Category: Economics

Mark this day! 10th November, 2018

I have reached the summit! The Economist has published a letter by me! Little old me! Admittedly, this means that I share the same page as ambassadors for despot countries, desperate to defend their nation’s record against the latest Economist feature, but who cares!

For those interested in the topic, whenever NZ is featured in an article it is either rare, brief, and usually, favorable. In this case, it was all three as NZ received top billing as a country where government-owned assets were accounted for. High praise indeed.

While I think this is probably true, I felt that is was necessary to point out that knowing stuff does not lead to great decisions. The ongoing battles about this in NZ are a testament to this.

As it was The Economist did truncate the letter a bit, even dropping the Dr from my name. Here is the full text

_________________________________

Dear Sir

Although New Zealand deserves praise for the way it monitors state assets and their financial performance (“How to plug budget holes by managing public wealth better”, Oct 20th, 2018), it is worth pointing out that knowing what is going on does not automatically lead to sensible decisions.  A few more economic principles may need to be incorporated into the toolkit for this to happen.

In particular, the public would benefit from lessons on “opportunity costs”. Attempts at asset reallocation inevitably lead to accusations that the NZ government is “selling the family silver” with very little thought to the quality of that silver. Not quantifying what else could be done if assets were managed more effectively limits the impetus for action in this area.

They also need reminding there is “no such thing as a free lunch”. As an example, while NZ has been reasonably successful in implementing market forces into its electricity generation, there are complaints of higher prices than under government ownership. While it is possible that private electricity providers are “fleecing” customers, it is more likely that the industry was previously subsidised via higher taxes or uncounted environmental costs.

It is also worth pointing out that dividends received from state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are essentially a regressive tax.  For context, dividends from SOE’s in NZ are equivalent to about US$700 per person, effectively a flat tax paid equally irrespective of income.

A potential improvement would be for SOE dividends to be paid directly to citizens rather than into the government coffers. This income would then be taxed at respective marginal tax rates, addressing the equity issue.  It would also go some way to making the opportunity cost of poorly performing assets more real as it would affect everyone’s back pocket.

Dr. Justin Stevenson

Christchurch

New Zealand

Immigrants and refugees – good odds to be economically beneficial

I was playing around with this piece thinking that it might be a good way to bring people into the UBI debate (believe it or not) when,  inevitably, the issue of refugees hit the headlines when Winston Peters shot down Labour’s plan to increase NZ’s refugee numbers. 

One of the good (or bad) things about this was that the comment section in STUFF gave me an insight into the general public attitude to this issue. It was not encouraging. I confess, I chickened out and decided not to submit it. The comment section was so vitriolic that putting my head above that parapet was something I was unwilling to do unless the answer was overwhelmingly obvious. 

As it is, even if the economic debate over migrants and refugees is not completely conclusive, I think that it is so difficult to conclude that they are a cost that we might as well ignore this as an issue.

However, I actually don’t think the economics are the actual issue for most people. 

__________________________________

There are many arguments for and against accepting immigrants and refugees into a country. The big debates revolve around humanitarian, cultural, security, infrastructure, and, inevitably, economic concerns.

Of these, you would think that determining if a group are net economic contributors to the country, or not, should be a relatively easy problem to solve.

If the answer is reasonably clear we can get it out of the way early on.

As it happens a “back of the envelope” analysis indicates that as a group, immigrants and refugees are odds-on favourites to be net contributors to society. To understand why, consider the figure below which roughly plots the net tax contributions throughout the life of an “average taxpayer”, along with some rough numbers.

An economic argument for immigrants and refugees

Figure: Tax contributions and expenses for the “average taxpayer”

First, the “average taxpayer” is a compilation of everyone in society, combining high and low earners, and the tax that they pay and spend over the course of an average lifespan.

There are some costs that cannot be tagged to a particular period of life and which are incurred by all residents. Think of these as “core government services” such as roads, defense, law and order and such like. These are a consistent cost paid every year by everyone.

Other contributions and expenses occur during defined periods of life.

Until they reach around 20 years of age the average taxpayer will be costing society money. In this period of their life, they are unlikely to be paying tax while going through the expensive process of being born, surviving past 5, getting a compulsory education, and transitioning to work. This is all very expensive.

Between the ages of 20 and 65, the average taxpayer will be working, contributing tax dollars while not incurring any predictable expenses specific to that age bracket. This is when they make their positive contribution to the tax take.

At 65 they will get NZ superannuation, work less, and become increasingly dependent on the health system. They are almost certainly going to use more tax dollars than they contribute.

The key takeaway from this analysis is that if you are an average taxpayer then, give or take a bit, all these costs and benefits should nett out to zero. Your contributions in the middle years of life should basically equal what it costs in your early and later years. And that is the way it should be.

It’s a bit rough, and there are also a few wrinkles not accounted for, in particular, whether the average taxpayer has any tertiary training or not and how to treat consumption taxes during retirement, however, it’s good enough to make some predictions.

For example, this model represents the average person born here. What about if you move here later in life?

Consider the “economically optimal” immigrant or refugee – someone who arrives ready to work at 20. In this case we get all the tax contributions in their working life, still have to pay the costs post 65, but miss out having to bring them into the world and educate them. By removing this large expense at the beginning of their life, to be tax neutral they really only have to contribute around 70% of the average tax as someone born in NZ. In short, they are unlikely to be a drain on the public purse.

What if they are younger? While there are clearly more education costs, the chances of them being more like the “average taxpayer” become higher and higher the younger they get. It would be extremely unlikely that an immigrant who arrived at age 1 would end up vastly different to a born and bred kiwi, and we don’t complain about them.

Clearly, things do get more problematic as immigrants get older as they have fewer years to contribute towards their retirement. This is particularly an issue when considering “family reunification” policies, and is justifiably treated with care. However, assuming they can earn roughly the same as average taxpayers, migrants who end up eligible for superannuation would have to be older than 45ish before this became problematic.

Refugees have a bit more of an economic headwind to overcome as it is deemed necessary to spend around $80-100K to ease their passage into society. However, given it costs around $370K to get a NZ born resident to age 20, they are probably still odds-on to be a positive contributor if their average age is between around 35-40.

Remember, that this analysis is comparing the average immigrant and refugee with the average taxpayer. Everyone will have specific examples which differ in either positive or negative ways. Economically it is fairer to consider immigrants and refugees as a group allowing their foibles and benefits to offset each other while leaving the group’s true overall contributions intact, just like we do for all New Zealanders.

It is also worth considering that there is an even more “economically optimal” migrant than described above. These arrive aged around 20, work for a while, start pining for home and leave before obtaining any rights to a pension. It is pretty much all upside for us. If this sounds familiar it is because NZ is pretty good at producing these for the benefit of other countries. We call it “having an OE”.

If someone spends 10 years overseas during their working years then they have to pay around 20% more than the average amount of tax while in New Zealand to break even over their lifespan.

In no way am I wanting to discourage people from taking an OE as I think it adds to the cultural fabric of New Zealand. However, if you feel the need to point the economic gun at anyone for not contributing their fair share, then they are a more likely target.

Depending on your view of the world there may be significant concerns involved with immigration, however, financial costs are unlikely to be a legitimate one. If money was the only issue we should be looking for as many as we can get. However, invariably, economics will not be the only issue.

More controversial and interesting, but not noticed – How to sell an asset without selling an asset

This piece was picked up by The Press and STUFF last week, which was nice.

Regular readers might recognise it as a rework of a previous post where I was making a case that arguments over public asset sales distracted from an easier debate over asset allocation. Since I didn’t get any bites about this orginal piece I was in the process of reworking it, pointing out that asset sales were happening under a different guise, when the whole topic hit the papers again. So in it went. 

I think the big lesson here is that if I want to get published in the paper regularly I will probably need 3-5 topics on the slow burn so I can take advantage of what is topical. I am not sure if I have that many topics! 🙂

The other interesting thing is that although it was in the paper (great!) to get rapid feedback you need to be on the front section of STUFF. In all there were only 12 comments, which was a bit of a fail really.

_____________________________

How to sell a public asset without selling an asset

After a brief hiatus asset sales have once again been mooted as an option for the Christchurch City Council to address its financial situation. This will no doubt disappoint those who believe the council should maintain its ownership stakes.

Those same people may be discouraged to learn that their opposition has not prevented a sell down on the sly. However, this is what appears to have happened with council owned Red Bus.

Red Bus is a bit of a problem child for the council and has been for many years. Not only does it struggle to retain bus routes in the face of private companies like Go Bus (an indicator of operational inefficiency for a public owned company), it barely makes a profit while sitting on a large amount of assets.

These assets could easily redeployed into better things (think “asset allocation” instead of asset sales), significantly benefiting the community.

While a good case could be made for selling Red Bus outright, it seems the risk of a PR backlash has meant that other avenues have been explored.

For example, the 2017 accounts indicated some odd behaviour. Despite make an operating profit of only $132,000 Red Bus was able to pay out a relatively hefty dividend of $1.35 million.

This is a good trick, but how was it achieved?

Despite a relatively small operating profit, a “consolidated profit” of $2.37 million was declared. For those wondering about the difference, the latter was largely the result of having extensive property assets revalued upwards by $2.38 million (+16%). A nice lift, but sitting on land and waiting for an increase in value is hardly a sign of managerial brilliance for a bus company. Pretty much all long term homeowners in New Zealand achieved this!

Red Bus then went to the bank, used the higher valuation to obtain a loan, and paid this money as a dividend to the CCC.

An equivalent situation would be using the increased value of your house to obtain a loan to pay for food. While it may be necessary at times, no one would suggest it makes you wealthier. You certainly cannot do it forever as eventually your equity runs out.

This is essentially what happened at Red Bus. The increase in value was sold to the bank for cash which was then passed onto the council.

This is called “releasing capital” which sounds better than “asset sales”, but both have the same effect of reducing the equity owned by the council.

Since paying a dividend of this size puts even more strain on a poorly performing company, significant pressure must have been applied. The substance of such actions are at odds to Mayor Lianne Dalziel’s statement that the council is “not considering asset sales”.

As it happens, selling down Red Bus is probably not a bad idea. Even in the latest financial year its return on assets was a miserable 0.8%. You could instead sell all the fixed assets in Red Bus, invest in a commercial property and receive 8 times as much for far less effort. Not doing so effectively costs rate payers around $2.3 million a year in lost income for no discernable benefit.

Although small compared to the overall council budget, $2.3 million a year is not chump change. There are clearly many good uses for this in Christchurch (I can certainly think of a few, can you?) and it is odd that the council has not taken advantage of this easy income stream.

The good news is that Red Bus is a small component of the council’s asset portfolio. With a bit more digging and some sensible asset allocation decisions the council’s financial position could be better than it appears.

_________________

Justin Stevenson has a Ph.D. in Engineering and a post-grad diploma in Economics. He really wants to see the city using its resources in a way that benefits the community the most.

If asset sales are no longer an option, how about asset allocation? (2018 update)

This is an updated version of the previous post “If asset sales are no longer an option, how about asset allocation?”   . Frankly, it didn’t take much work as not a heap as changed with the state of Red Bus

_____________________

All appearances suggest that asset sales are not being considered by the Christchurch City Council (CCC). This will please many as there are good reasons for keeping publicly owned assets. However, advocating for council ownership should not prevent sensible discussions about asset allocation.

Simply put, are CCC assets performing well, or should they swap them for something else? If we are going to keep the family silver, shouldn’t we make sure what we have is in fact silver!

For example, consider Red Bus. Is it worth the CCC owning this asset, or could it do better?

The annual report for Red Bus is freely available so we can get significant insight into this company’s performance. So what does this reveal?

With publicly owned companies it is inadequate to focus only on financial performance as there are often important, but more intangible, valuation considerations. They may be a monopoly provider, or they may provide some form of public good that the private sector would not deliver.

A useful thought experiment is to ask, “what would happen if this company ceased to exist?” What would be lost that the numbers do not show?

With Red Bus the answer is pretty clear, not much!

Despite appearances, Red Bus is not responsible for providing public transport in Christchurch. ECAN is. Red Bus simply tenders to provide bus routes along with other companies.

And they often lose. Currently only 30% of routes are performed by Red Bus with private firms like Go Bus delivering the rest.

If Red Bus stopped providing bus services your average bus user wouldn’t notice the slightest difference.

So why does Red Bus exist? It exists because the CCC believes it can operate a bus company profitably and receive a healthy dividend. Therefore, we can largely ignore any intangible benefits and focus primarily on its financial performance.

So how did they do?

Last year Red Bus declared a pre tax operating profit of $303,000 on turnover of just over $20.5 million. Better than last year but still a very skinny margin around 1.5%.

“running to stand still” is the phrase that comes to mind.

Of more concern is the amount of resources used to get this small profit. The accounts list net assets at a shade under $38 million, implying a return on assets of 0.8%.

If Red Bus was sold, and different assets purchased, what return could we expect from $38 million? As a comparison we could:

  1. Put the money into a bank deposit. With interest rates currently around 3.5% this is worth $1.35 million per year.
  2. Buy some industrial property. A 7% return should be possible so this is worth $2.6 million per year.
  3. Attempt to mimic the performance of Ngai Tahu’s commercial arm which made around 15% a year since settlement. This is around $5.5 million a year.

None of these options would compromise the provision of a public bus service. ECAN would simply contract to another company. In each case we would get the bus service PLUS the extra money.

A 7% return via option 2 is not an unreasonable expectation. What does Red Bus aim for? Apparently it has a target of $300k. Although they have achieved this “heroic” goal, 8 times this could have been achieved with far less effort!

Some conclusions can be drawn:

  • Red Bus is inefficient as even with its thin margin it can’t keep private providers (who tend to be very rational about profit) at bay.
  • Red Bus is very asset rich but makes virtually no return on those assets.
  • If the council wants a dividend from assets there are far easier options than owning this bus service.
  • Owning this company effectively wastes around $10 per ratepayer annually.

It would seem that selling up, letting others provide the bus service, and buying better assets is a reasonable alternative.

Red Bus is a tiny component of the CCC asset portfolio. However, even reallocating these resources could significantly improve the life of ratepayers. Even if only used for transport in the city an extra $2.6 million per year could be used to:

  • Give away 1 million free bus tickets to encourage more users.
  • Give 7000 bikes away.
  • Give 1500 E-bikes away.
  • Provide 86,000, $30 taxi trips.
  • An additional 3% more bus routes could be provided

These are just some options available, and they would be additional to the existing bus system.

Get creative. What would you do?

It is not unreasonably that all CCC owned companies should receive the same attention (hint, City Care deserves a look for starters). As ratepayers we should ensure that they are achieving even a basic level of performance so we are able to enjoy the benefits. As demonstrated with Red Bus, not doing so could be leaving our community significantly worse off than it could be.

Not quite as impressive

So this was a bit of a random effort but The Press picked it up but ran with it – in STUFF anyway. Those of you following this blog will recognise it as a slightly modified version of a

Those of you following this blog will recognise it as a slightly modified version of a previouse post.

I was under the impression that it would be in the paper as well. Alas. I must be getting old as the having it a physical form still feels more real than having it online. How things change.

Judging from the comments I probably didn’t convince many people. 50/50 for and against, and far less response than the previous effort.

On that note though, what is it with some people who comment? In most cases they clearly took whatever they wanted out of it rather than what I tried pretty carefully to convey.

For the record, this piece is looking at a specific “edge” case where cycleways and public transport MIGHT be a good solution and be of benefit those who drive, i.e. when, and only when, traffic is already heavy. When traffic is flowing well then other arguments come into play. In particular, within reason, people should be able to travel around in whatever way they prefer. Admittedly this is a harder argument as the costs and benefits between users are not as clear and harder to quantify.

Well Well! Success at last!

Well wouldn’t you know it, after a couple of attempts, multiple submissions, and a few edits to satisfy the Press, I finally got published!

There were a few things to learn from the process, like being able to address a topic that is reasonably hot at the time. However, writing style-wise, the main thing seems to be that paragraphs need to be short for opinion pieces. Here is the link to the final version on Stuff which you can see ended up being slightly different to the submitted version below.

At some point, I will write something to respond to the key critiques in the comment section, but as that will probably be for my own amusement and completeness it is unlikely to happen in a hurry.

The most cutting critique seems to suggest that I don’t think tertiary education is a good thing. Given my own qualification list, this is clearly not the case, and I firmly believe that everyone should be given every opportunity to reach their potential.

My main issue is that the way we choose to fund tertiary education at present ends up being, completely unintentionally, the largest institutional injustice in New Zealand (in dollar and numerical terms). For those who are concerned about identifying and addressing such things that should be a source of concern.

________________________________________

Published – The Press – November 10, 2017

A Counter-Intuitive Result: Why removing student fees is an odd policy for Labour

Labour’s removal of fees for the first year of tertiary study is clearly a response to the perceived unfairness of moving away from the fully subsidised tertiary education system of the past. It has also been touted as a way to increase access to tertiary education for those who would be put off by the cost. On the surface these are both popular and laudable reasons for adopting this policy.
However, although tertiary fees have been justified as necessary to cover the cost of ever increasing student numbers, the fact that they reduce inequality, and make the tax system fairer, is a less intuitive outcome.
As it turns out, removing fees is not a policy you would expect from the Labour party given the typical constituent it claims’ to represent.
It is important to realise that most government expenditure (approximately 83%) is spent equally on all New Zealanders – a form of a universal basic income (UBI) mainly provided through services instead of cash. The big ticket items are public healthcare, compulsory primary and secondary education, superannuation, and core government services such as roading, law and order, and defence. Even without NZ’s slightly progressive tax rate this results in a transfer of wealth from the richest to the poorest as those above the average income pay more tax than they get back in services, and vice versa. This is generally seen as a good outcome as it helps to alleviate inequalities in society.
Government expenditure on tertiary education is an exception. Those studying clearly receive more benefits than those that do not and, while technically available to all, attendance in tertiary education is highly correlated with the social status of one’s parents. Therefore, government subsidies are effectively a regressive tax where the richest have their education subsidised by the poorest. In NZ, those who do not study at tertiary level miss out on approximately $1000/year (or $80,000 over the average lifetime) in government benefits.
Although extremely unlikely to happen, making tertiary education compulsory would go some way to addressing this issue, but would still be limited by the significant difference in course costs. For example, those doing science based courses would benefit more than those doing humanities. There also seems to be wide acceptance that tertiary training is not the necessary or preferred choice for all.
As a thought experiment, imagine a system where students paid the full cost of study and the existing spending on tertiary subsidies was instead paid equally to everyone as a cash payment of $1000 per year, for life. People could use this for tertiary education, or instead choose to do something else they view as more valuable. While it would not make tertiary education universal, it would make the subsidy universal so that it would be fairer to everyone. Alas, trusting people with their own money is usually a step too far for most governments.
The current middle ground of students paying for part of their education goes some way to solving the problem. Those doing tertiary study still benefit enormously (students only pay around 23% of the course costs) but it is not quite as unfair as a fully subsidised system. The student loan scheme helps to ensure access for all and, despite appearances, also benefits the poorest as the requirement to repay is linked to future earnings.
There is clearly a concern that fees introduce a psychological or practical barrier preventing those who should study from accessing tertiary training. However, a wholesale elimination of fees is an extremely expensive way to address this. As a comparison, for the same cost we could continue to charge those already planning to study and then pay the fees for an extra 100% more students who need encouragement (this of course ignores the massive costs associated with simply having more students, but this would also apply to the zero fee scheme). Although removing fees will probably see an increase in student numbers, it is unlikely to be on this scale. If access is the main issue being addressed, this indicates that there are probably better and more cost-effective solutions.
Sceptics might argue that improving access has never really been the main concern. It is likely that those already planning to study will be the primary beneficiaries of having fees removed. No doubt they will be very grateful (in politically practical ways) to be able to pocket the extra subsidy while conveniently forgetting the cost imposed on those not doing tertiary training.
Although a universal payment system described above would be fairer to all, the existing fee paying system is probably the best option we can hope for at the moment. However, Labour have responded to the call to return to the “good old days” when tertiary training was “free”, despite the inherent inequality of this. Presumably only those who have already, are now, or will pay the fees are being heard rather than those currently missing out.
Labour should realise that tertiary fees do a reasonable job of reducing a benefit largely captured by the well-off. In the short term it might be politically beneficial to scrap fees but on closer examination, free tertiary education is not well aligned with Labour’s vision for a more equitable society. To achieve that, there are better ways this money could be spent.

Theology of Economics – Part 2

This is the second sermon I gave at Ilam Baptist where I tried to flesh out my thoughts on the linkages between economics and theology.

Part 1 was basically a challenge to theology from economics. In it I argued that due to the impacts of the industrial revolution we are now living is a completely different economic paradigm to the rest of human history. Since the bible was written pre the industrial revolution I think that much of its instruction on economic matters needs to at least be looked at again.  The more aggressive side of me would argue for a complete revision, but that is a step to far for many.

In Part 2 I am trying to describe how economics and theology might differ.  In effect I am trying to distinguish whose sand pit is whose.

After delivering this I tried to come up with a pithy summary for the whole sermon and the best I could do was.

“Economics is interested in how we redistribute scarce resources. Theology is interested in who we are if we have no resources at all”

It’s not  quite accurate, and also tends to annoy theologians, but it was worth a crack :-).

As always any feedback would be well received.

Here is the audio and the power-point slides to go along with it.

Theology and Economics Part 2 201509

 

Theology of Economics – Part 1

This is a sermon that I gave at Ilam Baptist Church trying to flesh out the links between economics and theology. They have changed their website recently so I now have to host it here on the odd chance that people might want to listen to it.

This sermon was partially given because I was getting extremely frustrated with the dominant econ/theology views being expressed. They were either people with a strong theology background who dabbled in economics because they perceived, rightly or wrongly, that there was some social justice issue to address, or they were mildly rabid christian capitalists who believe (perhaps correctly :-)) that the market is a gift from God and can’t be critised. I am not comfortable with either of these perspectives as I don’t think it does justice to theology or economics.

Naturally I like to think that I have a unique, and of course absolutely correct (:-)) view, but I will let you be the judge.

Clearly being labelled “Part 1” indicates that there are more to come – an in due time I will post the second.

By the way, I used a relatively large Monty Python sketch in this sermon to set the scene. If you want to watch it on YouTube, here is the link but it is very skipable.

Also, you will need to follow along with the Power Point Slides which I have attached. It should be pretty easy to figure out when to move along.

By the way, I am always on for discussion about this so fire away.

Happy listening.

Theology and Economics 201407

 

 

Potentially a life goal

A few of the reasons I think a universal allowance is worth aiming for.

I was intending to post this after I had performed the mammoth task of getting the background analysis refined into a final, readable form (it is in a 30 pg draft at the moment!). However, discussions about the pros and cons of a universal allowance (it goes under a few different terms incl: universal basic income (UBI) , universal benefit (UB)) have unexpectedly hit the national, and international, media so I felt compelled to post a stripped down version of this as a comment on STUFF.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/94884619/how-gareth-morgans-ubi-plans-stack-up-economically

As I got in early I am currently the post with the most votes! 🙂

Originally it was published as a letter to an international publication (oh alright – it was The Economist) so hence the use of $US and other non NZ specific terminology

____________

Originally written June 4th, 2016

Dear Sir

Considering the various luminaries listed as supporting a universal basic income it is disappointing that you have again given it the thumbs down (Basically Flawed, June 4th) Perhaps they see something that your analysis has missed? I would suggest adding the following into the mix.

First, in most developed countries the tax system delivers a universal income already, just not in cash. Using my own country, New Zealand, as an example, 83% of government expenditure is paid out universally in the form of health care, compulsory education, superannuation (a universal income for the elderly), and core government services. This is equivalent to a universal income of $19k (US$13K) per year.  The remaining 17% is dominated by tertiary education funding (a regressive tax as this is paid disproportionately to the well off) and payments to those working with children (a very badly designed system with +100% marginal tax rates for many). Only around 3.5% is directed (inefficiently) to low-income earners, far less than most assume. In an alternative system, all this 17% could be replaced with a universal income of $12k (US$8.3K) per year to those between 18 and 65, leaving most significantly better off for no increase in the nett tax take.

Secondly, although you correctly state that a universal income requires tax increases, you ignore the critical distinction between nett and gross tax. With largely universal tax systems the average taxpayer basically receives benefits equivalent to what they pay in tax. Since they have little choice over what those benefits are economists would normally assume they are worse off. Not so with taxes to pay for a universal income. For the average taxpayer, any tax increase would be returned directly as cash leaving them in the same nett position as before the tax was applied.

Why bother then? Because: those below the average receive more than they pay so the system reduces inequalities; it is far more efficient and eliminates large bureaucratic wastage; it removes marginal tax rates that contribute to the “poverty trap” in current welfare systems; and removes the temptation to under-report income to take advantage of income related benefits. It also allows individuals to choose how best to allocate resources to improve their own life. In short, it is a fairer more efficient system than we currently have and can be implemented in many countries for the same NETT tax cost.

Dr Justin Stevenson
Christchurch
New Zealand