Phil Matimein “avoid problems occurring in the future.”

No problems with that.

However, there is a point at which the cost of ensuring that future devours the present.

And presuming a government bureaucrat has some crystal ball better than those involved in an endeavour is foolhardy to say the least.

“As for taxes Col, I'm happy paying taxes because, as a member of a society where there are a large number of low income earners who need help”

That is a view, not one I share. ‘low income earners’ also contribute to the tax burden, as they should.

However, government and the bureaucrats it employs, which pretends it can ‘level’ the economic outcomes of individuals obviously misunderstands the meaning of the word ‘individual’ (be they low or high income earners).

“This idea that tax cuts solve problems is quite misguided.”

The idea that government achieves anything by taxation which cannot be achieved by individuals is a myth.

Some time ago I presented here the comparison of comparative taxation rates (as % of GDP) to the statistical measurement of “life satisfaction”

all data from the web site http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

the correlation between tax and life satisfaction was -0.31868479

in other words a negative correlation, the higher the tax, the less satisfying the level of life satisfaction.

Whilst you might be “happy paying taxes” it suggests most people are not.

Remember, government and its bureaucrats are there to serve the electorate, not to direct them.

“unlike private companies, government has to justify the expense of public money”

The share holders of private company have far greater influence over how their invested funds are deployed than any tax payer has over the largesse of governments (Victoria’s Tri-Continental Banking disaster comes to mind),

tax payers funds wasted in a government orgy of funding extreme risk.

As for nepotism, what people do with their own money is up to them.
What people do with public funds should be subject to greater scrutiny and inspection because it is, after all, ‘public’ and not ‘private’ money.