Tis said that economists oft resemble accountants minus the personality. Cameron Bagrie certainly fits that mold. That aside I have generally supported his views on the economy.
But I do find it surprising that he should label National’s proposed ditching of the 39% tax rate and the indexation of tax brackets as inflationary while ignoring the effect of the additional six billion dollar spending increase foreshadowed in next weeks budget. $1.6b in peoples hands to save/spend/reduce debt vs $6b of new government spending from a mob whose hallmark is ‘never mind the quality, feel the width’ and tell me just which one makes better sense in a country where the government is leveraging off its credit card and refining borrow and hope to new levels.
The government’s investment of $45m plus into the Public Journalism Fund continues to reap dividends for them. Extensive coverage of Bagrie’s view on National’s tax cuts proposal and nary a mention of the effect on inflation of the government’s additional $6b spend up.
No Minister 
I wondered too Vet – think it was on The Country last week when I first heard Bagrie say that.
I always thought he was pretty good with his opinions but like you I find this one hard to follow.
It could be that he thinks people not spending the money could be a problem with a looming recession because that’s how Keynesians think; all spending, all consumerism, all the time.
The idea that reducing personal debt and/or that investment spending (real investment as in building stuff) may be more important just does not enter into the Keynesian economic model; Helicopter Ben and all that.