They want to tax it in the most inefficient way possible, with the highest administrative costs and the highest distortionary impacts (read field day for accountants restructuring everything), because they're less interested in taxing capital for efficiency purposes, and more interested in reducing wealth inequality. Ugh fine.
Their spending plans are so massive, that on top of this, they want to slap people who have the audacity to work hard, study, or build modestly successful businesses with higher income taxes from $120k. Ugh, why?!
The Greens see 10% of the population earning more than $120k and say 'we can tax them, they're privileged'.
They've got it backward. They should be asking, why do only 10% of kiwis earn $120k+ NZD? If that number was higher, a heck of a lot less would be floating across the ditch. Registered nurses can earn this much btw. This isn't fat cats in monocles money.
Perhaps. But when you tax something you push it away. We tax smoking to encourage people to quit smoking, why do we tax income so highly?
I'm not going to make a judgement here on what the Greens want to fund with all this extra tax money, I'm just going to point out that taxes distort economic activity by pushing out of the economy the things that are taxed.
In this case, the Greens want to heavily tax company profits (tax rate from 28% -> 33% when 28% is already high by OECD standards, and much higher than Australia (25% on revenue < $50m), Singapore (18%), USA (21%) which are all places kiwi businesses have a habit of relocating, so we should expect less business formation and less hiring and investment.
The Greens want to tax wealth, which is the most mobile of all the things you can tax, so expect a lot of inefficiency as the wealthy all rearrange their affairs, and many leave.
And on top of all that, and the source of my frustration, is that they also want to tax anyone who has the audacity to work for a living with a bit of education behind them more. 39% is a very high tax rate to kick in at $120k.
Before considering the 'benefits' they propose to fund with all these taxes, we should acknowledge that the cost is very real, and will certainly lead to a sharp private sector contraction. The Greens will probably then fill that hole with debt. Is it worth it?
I'd much, much, much, much prefer they taxed land. Unlike all the other things mentioned here, land can't move to Singapore/Melbourne/NYC or London when you tax it. So it dodges the above discussed distortions. IRD just estimated the total value of all land in the economy at $1.8 trillion. So a 1% LVT would net you $18 billion, which is more than the current health budget. Fund your spending plans with that instead and I might jump on board...
It will be a change for the worse, I think. The Greens are far too far left and hot-headed, TPM ditto. I miss the moderating and mature presences of James Shaw and Pita Sharples. I hope there won't be any fooling around with co-governance, nor a wealth tax that trusts will escape from. However, a judicious capital gains tax, which works perfectly well overseas, would be okay. As would subidised dentistry. Easily reversible are the stupid and offensive raising of the speed limits near schools, and Shane's fast-track ventures that risk environmental degradation. Supermarket duopoly anybody?
Have you, perchance read the Green Budget or the Green Industrial Policy or the Green Fiscal Strategy, all released this year? What issues, if any, do you have with these?
As in the USA, I take comfort from the fact that Trump kept Kamala Harris out. And here, Luxon and co. keep the divisive and hopeless green left at bay. For now... It is amazing though that the idiocy of the left keeps rating so high.
Chlöe is the only politician I’ve heard acknowledge the system is utterly broken. She is the only politician with enough courage and moxy to put completely fresh economic, financial, and societal ideas genuinely on the table. She is also a conviction politician which ticks my box. In contrast, Labour have forgotten the proletariat and have been lassoed by Neoliberalism. Being lead by a managerialist tinkerer with a penchant for sossie rolls is also problematic in these times. Plus, Chippy, bless him,had his crack.The dream team for me is the Greens on their own, but second best is the Greens leading a coalition of Labour and TPM in a well-crafted, future facing, people centric coalition. It’s time for some serious change and what other option is there?
I have ticked "neither better or worse' as there will be no overall change within the ruling political class no matter how the electorate mixes and matches political parties and philosophies.
The changes necessary are beyond the imagination of our much compromised failing democracy that is allowing an increasingly arrogant plutocracy to flourish.
With heavy heart I ticked "a change for the better", ironically for the same reason as yours.
My watchword has always been 'vote Labour with no illusions'. This is because failure to materially improve the lot of ordinary folks under a Labour government can't elicit the response that future election of Labour will improve matters. Failure under Labour (inevitable if it doesn't structurally change economic direction, which it won't) indicates, as you say, a need for systemic change rather than tinkering within the system.
Unfortunately, Labour is wasting it's political capital in its obsession with steering the sinking ship of Neoliberalism rather than building a new ship. This is causing folks to pin their faith in the faux-radicalism of emergent fascism being promoted by the combined Right.
I would love Labour to kick neoliberalism into touch for good and start rebuilding a society where community is the most important thing. Where families don't have to be slaves to employers but work for a common good.
Labour might be electorally advantaged (i.e. gain more seats than it loses) if they politely disengaged with TPM as a potential coalition partner, whilst showing good faith to all Maori by returning to the policies on Te Tiriti / Maori issues that existed immediately prior to the 'co-governance' debacle.
It seems to me that TPM has entirely failed to 'read the room' appropriately to the moment, and is being swept along on the wave of ethno-nationalist fervour that's gripping the world, trying to fight their opponents in a tit-for-tat shouting match. The problem for TPM is that, with only just over 3% of the total vote they are in no position to progress along that route, whereas NActNZF command nearer 50%, and a lot of that support comes directly from those hostile to TPM and their allies in the progressive camp.
At a time when economic transformation needs to be the lead policy, TPM's “constitutional transformation” platform is a strategic blunder for themselves ,and for Labour a case of 'with friends like these, who needs enemies?' Some kind of a reset is needed.
I won’t share the results I see on voting - except to say the right seem to really hate the idea of their toys being thrown out of the pram - the left seem to be more - let’s work together … or am I misinterpreting?
At the end of the day, Aotearoa (or whatever they call it) needs to generate income to pay back debt incurred through borrowing - why? just look at Sri Lanka. That need to produce and sell stuff the world wants to pay for figures in no parties plans.
We have traditionally met that income need through dairy, beef, lamb and timber exports, and tourism. Dairy, beef and lamb are all declining in animal numbers, freezing works are closing and Greens want them gone. Timber is a disaster environmentally (sediment and slash). Tourism relies on fossil fuels (ships and aircraft) and the bureaucracy and greed in NZ has already severely cut cruise vessel arrivals.
So we will go back to the 1950's where you could have a new car if you had private overseas funds - but we have lost and do no longer want any of the mines, foundaries, machine shops, or fibre mills that made import substitutes.
So, how do we fend off an eventual but certain default on debt, resulting in widespread malnutrition (30% in Sri Lanka), a lack of medicines a shortage of energy (no copper, steel, solar panels etc.) and violent political instability?
Sri Lanka had debt denominated in currencies other than its own, mainly US dollars and Indian Rupees, which is a far greater threat than debt denominated in a country's own currency. It's an absolute fact that a country can't go bankrupt (default involuntarily) in it's own currency, though it can seriously impact its exchange-rate position. This IMO is the reason the NZ Treasury encouraged this government to shrink our economy- to reduce demand for imports and rectify a large balance of payments imbalance. The increased urbanisation of NZ resulting in a plethora of bullshit jobs, the reliance on money-creation through mortgage debt and the resulting taste for expensive toys rather than the simple pursuits of yesteryear are all factors.
I fully endorse your comments concerning import substitution. Re-establishing and preventing closure of industries that add value to existing export production and replace the demand for imports is a good use for government debt, since the private sector is no longer interested in anything other than speculation on existing assets. Increasing electricity generation capacity would be a good start.
A major factor in Sri Lanka's crisis was unaffordable tax cuts. It seems no country in the world is immune to this ideologically driven 'trickle down' drivel.
A predictably rubbish attempt at what I'm sure will be a long line of op-ed's warning that the sky will fall in should Aotearoa dare to elect a left bloc government in 2026. PH offers nothing close to resembling an impartial analysis of the political landscape, preferring instead to scatter barely hidden barbs of skepticism that an alternative to the politics of greed, alienation, and punishing the poor and disadvantaged could possibly work. The absence of any critiquing of the current appalling fiscal policies or of the social division this current coalition of chaos is creating speaks volumes about how situated this post is.
A good summary with horrifying results from your "poll".
I quote from your summary:
"Labour’s website (which has yet to be updated) talks of “working in close partnerships with Māori”, and “partnering with iwi” over housing and education. That sounds lame compared with TPM who want “constitutional transformation”, including a Māori parliament, and the return of foreshore and seabed, central and local government land and all conservation land to mana whenua. TPM want ownership, not partnership."
This would lead to: Non-Maori become slaves or tenants in New Zealand under the overlordship of Maori Chiefs. We work, Maori Chiefs tax.
You write 'I’m guessing that the Greens would insist on seats inside cabinet this time around.'
There is, however, the constitutional possibility of Labour forming a single-party minority government, with either or both of the Greens and TPM sitting on the 'cross-benches', excluded from government but giving confidence-and-supply support.
They would not like that, but surely would prefer it to precipating another election and the return of a National-or-Act-led government.
That is a possibility, thanks John. Key made similar arrangements. Those confidence and supply agreements include policy concessions and ministerial warrants – or a minor party won't sign up.
The Greens frustrate the hell out of me.
They want to tax capital more. Fine
They want to tax it in the most inefficient way possible, with the highest administrative costs and the highest distortionary impacts (read field day for accountants restructuring everything), because they're less interested in taxing capital for efficiency purposes, and more interested in reducing wealth inequality. Ugh fine.
Their spending plans are so massive, that on top of this, they want to slap people who have the audacity to work hard, study, or build modestly successful businesses with higher income taxes from $120k. Ugh, why?!
The Greens see 10% of the population earning more than $120k and say 'we can tax them, they're privileged'.
They've got it backward. They should be asking, why do only 10% of kiwis earn $120k+ NZD? If that number was higher, a heck of a lot less would be floating across the ditch. Registered nurses can earn this much btw. This isn't fat cats in monocles money.
The benefits to the public of real free health, education, dental care, much better public transport etc outweighs the cost of extra tax doesn't it?
Perhaps. But when you tax something you push it away. We tax smoking to encourage people to quit smoking, why do we tax income so highly?
I'm not going to make a judgement here on what the Greens want to fund with all this extra tax money, I'm just going to point out that taxes distort economic activity by pushing out of the economy the things that are taxed.
In this case, the Greens want to heavily tax company profits (tax rate from 28% -> 33% when 28% is already high by OECD standards, and much higher than Australia (25% on revenue < $50m), Singapore (18%), USA (21%) which are all places kiwi businesses have a habit of relocating, so we should expect less business formation and less hiring and investment.
The Greens want to tax wealth, which is the most mobile of all the things you can tax, so expect a lot of inefficiency as the wealthy all rearrange their affairs, and many leave.
And on top of all that, and the source of my frustration, is that they also want to tax anyone who has the audacity to work for a living with a bit of education behind them more. 39% is a very high tax rate to kick in at $120k.
Before considering the 'benefits' they propose to fund with all these taxes, we should acknowledge that the cost is very real, and will certainly lead to a sharp private sector contraction. The Greens will probably then fill that hole with debt. Is it worth it?
I'd much, much, much, much prefer they taxed land. Unlike all the other things mentioned here, land can't move to Singapore/Melbourne/NYC or London when you tax it. So it dodges the above discussed distortions. IRD just estimated the total value of all land in the economy at $1.8 trillion. So a 1% LVT would net you $18 billion, which is more than the current health budget. Fund your spending plans with that instead and I might jump on board...
https://www.taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/tp/publications/2025/ir-ltib/analytical-note-3.pdf?modified=20250626002156&fbclid=IwY2xjawLP4ihleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHrStmlCBIY-RPlA1eKKZ_IaOrY_orMA6VTYn-MKm5KLrks9lof4fJymelN89_aem_6AukII4xsbnGxRg4yGoEog
It will be a change for the worse, I think. The Greens are far too far left and hot-headed, TPM ditto. I miss the moderating and mature presences of James Shaw and Pita Sharples. I hope there won't be any fooling around with co-governance, nor a wealth tax that trusts will escape from. However, a judicious capital gains tax, which works perfectly well overseas, would be okay. As would subidised dentistry. Easily reversible are the stupid and offensive raising of the speed limits near schools, and Shane's fast-track ventures that risk environmental degradation. Supermarket duopoly anybody?
Have you, perchance read the Green Budget or the Green Industrial Policy or the Green Fiscal Strategy, all released this year? What issues, if any, do you have with these?
I'm not THAT much of a political animal but I may take a look at it - one needs to keep an open mind about these things!
As in the USA, I take comfort from the fact that Trump kept Kamala Harris out. And here, Luxon and co. keep the divisive and hopeless green left at bay. For now... It is amazing though that the idiocy of the left keeps rating so high.
Chlöe is the only politician I’ve heard acknowledge the system is utterly broken. She is the only politician with enough courage and moxy to put completely fresh economic, financial, and societal ideas genuinely on the table. She is also a conviction politician which ticks my box. In contrast, Labour have forgotten the proletariat and have been lassoed by Neoliberalism. Being lead by a managerialist tinkerer with a penchant for sossie rolls is also problematic in these times. Plus, Chippy, bless him,had his crack.The dream team for me is the Greens on their own, but second best is the Greens leading a coalition of Labour and TPM in a well-crafted, future facing, people centric coalition. It’s time for some serious change and what other option is there?
Thanks for that comment, James! The system is broken...
I have ticked "neither better or worse' as there will be no overall change within the ruling political class no matter how the electorate mixes and matches political parties and philosophies.
The changes necessary are beyond the imagination of our much compromised failing democracy that is allowing an increasingly arrogant plutocracy to flourish.
With heavy heart I ticked "a change for the better", ironically for the same reason as yours.
My watchword has always been 'vote Labour with no illusions'. This is because failure to materially improve the lot of ordinary folks under a Labour government can't elicit the response that future election of Labour will improve matters. Failure under Labour (inevitable if it doesn't structurally change economic direction, which it won't) indicates, as you say, a need for systemic change rather than tinkering within the system.
Unfortunately, Labour is wasting it's political capital in its obsession with steering the sinking ship of Neoliberalism rather than building a new ship. This is causing folks to pin their faith in the faux-radicalism of emergent fascism being promoted by the combined Right.
I would love Labour to kick neoliberalism into touch for good and start rebuilding a society where community is the most important thing. Where families don't have to be slaves to employers but work for a common good.
Great comment, thanks, Margaret. Are you saying, in effect, that Labour should go back to their founding principles?
Labour might be electorally advantaged (i.e. gain more seats than it loses) if they politely disengaged with TPM as a potential coalition partner, whilst showing good faith to all Maori by returning to the policies on Te Tiriti / Maori issues that existed immediately prior to the 'co-governance' debacle.
It seems to me that TPM has entirely failed to 'read the room' appropriately to the moment, and is being swept along on the wave of ethno-nationalist fervour that's gripping the world, trying to fight their opponents in a tit-for-tat shouting match. The problem for TPM is that, with only just over 3% of the total vote they are in no position to progress along that route, whereas NActNZF command nearer 50%, and a lot of that support comes directly from those hostile to TPM and their allies in the progressive camp.
At a time when economic transformation needs to be the lead policy, TPM's “constitutional transformation” platform is a strategic blunder for themselves ,and for Labour a case of 'with friends like these, who needs enemies?' Some kind of a reset is needed.
I won’t share the results I see on voting - except to say the right seem to really hate the idea of their toys being thrown out of the pram - the left seem to be more - let’s work together … or am I misinterpreting?
You're welcome to interpret, John. The poll is only a straw poll of readers and not representative of anything larger.
Just a very interesting bell curve - no?
Indeed!
At the end of the day, Aotearoa (or whatever they call it) needs to generate income to pay back debt incurred through borrowing - why? just look at Sri Lanka. That need to produce and sell stuff the world wants to pay for figures in no parties plans.
We have traditionally met that income need through dairy, beef, lamb and timber exports, and tourism. Dairy, beef and lamb are all declining in animal numbers, freezing works are closing and Greens want them gone. Timber is a disaster environmentally (sediment and slash). Tourism relies on fossil fuels (ships and aircraft) and the bureaucracy and greed in NZ has already severely cut cruise vessel arrivals.
So we will go back to the 1950's where you could have a new car if you had private overseas funds - but we have lost and do no longer want any of the mines, foundaries, machine shops, or fibre mills that made import substitutes.
So, how do we fend off an eventual but certain default on debt, resulting in widespread malnutrition (30% in Sri Lanka), a lack of medicines a shortage of energy (no copper, steel, solar panels etc.) and violent political instability?
The danger is that NZ falls behind the pack, if it hasn't already, as Argentina and Uruguay did following the Great Depression.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-project-database?tab=line&country=URY~NZL~ARG~AUS
Sri Lanka had debt denominated in currencies other than its own, mainly US dollars and Indian Rupees, which is a far greater threat than debt denominated in a country's own currency. It's an absolute fact that a country can't go bankrupt (default involuntarily) in it's own currency, though it can seriously impact its exchange-rate position. This IMO is the reason the NZ Treasury encouraged this government to shrink our economy- to reduce demand for imports and rectify a large balance of payments imbalance. The increased urbanisation of NZ resulting in a plethora of bullshit jobs, the reliance on money-creation through mortgage debt and the resulting taste for expensive toys rather than the simple pursuits of yesteryear are all factors.
I fully endorse your comments concerning import substitution. Re-establishing and preventing closure of industries that add value to existing export production and replace the demand for imports is a good use for government debt, since the private sector is no longer interested in anything other than speculation on existing assets. Increasing electricity generation capacity would be a good start.
A major factor in Sri Lanka's crisis was unaffordable tax cuts. It seems no country in the world is immune to this ideologically driven 'trickle down' drivel.
A predictably rubbish attempt at what I'm sure will be a long line of op-ed's warning that the sky will fall in should Aotearoa dare to elect a left bloc government in 2026. PH offers nothing close to resembling an impartial analysis of the political landscape, preferring instead to scatter barely hidden barbs of skepticism that an alternative to the politics of greed, alienation, and punishing the poor and disadvantaged could possibly work. The absence of any critiquing of the current appalling fiscal policies or of the social division this current coalition of chaos is creating speaks volumes about how situated this post is.
A good summary with horrifying results from your "poll".
I quote from your summary:
"Labour’s website (which has yet to be updated) talks of “working in close partnerships with Māori”, and “partnering with iwi” over housing and education. That sounds lame compared with TPM who want “constitutional transformation”, including a Māori parliament, and the return of foreshore and seabed, central and local government land and all conservation land to mana whenua. TPM want ownership, not partnership."
This would lead to: Non-Maori become slaves or tenants in New Zealand under the overlordship of Maori Chiefs. We work, Maori Chiefs tax.
You write 'I’m guessing that the Greens would insist on seats inside cabinet this time around.'
There is, however, the constitutional possibility of Labour forming a single-party minority government, with either or both of the Greens and TPM sitting on the 'cross-benches', excluded from government but giving confidence-and-supply support.
They would not like that, but surely would prefer it to precipating another election and the return of a National-or-Act-led government.
That is a possibility, thanks John. Key made similar arrangements. Those confidence and supply agreements include policy concessions and ministerial warrants – or a minor party won't sign up.