Tax increase was decided, but what was decided?

Come to think of it, is about the tax increase that took up many times in this blog, but, somehow, strange decision was made.
It is that up to 10 percent raise the consumption tax rate in stages by the mid-2010s.
Also, be a condition of the tax increase implementation of improved economic conditions are also included.
Note that this is a decision by the social security reform considered the headquarters of the ruling party, Cabinet decision has not been.
I think as long as you have seen on TV, Mr. Yosano that said they had to follow this story strongly.

First, What is the meaning of this decision I super beetle into.
If the economic situation is if you did not turn around, you can not raise taxes.But, in the mid-2010s, when 10%.
It is a contradiction.
Maybe, do you believe that “between after, of about five years, the economy! Is the change for the better”, such like?

Anyway, Because it is after the earthquake, the economy, you should use care to lower demand, especially.
I think there is also a special demand earthquake, but do not demand it should be is the reduced.
When you consider the supply and demand gap of 20 trillion yen now, than not if you have a tax increase or Nantes would be brother.

Before the tax increase, more importantly, is spending cuts.
Rather than the show’s Hasu舫 like was going, this is, we simply reduce spending to force.
It is the elimination of bureaucratic interests (= golden parachute) If nothing else.
By way of example, (whether you know already, such as TV), such as nuclear power plants now in question, and whether they Tenka~tsu much hell to nuclear power and industry from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
These outrageous, there is interest, that is, budget a lot of money is not attached.
In a familiar example, the Development Bank of Japan (DBJ).Only top, Hashimoto, president of the former Fuji Bank was appointed the president, but (it was written up in the newspaper with no privileges) Real, is the figurehead.
In short, just eliminate or golden parachute, such, a golden parachute destination, you should be a substantial budget cut.

The last, If nothing else, do you call the restructuring of legislators, reform.
You have written many times, but it is to eliminate the disparity in the relative weight of one vote.
State nearly five times that of today is unconstitutional.
Quickly, I should review.
Why, this is what makes the spending cuts?
Because I break the existing concession structure.
You should do in various destination or reduce the constant in passing, and reduce or allowance and various salary.

The alone do only this, government will be smaller.
I, (under the conditions of golden parachute obsolete) that I think do not have to reduce so much the salary of the state civil service.
Than that, just to abolish the golden parachute, considerable budget should float.

If you go in the previous example, if the power industry as well, and no golden parachute, more, competition will occur.
Bureaucrats (from will be a fair position) Because will introduce competition, power transmission, separation of power generation is also possible.
I can full privatization also DBJ.

So, you do not need as long as tax increases for the earthquake reconstruction.
The problem, I think it is a deficit of government bonds 44 trillion yen, to reduce it, than tax increases, first,’s three points above.
The examples are tax increases, the economy was getting better, do not have in the past.

However, I think that way in the future, when you think about the way of tax, lowering the direct taxes by raising indirect taxes, and have gotten the target.

It is the cost of the earthquake, but he did 20 trillion, I think this level, there is no problem in government bonds issued.
Would be 4,5 trillion yen annual average.
First of all, I think the reason that is because of the earthquake once in 100 years, that it’s okay to pay back over 100 years.
I think the problem, and would be reducing the deficit of 44 trillion yen every year.