Rock Solid Financial Geniuses

Written By: - Date published: 2:55 pm, March 13th, 2024 - 45 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, making shit up, national, same old national, spin, tax, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

As I said earlier the right has this belief that they are economic geniuses.  Their reason for being is that they will make the economy better.  The eternal question is who for, the answer tends to be for the rich and the rest of us can get stuffed, but their world view is of extreme importance to them.

Not all of them are rich.  But they all want to be rich.

Occasionally this belief is shown to be faulty.

The latest example casting major doubt on National’s fiscal skills comes from news that the cost of giving landlords tax cuts in the hope that some of this money will somehow trickle down to tenants is $800 million more expensive than previously thought.

I always thought National’s figures were really rubbery.

After all during the campaign it emerged there was a $110 million a year hole in its figures because National had used old data to calculate the cost of restoring interest deductibility for landlords.  It used the original estimates, formulated when interest rates were low, rather than up to date figures which it could have used the OIA to obtain.

Of course Christopher Luxon claimed with uber confidence during the election campaign that National’s figures were rock solid. From Stewart Sowman-Lund at the Spinoff:


Reporter: Are you still rock solid on your tax plan?

Luxon: Absolutely we are, we’ve looked at the numbers very closely, we’ve had them independently reviewed, and I’m very excited by the fact we’re going to raise foreign buyer tax… and most importantly we’re going to give it to hard working Kiwis.

Reporter: Economists say you’re about half a billion dollars short every year… 

Luxon: I disagree… There’s a different set of assumptions, economists will have different disagreements about it but from our point of view it’s been very conservatively put together.

Reporter: You had economists on the left and on the right saying you guys have got a fiscal hole here… 

Luxon: I disagree completely. We are

Reporter: Are you still rock solid on your tax plan?

Luxon: Absolutely we are, we’ve looked at the numbers very closely, we’ve had them independently reviewed, and I’m very excited by the fact we’re going to raise foreign buyer tax… and most importantly we’re going to give it to hard working Kiwis.

Reporter: Economists say you’re about half a billion dollars short every year… 

Luxon: I disagree… There’s a different set of assumptions, economists will have different disagreements about it but from our point of view it’s been very conservatively put together.

Reporter: You had economists on the left and on the right saying you guys have got a fiscal hole here… 

Luxon: I disagree completely. We are rock solid on our numbers.

To be fair the change is in part because Act has managed to get National to accelerate the roll out of the policy. Only some of the increase is due to National’s miscalculation.

But here is the thing. Of National’s big tax earning policies, the ones needed to pay for tax cuts have major problems. The the foreign buyer tax is no more. This was worth, according to National, nearly $3 billion over four years. The offshore gambling tax, estimated to be worth about $700 million over four years, is looking decidedly unlikely. Labour thought National would be lucky to raise a quarter of that amount. And raiding the Climate Dividend pool may not work. If the recent advice given by the Climate Commission to the Government is followed the result according to Bernard Hickey would be a further loss of $1.4 billion.

The total of these areas (including the extra for the landlord tax cut) is nearly $5.5 billion. That is a lot of back office jobs. And it makes it very unlikely that National will be able to deliver $14.8 billion dollars in promised tax cuts.

And the media get this. Jaws dropped on Monday when Luxon claimed that he could not give a cost of the policy during his post-Cabinet press conference and when he said he had not seen an updated cost for it. I mean an $800 million problem and the Prime Minister did not know about it?

If you want to see the level of incredulity shown by media this TVNZ Breakfast clip shows it in spades.

Luxon parroting his talking points and refusing to answer legitimate questions is obviously causing media to wonder what is going on. And to question his ability to do the job.

Rock solid? Only if the rock is talcum powder.

45 comments on “Rock Solid Financial Geniuses ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Gosman 1
    13 March 2024 at 3:15 pm

    There is no cost in giving tax cuts. There is a loss of revenue. The idea that Government is unable to do something as a result of spending money on not bringing in as much tax is disingenuous.

    There is also this dangerous idea expressed by people on the left that the Government can and should solve all the problems in society by taxing and spending more. This was a major contributing factor in the last Labour led Government's downfall. Government revenue increased significantly after 2017 yet delivery outcomes did not improve to the same extent.

    This is the major reason why the right are generally thought to be better managers in relation to the state of Public finances by the voters as they tend to focus on getting more from public spending than the left. You may well argue the left are better in this regard but when the core public service increased by 28% in 2023 since 2017 when those in the private sector has only increased by less than 12% and service delivery outcomes have not significantly improved then it makes this position difficult to back up.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/the-whole-truth/131057183/the-whole-truth-has-the-proportion-of-public-servants-grown

    • mickysavage 1.1
      13 March 2024 at 3:32 pm

      There is no cost in giving tax cuts. There is a loss of revenue. The idea that Government is unable to do something as a result of spending money on not bringing in as much tax is disingenuous.

      You mean the Government can collect $2.9 billion less in tax and can still afford tax cuts?

      You are joking arn't you?

      • Gosman 1.1.1
        13 March 2024 at 3:45 pm

        Ummm…bringing in less revenue is one of the major points of (most) tax cuts. What is affordable or not is actual spending.

        What I believe you are really arguing is that you think there are areas the Government should spend money on that may not be prudent to do so with less tax revenue. If something is worth spending taxpayers money on there are other options than increasing revenue to pay for it. The Government can redirect spending in other areas, it could borrow more, or it could simply print money to fund the expenditure (although this option is generally frowned upon by many economists).

        The left tends to think the amount of Government spending in the economy is either optimal or (more oftern than not) is never enough hence why any cut in Tax is seen as meaning a cut for some area of the government. It is frankly warped logic that many people reject (as evidenced by the results of the last election).

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.1
          13 March 2024 at 4:20 pm

          You did not answer my question.

          National promised $14.6 billion in tax cuts. Already it has taken a hit to the tax take so that the tax take is significantly less. Either it breaks a promise to provide other tax cuts or it cuts away at core Government activity.

          Which areas do you think should be cut. Superannuation? Health? Education? These are the only areas that are big enough.

          Removal of interest rate deductibility was good policy. House price increases have stablised and gone backward and more first home buyers are buying houses.

          Giving tax cuts to landlords will reverse all of this.

          • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1
            13 March 2024 at 4:32 pm

            The most likely outcome in my view will be to reduce the size of any tax cut given they have also promised not to cut Health, Education, or Superannuation. Personally I would raise the age of eligibility for Superannuation to 67 but that would be gradual and not provide immediate reduction in spending.

            However there are lots of areas of core government spending that can be cut outside the three you mention or ways of raising Revenue to cover the shortfall. There are a huge number of Ministries that are pointless in my view (Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Pasifika People, Ministry for Women etc). There wouldn't be a huge amount of saving cutting all of these but it is a good start.

            Additionally the Government could sell off (either completely or partially) government agencies like Landcorp and TVNZ to raise additional funding.

            All of this would enable the Government to keep it's election promises to cut taxes AND not cut the spending for Health, Education, or Superannuation.

          • Macro 1.1.1.1.2
            13 March 2024 at 4:50 pm

            What Gosman and Nic are arguing is that the Govt can instruct the Reserve Bank to begin another round of Quantitative Easing with all the unknown problems that entails – although they don't acknowledge that part.

            We went down that road in 2021 with the Covid crisis and an approx $50B QE. And then – oh look – Inflation.* And then, the need for the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates.
            https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/126261112/who-will-pay-the-price-for-the-54-billion-spent-on-quantitative-easing

            Yeah great ideas from simple minds.

            *Or of course, as you suggest cut Govt services – as they are already in the process of doing

            • Nic the NZer 1.1.1.1.2.1
              13 March 2024 at 5:09 pm

              Close enough to what I suggest, though the QE process is unnecessary.

              But inflation in NZ has not been caused by too much government spending or too large a deficit (or any QE process bringing the deficit spending inside conventional monetary policy). Inflation in NZ was caused by various supply side factory and has been transitory just as it has been in every other country at the same time. Once those pressures have abated and various price hikes based on monopoly profiteering have been done then inflation has abated of course.

              The other narrative just buys into what National was saying during the election campaign, that wages in NZ were too high and driving inflation (largely on the back of supposedly over generous public services). If we carry on justifying that argument then the result will be further diminishing of public services and the very direct economic harms resulting from those, while chasing a mirage which won't actually effect NZ inflation.

              Anyway, since were talking about economic outcomes including inflation, it seems you agree the country doesn't have an actual financial constraint. As I said Gosman is quite right about that fact, even if he would be quite happy to discuss the smorgasbord of public services he proposes cutting.

              • Traveller …
                13 March 2024 at 5:55 pm

                "But inflation in NZ has not been caused by too much government spending or too large a deficit (or any QE process bringing the deficit spending inside conventional monetary policy). Inflation in NZ was caused by various supply side factory…"

                Certainly there are supply side influences, but the impact of a demand side influence, fueled by government policy (such as deficit spending) cannot be ignored. I quote from Annual inflation at 7.3 percent, 32-year high | Stats NZ:

                "The main driver for the 7.3 percent annual inflation to the June 2022 quarter was the housing and household utilities group, due to rising prices for construction and rentals for housing. Prices for the construction of new dwellings increased 18 percent in the June 2022 quarter compared with the June 2021 quarter. “Supply-chain issues, labour costs, and higher demand have continued to push up the cost of building a new house,” general manager Jason Attewell said."

                And this from FEU Special Topic: Decomposing inflation into supply and demand drivers | The Treasury New Zealand:

                "This approach suggests that supply and demand drivers that the model can explain have contributed roughly equal amounts to annual inflation in the past year, although different models give different estimations (Figure 2). About one-third of inflation is unable to be attributed to either supply or demand. The surge in inflation from 2021 was initially demand driven by stimulatory monetary and fiscal policy, and rapidly increasing house prices which fuelled economic activity. However, from the second half of 2021, supply-side factors drove the continued accelerated in inflation. Contributions from supply and demand drivers have been relatively stable across 2022."

                • Nic the NZer …
                  13 March 2024 at 6:27 pm

                  I should describe in a bit more detail what is going on there. Supply side factors is a bit of a shorthand. The response to the pandemic also had some effects on the demand side, particularly in areas where people started furbishing their home offices and living spaces where they were spending more time. This is a demand side factor, but its also a transitory impact. Another such factor we compressed housing purchases into a shortened time frame by halting most real estate transactions for a time during lockdowns. Unsurprisingly with more people competing house prices rapidly rose after this returned because more people were competing for a period. Again this has a temporary character.

                  Now we can talk about counterfactuals like, what happens if you did the lockdowns without fiscal support. I don't consider that a reasonable alternative, it would have undermined the effectiveness of the lockdowns for a start as well as being very destructive to the NZ economy. But yes, if that's your counterfactual the country could have destroyed the economy to such an extent external inflation was the least of the countries economic problems.

                  But since these factors point to transitory inflation which will abate if time it probably makes the most sense to just try to balance the impacts of that fairly.

                  Of course we are now seeing the end of that with the governments austerity program largely un-started. So the boat of the economic problem supposedly being solved by this policy already sailed. This confirms what statistics like wage rises vs inflation rates are saying, that government spending is not excessive as it stands and is not responsible for the inflation.

                  • Traveller …
                    14 March 2024 at 7:55 am

                    Thanks, I agree with much of what you say.

                    "But yes, if that's your counterfactual…"

                    To clarify…it wasn't.

                    "that government spending is not excessive as it stands and is not responsible for the inflation."

                    Not entirely responsible, but research by treasury economists found it was a contributor.

                    Government spending stoked inflation – Treasury paper – NZ Herald

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      14 March 2024 at 8:06 pm

                      That point about the counterfactual wasn't a challenge actually, just pointing out that its possible to use an unrealistic counter factual to make an unrealistic claim about what economic impacts could have been achieved. I think that's often what's going on when National or ACT politicians criticize the previous governments pandemic economic policy, their counterfactual is the 10% unemployment exiting lockdown which may well have staved off some inflation in NZ, but isn't even a policy they would have pursued themselves in office. I'm not even that confident it would have staved off the imported inflation as there were countries with such weak pandemic stimulus that they did approach a 5% shift in unemployment, yet still had elevated inflation regardless.

                      We should understand of course that all spending is potentially inflationary (might well trigger price setters to make pricing decisions). All spending includes public spending of course. There are some considerable issues with judging responsibility of the government for inflation. First off the responsibility is usually considered a 3-category choice. This is based on some kind of threshold where the amount of net government spending makes total spending either low, on target or too high. In the RBNZ and treasury analysis this threshold would be the NAIRU rate, defining a rate of unemployment below which inflation is expected to decelerate, at which its expected to be stable and above which its expected to accelerate. Total Spending=Income (GDP) which drives total employment being implicit here. There are some well known issues with the NAIRU theory but leaving these aside this doesn't mesh with an analysis attributing a portion of inflation to government spending. Some amount of government spending is likely responsible for every period of inflation, the RBNZ has non-zero inflation targets however, so this doesn't even imply this was excessive.

                      The treasury analysis however has a more fundamental problem. The only model of pricing in the model is supply-demand flexible pricing. There is at least one other model of prices applied, that being markup pricing. Since markup pricing isn't considered there is no analysis of what cost changes occurred in the model and if the price increases were passed on as a cost (wages) or not (profits). We know that many sectors use markup pricing and we know about many inflationary decisions which appear to be profiteering recently occurring, but this modeling has not captured these pricing decisions in its analysis.

                      There are a couple of things which are important to understand with any modeling, a) take any two series of values (even random) and measure their correlation this will be non-zero. For similarly produced but unrelated series this will typically be a higher correlation. b) If your model doesn't correctly capture the dynamics of what it's modeling its outputs don't have to have any descriptive meaning. This applies to all models. Take a detailed model of the elevation of a seesaw based on the bouncing of a tyre attached to the bottom. When two kids sit on it your model no longer tells you the elevation. Taken together this should highlight that a merely incomplete model can very well be producing correlations which simply have no relationship to what caused these outcomes. I don't think it's extreme to expect modeling of pricing decisions would include the impact of costs on those.

                    • Traveller []
                      15 March 2024 at 1:48 am

                      Thanks. Just picking up the issue of ‘mark-up pricing’, in a market economy (including a mixed market economy such as ours), isn’t it the case that mark-up pricing is present but rare? Most businesses face some level of price moderation, either in the form of market competition, or regulatory oversight?

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      15 March 2024 at 8:11 am

                      In studies mark-up pricing is usually what a small majority of businesses say they use.

                      https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/publications/discussion-papers/2014/dp14-04.pdf

                      "The majority of firms set prices as a mark-up over costs, although a significant minority are influenced by competitors’ prices."

                      If your considering a whole sector of the economy probably both markup and flex price rationales are used at the same times, especially with the proliferation of economics training. Though there is a whole history of economics trying to fit marginal pricing (the supply and demand model) to firms behavior and the firms not understanding or calculating things like their marginal cost. In terms of looking into this in theory I can suggest following the career of Fred Lee is a good source, https://strangematters.coop/frederic-s-lee-profile-part-one/

                      The question of supply and demand driving pricing also closely tracks the question of if firms will adjust price or quantity of output in response to demand. As you can easily understand by observation most firms do adjust their output, staff levels and hours in response to changes in demand (and this much more frequently than their prices). But they are supposed to be using prices to have an outcome where supply and demand meet. The requirements (assumptions about economic behavior) for supply and demand analysis to be a reasonable model of economic behavior are a lot more stringent than just that firms are exposed to competition.

                  • Chess Player …
                    14 March 2024 at 8:44 pm

                    Thanks for the reasoned explanation Nic.

                    Quite refreshing.

          • Traveller 1.1.1.1.3
            13 March 2024 at 6:13 pm

            "Removal of interest rate deductibility was good policy.

            No, it was poor policy, with the perverse impact of contributing to higher residential rentals.

            And it didn't result in the benefits you claim.

            "House price increases have stablised and gone backward…"

            House price increases have slowed primarily due to increasing interest rates. New Zealand House Prices Have Crashed, Wiping Out Billions in Wealth – The New York Times (nytimes.com).

            "…and more first home buyers are buying houses."

            The proportion of first home buyers in the market was on the rise well before the changes to interest deductibility (First home buyers hit record high in market share – CoreLogic report | RNZ News).

          • James Simpson 1.1.1.1.4
            14 March 2024 at 11:37 am

            Removal of interest rate deductibility was good policy. House price increases have stablised and gone backward and more first home buyers are buying houses.

            Hi MS. Do you have any studies or commentary to support that claim? It would be helpful for all of us to be able to rely on that when arguing with the likes of Gosman etc.

            I think interest rates have had more to do with the stabilisation of house prices, but I am happy to be corrected.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.2
        13 March 2024 at 3:57 pm

        Willux et al. may not be "Financial Geniuses", but this is natural NActual genius, imho.

        Renters 'very grateful' for incoming landlord tax breaks – Luxon
        [13 March 2024]
        Luxon, who owns rental properties himself, was asked if he intended to lower rents on those properties.

        “It’s not about me. It’s actually about a policy and I don’t benefit from this policy.”

        "Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." – Einstein

      • Nic the NZer 1.1.3
        13 March 2024 at 4:13 pm

        He's right. It is irrelevant how much revenue the government brings in regarding its spending. Government spending occurs inside the RBNZ which is the only institution able to issue NZ dollars and due to this all it needs to facilitate spending is the ability to update its accounts. The only question is could the RBNZ say no to some spending which the government wants to carry out, and the answer to that is obviously no.

        What does impact spending is the economic outcomes resulting from that, maybe including inflation. But even here we know much better than for inflation what the outcomes of the governments impending austerity program will be and these count too.

        It would result in much better results for the country if we just put it across to the government that, hey you ran on tax breaks for land lords so why don't you just go ahead and do that and we can be done with it. Otherwise why would you want to run down the countries already limited public services at the present time. The regressive fiscal policy does not some how magically compensate for the irresponsible taxation policy in any way making it better.

        • AB 1.1.3.1
          13 March 2024 at 5:41 pm

          He is right. It is irrelevant how much spending the government brings in regarding its revenue.

          Surely Gosman is only accidentally right here? He simply means that if the Government gives up one source of revenue, they can reprioritise how they spend other revenue. He doesn't believe that governments don't need revenue in order to spend because they actually create money by spending, and can then tax it out again as they see fit, to control the money supply? Gosman ain't no MMT advocate.

          Or have I misunderstood you?

          • Nic the NZer 1.1.3.1.1
            13 March 2024 at 5:59 pm

            You don't necessarily need to understand MMT in order to understand how the actual system works. It's just a particularly clear description. Gosman seems to have more of a high-school understanding of economics 101 from what I have seen (TBF it sometimes seems to depend which Gosman shows up each day, they don't always agree with each other) but he seems to have figured out that NZ money is an institution implemented by the NZ government.

    • SPC 1.2
      13 March 2024 at 5:54 pm

      1.the cost of extra borrowing

      2.the opportunity cost of providing for the wealthy, rather than those in need.

      3.the opportunity cost of less new build activity because of no incentive, thus higher property value and rents and a less productive New Zealand.

    • Michael 1.3
      14 March 2024 at 8:35 pm

      Labours downfall was Covid.
      the ferries cost $1.3 billion.
      nicola Willis won’t fund that but $3 billion to landlords in a tax rebate is fine

  2. randal mcmurphy 2
    13 March 2024 at 4:46 pm

    the thing is they just dont care. they will rob the super fund if they have to pay private persons for their votes

  3. Hunter Thompson II 3
    13 March 2024 at 5:06 pm

    Anyone with aspirations to be a financial genius should first read Niall Ferguson's book "The Ascent of Money" (2008).

    Most illuminating.

  4. Kat 4
    13 March 2024 at 6:24 pm

    Luxon and some of his followers wouldn't know a deficit if they tripped over one…..heh….heh….heh….

  5. Patricia Bremner 5
    14 March 2024 at 2:29 pm

    Cuts to school lunches, cuts to Food Banks Cuts to beneficiaries for three years, Van Velden looking at the "Holiday Pay Laws", Seymour with his snips to regulations, Luxon with his "Laser focus" Hogard with his loosening of protected areas, fast track legislation to allow dredging mining live animal exports, and yet….. far from expanding our economy is shrinking.

    Less tax… 3.7 billion I believe. Small business calling on insolvency services, because there is no money circulating, banks have started to lower loan interest, as no one is borrowing. We have entered "their back on track" which once more is a descent into a financial hole. Still Simeon Brown thinks he will magic up 24 billion for his roads, and Willis is scratching for 7 billion for tax cuts. They are bloody ridiculous imho.

    I watched Luxon say their policies would help renters. Why was he shaking his head? Unfeeling deflectors and meddlers every one.

    • Gosman 5.1
      14 March 2024 at 2:58 pm

      Nothing the Govt has done in the past few months would have caused the economy to contract. That is more a factor of decision taken (or not taken) by the previous Govt as well as global economic conditions. If the economy is still contracting by the end of the year then you have a case to make.

  6. lprent 6
    14 March 2024 at 3:41 pm

    I did some cleanup on the layout of the post, mostly because the youtube would show in block mode and will not in classic mode.

  7. Chess Player 7
    14 March 2024 at 6:51 pm

    Isn't it annoying when a government is elected, and then does what it said it would do?

    Makes a change, I guess…

  9. roblogic 9
    15 March 2024 at 2:33 am

    So, from National's 'rock solid fiscal plan'

    -the $3b foreign buyers tax (which wouldn't have worked) was nixed by NZF

    -the $2b from cutting benefits was actually $600m

    -the landlord tax cuts cost $2.9b, not $2.1b

    -the gambling tax raises $200m, not $700m

    That's a $5.7b gap.

    https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1768180041027080593

  10. Mike the Lefty 10
    15 March 2024 at 9:09 am

    I suppose it all comes from a general assumption that people who talk and dream about a particular subject must actually know a great deal about it.

    I'm sure everyone knows that it is not necessarily true.

    As the Americans like to say, "you can talk the talk, but you have to walk the walk".

    National and ACT always like to talk a lot about money, in many respects it seems that money is the only thing that motivates them and thus all they want to talk about, somehow or another the myth has grown over the years, not just in NZ of course, that the political right are better economic managers.

    An objective look at this claim holds it to be b….s but the myth persists like so many other myths – because there are a lot of people that want to believe it and are prepared to go to great lengths to prop up the illusion.

    Even John Key's government (very reluctantly) had to admit that Michael Cullen's economic management was sound.