cost by margins of 20 percent. The contractors are predicting their own costs, about which they are knowledgeable, and they have an incentive to be truthful to win the initial tender. Initial cost estimates by engineers have margins of error of 25 percent (Alchian 1950).

Central to capitalism is the notion of profit and loss. Entrepreneurial endeavours that anticipated the matort well make a profit. The rest fall by the wayside.

SkyCity is a private investment that should stand or fall on the same criteria as any other business venture in New Zealand.

What should be asked by the taxpayer in all these business subsidies is what the value for money for their tax dollars is?

What is the problem that has been solved other than common garden business failure? Can this problem be solved by market process on its own at its own pace subject to hard budget constraints, competition in the market place, the threat of innovation at home and abroad, and continuous updating of the knowledge available to the entrepreneurial decision-makers by changes in prices and profits and losses. As Friedman said:

The strongest argument for free enterprise is that it prevents anybody from having too much power.

Whether that person is a government official, a trade union official, or a business executive, it forces them to put up or shut up.

They either have to deliver the goods, produce something that people are willing to pay for, are willing to buy, or else they have to go into a different business.

Losses and bankruptcies are fundamental to the success of the market economy. Losses are a clear signal that need to restructure, cut costs or go out of business. The paraphrase Mao, ‘Bankrupt one, educate a thousand’.

Corporate welfare, such as a bailout to SkyCity and at such an early stage in the investment postpones these difficult choices. As George Stigler explained:

One great invention of a private enterprise system is bankruptcy, an institution for putting an eventual stop to costly failure.

No such institution has yet been conceived of in the political process, and an unsuccessful policy has no inherent termination.

Indeed, political rewards are more closely proportioned to failure than to success, for failure demonstrates the need for larger appropriations and more power.

The fact that the government regulates part of SkyCity’s business because it is a casino is no case for a bailout. The purpose of casino regulation is to constrain the size of that industry, not help it grow.

Wind welfare – time for this infant industry to grow up

Warren Buffett – green rent seeker extraordinaire

It’s time to end wind welfare

Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party compared

My New Report on Corporate Welfare in New Zealand

The Taxpayers’ Union today launched my report, Monopoly Money, which examines the cost and case for New Zealand’s extensive corporate welfare programmes.

Figure 1: Corporate welfare, Budgets 2008/09 to 2014/15

image

My report, which examines the cost of corporate welfare examines government spending since the 2007/2008 budget, shows:

  • Since National took office, corporate welfare has cost taxpayers $1-1.4 billion ($600 – $800 per household) per year
  • If corporate welfare was abolished, enough money would be saved to reduce the corporate tax rate from 28% to 22.5%
  • If applied to personal income tax rates, the saving would allow the 30% and 33% income tax rates to be lowered to 29%
Figure 2: Corporate welfare, Budgets 2008/09 to 2014/15 by Vote

image

Figure 3: Distribution of total corporate welfare across votes, 2008/09 to 2014/15

image

Corporate welfare and middle-class welfare defined

The term corporate welfare was coined by Ralph Nader in 1956. Corporate welfare is subsidies, tax breaks, or other favourable treatment for business and implies that business are much less needy of such treatment than the poor.

The Right talks of the deserving and undeserving poor. The Left countered with payments to business.

Supporters of corporate welfare often justify them as remedying some sort of purported market failure.

Businesses, big and small, see market failure everywhere under balance sheets that are in the red.

The notion behind corporate welfare is profits should be private while losses should be a reason for a taxpayer bailout.

Both direct and indirect subsidies to businesses are classified as corporate welfare. The reason is businesses as supposed to make a profit or go out of business.

If a business is losing money, they should try better or do something different or just go out of business.

Losses are not a reason for a taxpayer bailout. No business project should be premised on government subsidies.

The purpose of the capital market is to direct investment to projects that have a future and take support away from failing projects.

The capital market is picking winners and losers every day because that’s its job. That’s what it’s good at.

The participants in the capital market who are not good at picking winners and avoiding losers will themselves will go soon out of business.

Corporate welfare is increasingly used interchangeably with crony capitalism.

A kissing cousin of corporate welfare is farm welfare. These are the countless subsidies that farmers get in Europe and America, and in the past, in New Zealand.

Middle-class welfare is cash payments by the government to the non-poor. These payments to the middle-class can be for having children such as in Working for Families, for early-childhood education or for childcare. Middle-class welfare also can be tax breaks and subsidies for retirement savings of the nonpoor.

It is pointless to tax the middle-class and then give them their money pretty much straight back as a cash payment for a particular purpose be it child care or for their retirement. Middle-class welfare covers at least in part expenses the middle-class could have covered themselves but for the taxes.

Next Newer Entries

Bassett, Brash & Hide

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Truth on the Market

Scholarly commentary on law, economics, and more

The Undercover Historian

Beatrice Cherrier's blog

Matua Kahurangi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Temple of Sociology

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Why Evolution Is True

Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.

Down to Earth Kiwi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

NoTricksZone

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Homepaddock

A rural perspective with a blue tint by Ele Ludemann

Kiwiblog

DPF's Kiwiblog - Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003

The Dangerous Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

The Logical Place

Tim Harding's writings on rationality, informal logic and skepticism

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

The Risk-Monger

Let's examine hard decisions!

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

Barrie Saunders

Thoughts on public policy and the media

Liberty Scott

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Point of Order

Politics and the economy

James Bowden's Blog

A blog (primarily) on Canadian and Commonwealth political history and institutions

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Peter Winsley

Economics, and such stuff as dreams are made on

A Venerable Puzzle

"The British constitution has always been puzzling, and always will be." --Queen Elizabeth II

The Antiplanner

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Bet On It

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

History of Sorts

WORLD WAR II, MUSIC, HISTORY, HOLOCAUST

Roger Pielke Jr.

Undisciplined scholar, recovering academic

Offsetting Behaviour

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Conversable Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

The Victorian Commons

Researching the House of Commons, 1832-1868

The History of Parliament

Articles and research from the History of Parliament Trust

Books & Boots

Reflections on books and art

Legal History Miscellany

Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice

Sex, Drugs and Economics

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

European Royal History

Exploring the Monarchs of Europe

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Marginal REVOLUTION

Small Steps Toward A Much Better World

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

STOP THESE THINGS

The truth about the great wind power fraud - we're not here to debate the wind industry, we're here to destroy it.

Lindsay Mitchell

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Alt-M

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

croaking cassandra

Economics, public policy, monetary policy, financial regulation, with a New Zealand perspective

The Grumpy Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

International Liberty

Restraining Government in America and Around the World