3) Next part of the reform that I advise you is more about expense programs... It can not be made directly. To reach this program you need two or even three electoral mandate, the road is long then (or else if the movement is too fast, the unstability would create unemployment).
I developped my proposition on a OECD basis, this OECD basis allows me to see clearly what works, and what don't work.
- social expenses (not including social health expense, social education expenses) : +0.35% if efficient, 0% for the rest
- education expenses : +0.1% if efficient, 0% for unefficient expenses
- administrations and public services : +0.35% if social public services such as nurseries, 0% for the rest
- health expenses : 0%
- police, justice, and other safety expenses : +0.1%
- defense expenses : +0.1%
- infrastructures, housing and collective developments : +0.1%
- culture expenses : 0.1% if language school abroad for skilled immigration program, 0% for the rest
- environment expenses : 0%
- economic miscellaneous affairs : 0.1% if only minimum necessary such as energy and monopoly prevention, 0% for the rest
As you probably know, every expense makes a gain of growth, every tax the contrary, and every debt to reimburse is exponentially more expensive. The number that I proposed you is this multiplier that you commonly can find in many economists websites. 1% of GDP of superior expense makes X gain of growth.
In this instance, let me propose you this final goal (after some mandates), as what is expensed in the best OECD country in each category. Only my social expense is not into them because with my left-liberal ideology. I have my own conception of social system.
- Social expenses : 23.5% of the GDP
With this expense, no more poors.
Everyone can eat and ride public transportation because of an universal allowance equivalent of 15% of the local GDP per capita. Only condition : being 18.
Every family with children would have a family allowance of 15% of local GDP per capita. However, if a family have more than one children, they would not have more than this amount, as an incitation for family planing.
Everyone in jobless who don't refuse to study (TESDA programs or college/university) can live in a brick studio with aircon and internet because of a 40% of the local GDP per head additionnal social fund. Those who refuse would not have it, and students would have it.
Minimum wage must to be hourly, and calculated to make the minimum income of a full time worker up to 55% of local GDP per capita.
A work incitation allowance up to 10% of local GDP could be made gradually to push people to work.
Pills, condoms and abortion would be free and allowed.
This is what we can do with this amount, and I am absolutly sure that there is no poverty anymore with that plan. Please note that I don't mean that this plan must to be made by the government, but it means a total of national and local public expenses.
- education expenses : 6% of GDP.
This is the amount expensed by the best education system in the world : Finland.
Their educative system is free for everybody, from primary school, include to university.
Their educative system is totally public, but autonomous. Teachers with the least performances at middle term lose their jobs directly, and teachers just under the average must to follow a training to renew their skills. Management is evaluated also.
From 4 to 15 years old, according to PISA test, Finland system is from far the best of the world. Finland people are not superior humans, they just have a good system.
There, children are responsabilized very early. School have a main program to provide them mathematics, science, history, language and foreign language skills. This program is of 15h per week only. Then, students are pushed to take optionnal courses up to 10h a week : doing a sport, playing music, trying some vocational shed/studio to know if they would like, learning another language, etc etc. This system continue till their high school graduation (graduation there is year 12 and not year 11 unlike here... so their bachelor is a 3 year program).
Their universities are also the best of the world for three reasons :
- they graduate 80% of their youth, that is huge
- as a proportion of their inhabitants, they are not bad in the rankings
- they are free of fees
Their universities work on the same philosophy than their primary and secondary system. Also there, they recruit wisely their teachers, expect good performances from them, but pay them in a better proportion also.
Only their vocational training are to improve. Not because of its system but because their training doesn't provide exactly what their local labour market need.
- Administration and public services : 6% of GDP. In fact, a country provides a good administration at a low price : UK with 4.5% of their GDP. Why 6%? I counted approximatively a free nurseries system (this expense would push more people to work, so would create growth).
- Health expenses : 2.9% of GDP. I don't consider public expenses in health useful because the market can provide it. Which country spend 2.9% of their GDP ? Macau for example, and the life expectancy at birth there is one of the best in the world. Then, I see these expenses as incitations for the market to go in any places (to not make health desert), and incitations to health medical insurrances to not make too much profits (as a compensation).
BE CARREFUL, with economic freedom reform that I proposed upper, you would have such as 50 different companies who would proposed their offer. This competition would already make their price really more little. Just observe abroad if you want to have an idea.
- Police, justice, and other safety expenses : 1.4% of GDP. This amount is spent in Japan. Japan is the only one OECD country who have good results in crime fight. I observed that globally, all the other countries spend less, it explains their bad results.
- Defense : 1% of GDP. I observed that in superpower countries, germany spend less for its defense (1.1% of their GDP). So I supposed that for a country like here who doesn't need to be implied internationally, 1% would be a good proportion to stop the rebellion in a middle-term.
- Infrastructures, housing, and community developments : 1% of GDP. The most efficient OECD country, as well for infrastructures as housing price, is Germany, with 0.8% of GDP. But Philippines by its situation need a constant effort to catch up its situation while Germany just have to maintain it. That is why I suppose that an effort of 0.2% additionnaly is necessary. Two sectors for that. First, making airports, ports, and public transportation as a public autonomous monopoly. The term autonomous is really important in that. Second, making financial incitations to build brick houses, studios and appartments : Philippines is able to stop to see its most poor people to live in bamboo houses. All we need to do is to improve the offer of brick hourses.
Today, approximatively 50 brick houses per 1000 heads. Tomorrow, almost 550 brick houses per 1000 heads needed.
This decreased price will make the foreign and local investment more interesting also in the long term.
- culture expense : 0.1% of GDP. This expense is one of the most useless expenses that exists except making language schools in the embassies and consulates where we can get skilled needed workers (ex : countries as rich/poor as here, or countries more poor). Japan is the OECD country who spent the least in culture, with 0.14% of their GDP. However, Japaneses have their own culture, even without public expenses ! So to just focus on language training for skilled immigrates, I think that only 0.1% of GDP is needed.
- environment expenses : 0% of GDP (same than USA). As for the culture, this expense is useless. Earth always lived period more hotter and colder, that is cycles. In the 19th century, earth was more hot than today. Are we dead ? No. There is more important pollution fights such as PM10 who are dangerous for health. And incitative taxes are enough to fight it, making expenses is not necessary. These are the reason why I don't advise expenses in this sector.
- economic miscellaneous affairs : 1% of GDP. One of the best OECD country about that expense is France with only 1.2% of their GDP. I simply think that it is possible to spend less, France spend too much as shareholders of useless companies such as "Quick" (equivalent here of Jollibee), or in automobile. This procent is made to make a public energy company, and a public medecine production company, to sell their product at a discounted price.
RSS FEED FOR THIS TOPIC
