The Green Budget

49 comments on “The Green Budget ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kay 1

   15 May 2025 at 10:26 am

   The Stuff story from yesterday. I'm posting it for the comments section. Clearly it's the Young Nats/ACT up to their old tricks again (spamming every comments section open on certain topics).

   The problem is, people read the comments, and when the comments are skewed one way, there are a lot of people out there incapable of individual research, who believe what they read. So we come back to uneducated, lazy, apathetic who can't be bothered reading proposals and coming to their own conclusions.

   Or they just have to see the word "Green" and by reflex go into total meltdown.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360688012/green-budget-would-see-88-billion-new-taxes-pay-free-ece-dental-gp-care
2. Champagne Socialist 2

   15 May 2025 at 11:12 am

   I wish someone in politics – any where in the world – would include an MMT perspective in their economic policy. At the core of MMT is understanding the mechanics of the 'fiat currency monetary system' and the fact that 'taxation does not pay for government spending' and neither do government bonds.

   This real world understanding does not remove the need for taxation as an inflation tool not for revenue. Government bonds (debt) is also an inflation fighting tool and represents the savings of the private sector – not only government debt. Every debt is someone else's asset. Government debt is a private sector asset.

   Both taxation and bonds remove money from the economy and help cool demand and prevent inflation. Interest rates are just the fine tuning that sits on top of those two.

   I believe that this understanding of government spending – which was common in the 1930's and WW2 – would decouple us from having to 'tax the wealthy' or 'grow the economy' or 'increase our exports' before being able to deliver the most basic welfare state.

   The welfare state should be delivered on it's merits and using the real world tools that the government has already. Pinning your policies to external factors and dependencies on the private sector makes them weaker and less credible.

   The argument for government ownership of parts of the economy and the shutting out of private sector capital has to be made with no conditional dependence on the private sector but on the basis of making economic choices that deliver better outcomes for ordinary people – who depend on income and not capital to get by.

   MMT let's us see that in reality the private sector is dependent on government spending because government spending happens first and adds new money into the economy – long before that money is taxed or saved. The fact that this new money is continually being created is what allows people in the private sector to save – the private sector has a surplus because the money supply is growing all the time – thanks in large part to government deficit spending.

   Commercial banks – licensed and highly regulated by the RBNZ a public sector entity – also create new money in the economy every time a loan is issued. Bank loans do not use depositors money. Bank loans are literally created by being typed into your account by the bank clerk.
   • mikesh 2.1

     15 May 2025 at 1:26 pm

     We should put a stop to this. Let government have the sole resposibility for money creation; they could lend to the banks for the purpose of relending, but making it clear that such fiat money should be for productive purposes only. Lending for housing puropses would come from a government agency similar to the old State Advances Corp..
     • Champagne Socialist 2.1.1

       15 May 2025 at 1:54 pm

       Correct but that argument needs to be won again from an economic perspective – it is not even on the radar in NZ.
3. Ad 3

   15 May 2025 at 11:42 am

   Very interested in the Green proposal for expansion of ACC to cover illness. That would help turn ACC into a near-competitor for Southern Cross in some insurance categories. Also it brings the health system and ACC closer together.
   • Craig H 3.1

     15 May 2025 at 3:39 pm

     It's an oldie but a goodie – it was in the original proposal for ACC, but never got implemented.
4. Ad 4

   15 May 2025 at 11:47 am

   None of this would change my vote.

   What would help my voting pen waver is a fulsome commitment to protecting the forests and birds and fish of New Zealand. More, larger and better funded national parks. More creative ways to price long-growth native forests on the international carbon markets. Reiterate support for the Kermadec marine reserve. Support for the Mountain Clubs proposal for the Central Otago national park that includes the Remarkables in Queenstown. More funds for landscape-scale pest eradication on Stewart Island and the Chathams and Great Barrier.

   Promise that and maybe I might want to pay more tax. Maybe.

   I only need to do a couple of weekends of subalpine weeding and planting, and Shane Jones having a crack at the Waitakere Ranges, to remember my green impulse in its originary form.
   • weka 4.1

     15 May 2025 at 2:27 pm

     would you want those things overtly tied to the income and asset tax policies?

     Sorting out the mess that's been created in DOC through hatchet and commerce policies would be awesome as well.
     • Ad 4.1.1

       15 May 2025 at 3:28 pm

       Yes.

       As our public services shrink in reliability and quality, I want to see more fund-to-service dedication to rebuild that reliability:

       • When I pay RUC and fuel taxes and Warrants, in return I get a transport system
       • When I pay ACC fees, in return I and my staff get health recovery services
       • When I pay insurances I also pay a fire levy, which helps pay for the fire service
       • When I pay Kiwisaver with my employer, I get a bit more retirement security
       • The large version is NZSuperFund, which takes the whole states' tax contribution to support. In return there's more security for my retirement.
       • So now imagine an international carbon mitigation fund that paid for DoC to sustain and expand the DoC estate
       • I'd like to see all taxes on cigarettes to go straight to the public health system. You could put that message on the packet.
       • Or a tax per litre of milk made that went to building public water systems. Not just taxing Trade Waste in water.

       Now, it would be awesomesause if we had enough millionaires that we had a massive tax base that would obviate this User Pays logic.

       But as things get tighter and tighter for all of us, many New Zealanders get resentful of tax at all.

       We need a stronger and more intuitive tax logic, showing what taxpayers get out of tax stream income.
5. alwyn 5

   15 May 2025 at 12:52 pm

   I am interested in the economics of BEV light vehicles. The Green budget says that they will reintroduce the subsidy scheme and that it will only cost $10 million per year.

   I assume that it is $10 million as the budget just says 10 and I don't see anywhere where the unit is defined.

   The figure doesn't seem anything near reasonable however. I'll give a rough calculation. There were two parts to the scheme. There was a subsidy on the purchase of the vehicle and the exclusion of the vehicles from RUC. Assuming that they get back to the numbers sold in 2023 we had 21,000 sold. The subsidy was $8,600. We can probably assume that they will all qualify as the Chinese vehicles of today are much cheaper than the Tesla of the past. Thus the subsidy on new vehicles will be about $180 million/year.

   Road User Charges are $76/100 km. There are currently about 82,500 BEVs in use and they average 14,000 km/year. Removing RUC will therefore cost about $90 million.

   The total is, at a minimum, $270 million per year. That is nothing like the $10 million given in the budget.
   • Ad 5.1

     15 May 2025 at 12:54 pm

     I sure don't support exclusion from RUC.

     Most fully electric vehicles are easily double the weight of a standard Toyota banger, and that's a shedload more road wear and tear.

     RUC doesn't have enough money as it is.
     • alwyn 5.1.1

       15 May 2025 at 1:11 pm

       I agree about the exclusion from RUC, although I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic about the weight. That is a separate matter though. This claims to be be a fully costed budget and yet here it appears to be way out. Is the rest any better?
       • Incognito 5.1.1.1

         15 May 2025 at 8:59 pm

         Is the rest any better?

         I won’t moderate you under Weka’s Post but you continue to behave as a troll and here you’re concern trolling – nothing would convince you otherwise.

         I assume that it is $10 million as the budget just says 10 and I don't see anywhere where the unit is defined.

         You’re a lazy myopic troll with poor eyesight. At the top of the table [pg. 35] in the full Budget document [link provided in OP] it clearly states “Fiscal summary ($m)”, which means the units are millions, which is the typical unit in these sorts of budget documents.

         The figure doesn't seem anything near reasonable however. I'll give a rough calculation. There were two parts to the scheme.

         You created a straw man based on wrong assumptions, fake data, and complete fabrications. The only thing you got right is the past tense, there was a scheme and the Coalition scrapped it (after they bought their Swasticars). The Greens propose a new scheme, which would have been crystal clear to even the greatest fool if they had read the document.

         Reintroducing the Clean Car Discount

         A Green Government will bring back the successful Clean Car Discount. We’ll also increase the ambition of this policy – providing rebates for zero emissions vehicles only, paid for by fees on the most polluting vehicles. [pg. 24]

         Stop wasting our time with your boring fibulations.
         • alwyn 5.1.1.1.1

           16 May 2025 at 10:33 am

           I'm sorry to disagree with you but when they say, as you quote "A Green Government will bring back the successful Clean Car Discount." but with the qualification on zero emissions only, I would say that they were going to bring back the old scheme and that it was reasonable to assume it would have the same provisions for pure electric vehicles but that they were not going to include the partial benefits for hybrids. That is why I only included the numbers for EVs but left out the amounts that were paid for hybrids and PHEVs.

           However they still say "bring back the scheme" not introduce something completely different.
           • Incognito 5.1.1.1.1.1

             16 May 2025 at 11:53 am

             I'm sorry to disagree with you […]

             Stop the false pretence.

             […] it was reasonable to assume […]

             You dropped your pants as soon as you stumbled on the first cherry-picked words and started shitting all over it. You pretend to be misled by the Greens but you failed to read the document properly and do due diligence before you went apeshit on your wild goose chase inventing non-existent stuff about RUC and what-have-you.

             However they still say "bring back the scheme" not introduce something completely different.

             Your reading comprehension is blinded by bigoted bias. They clearly state that they want to re-introduce the scheme and “increase the ambition of this policy”; this is not “something completely different” [my bold emphasis] but your straw man shouting incoherently – the scheme’s principles have not changed one fucking bit despite your protestations to the contrary.

             You’re such a waste of clean space here and more polluting than coal-fired furnace. Please have a nice cup of green tea with your wife and discuss the merits of the Green Budget.
     • Bearded Git 5.1.2

       15 May 2025 at 4:14 pm

       There is some truth in this Ad. Using rough numbers (there are variations depending on the model):

       My Suzuki Swift weighs around 900kg.

       A BYD Atto (EV) weighs roughly twice a much:1680kg to 1750kg.

       But then so does a Toyota Hilux (ICE): 1500kg to 2100kg.

       The big problem in the West, in fact the REAL problem, is the needless mass adoption of big ICE 4WD's. Chelsea Tractors.
       • phillb 5.1.2.1

         16 May 2025 at 9:13 am

         Electric cars are not twice the weight. Comparing actual like for like they range from 0% to 20% heavier.

         Current Suzuki Swift ~980Kg (Suzuki are good at light cars)

         Toyota Yaris ~1130Kg (slightly bigger car)

         BYD Seagull 1160-1240Kg (Not yet available here but equivilent size)

         For larger cars (which unfortunately seem to be prefered here)

         Toyota RAV4 1705Kg

         VW Tiguan 1685Kg (heaviet one)

         BYD Atto 3 1750Kg

         That does not seem to be hugely different….

         By the way the very lightest Hilux is ~1800Kg, and almost no-one buys that model 🙂

         As I understand it the old clean car program was fiscally neutralish as the number of polluting cars outnumbered the number of electrics….
         • Bearded Git 5.1.2.1.1

           18 May 2025 at 7:02 am

           Cheers phillb-that is excellent info and destroys Ad's argument above that EV's are much heavier than ICE cars, where he said:

           "Most fully electric vehicles are easily double the weight of a standard Toyota banger, and that's a shedload more road wear and tear."

           IMO there is a strong argument that RUC levels should be lower for EV's and higher for ICE vehicles to encourage EV adoption.

           We will have to wait for the COC to lose in 2026 for this to happen.
   • Andrew R 5.2

     15 May 2025 at 7:02 pm

     The item has two parts as you say – rebates for zero emission vehicles only, paid for by fees on the most polluting vehicles. So maybe the $10 million budgeted each year is an over-estimate?

     And there is nothing in the Green Budget about removing RUC on electric vehicles, so I don’t know where that comes from.
     • alwyn 5.2.1

       15 May 2025 at 7:17 pm

       There is nothing I can see in their budget that provides a figure of the extra tax they are planning to collect from these polluting vehicles. Where is it and how much is the tax going to be?

       The RUC was part of the subsidy scheme. They say that they are going to reopen the scheme. If they are doing that it means they will have to exempt the vehicles.

       As far as I can follow the budget they are planning to provide only $10 million to reintroduce the scheme, which seems to be impossible.
     • Incognito 5.2.2

       15 May 2025 at 9:02 pm

       And there is nothing in the Green Budget about removing RUC on electric vehicles, so I don’t know where that comes from.

       You’re correct that there was nothing like this in the Greens’ Budget because Alwyn made it up and it came from his orifice – he made several of us waste time on his fibulations, as is all too common with Alwyn
6. Dave Kennedy 6

   15 May 2025 at 1:46 pm

   Back in the Day the Greens dominated in the social media space and yet despite the lack of engagement in those forums for some time, the party has retained and grown voter support. To average around 12% in the polls so far this year despite MP controversies isn't too bad. The Roy Morgan Poll had the party at 15.5% in February and 14% last month.

   I believe that self-generated social media largely operates in siloed communities and doesn't have wide reach, it just feeds the already converted. The road show is a smart move and so is the encouragement for ordinary members to to become ambassadors for the Green Budget in their own communities.

   I greatly appreciated the desperate comments from Seymour and Winston. Being referred to as 'populist' and 'Marxist" is an indication of their fear of how it will actually resonate with voters. I have long held the view that the Greens have been too academic in how it has presented policies in the past. Taking a populist approach, if it is values based and supported by substantive policy, is just smart politics. Fee dental care and reduced ECE costs are populist but also great policies and make more sense than attacking the transgender community or increasing the availability of tobacco products and reducing firearms regulations.

   I see three themes behind this budget that will make it an easy sell and deal with critics.

   1) We have amongst the lowest government debt of any developed nation, it is our massive private debt that is real cause for concern. We can borrow far more without any change to our AA+ Standard and Poor's rating (above China, France, Ireland and the UK). Greater government spending will help lower our private debt and actually make us more economically resilient overall. Borrowing more is good!

   2) When the top 10% of NZ households have captured 51% of the nation's wealth and the poorest 50% of households have to share less than 5% of our wealth between them, the imbalance is clear. All working New Zealanders (and retired ones) helped to contribute to that wealth but it isn't equitably shared. We need a fairer tax system.

   3) The privatisation of core services just raises costs. The more the government can fund and manage through our taxes, the cheaper living expenses will be, including health care (70% of elective surgeries are done at greater expense in private hospitals), housing, education and energy supply. If we need examples of privatisation failures, the US health system is a great one. Socialism works. It is easy to challenge Seymour's libertarian nonsense by asking for examples of libertarian governments that have been successful.

   I think the Green Budget should be an easy sell and it will be more effective if we have more champions outside the Party. If Brad Olsen acknowledges the legitimacy of the calculations after the Infometrics review and health and education sectors get behind it, the budget could no longer be dismissed as 'fringe'.

   The criticisms regarding the Greens have abandoned their environmental roots is also a desperate criticism and easily dismissed, the Party has always engaged in both throughout its history, most recently with establishing all our climate change legislation and the ground breaking cross-departmental policies to manage domestic violence. The party's proven ministerial performance can't be denied.
   • Drowsy M. Kram 6.1

     15 May 2025 at 2:25 pm

     The privatisation of core services just raises costs.

     And exacerbates wealth imbalances. Excellent positive analysis, imho.
   • Ad 6.2

     15 May 2025 at 3:35 pm

     Climate policies are not a substitute for environmental policies.

     Most groups are out there on a Saturday morning planting and weeding for goals far smaller than wholesale climate mitigation. All they want is their birds back.

     There's over 5,000 landowners with QE2 covenants.

     There's over 12,000 separate environmental groups concentrating on their neighbourhoods, local streams and forests. Forest and Bird at over 100,000 members is bigger as a membership than all our political parties combined.

     Many don't support the Greens, and the Greens don't appear to have policies for them.

     How to get to 17%.
     • arkie 6.2.1

       15 May 2025 at 5:06 pm

       By protecting and restoring nature, we will ensure future generations can enjoy native birdsong in thriving forests. This will also provide our communities with a layer of natural protection from the climate crisis. Our oceans, wetlands and forests act as carbon sinks that absorb emissions, turning down the temperature on the climate crisis.

       • Deliver urban nature support to councils, iwi and hapū and community groups to restore nature in our local communities
       • Establish a Biodiversity Regeneration Fund to provide support for restoration projects, including dedicated funding for whenua Māori
       • Reinstate Jobs for Nature to create nature-based jobs supporting the protection and restoration of te taiao
       • Reinstate programmes for freshwater improvement to support landowners to help restore our waterways
       • Reinstate the community environment fund, environmental legal assistance fund and regional planning support – recognising the important work of community conservation
       • Re-establish native afforestation programmes

       From Chapter 6, Restoring Nature

       https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachheroes/pages/39988/attachments/original/1747172451/Budget_ONLINE.pdf
       • Ad 6.2.1.1

         16 May 2025 at 8:55 am

         Thanks Arkie I will have a proper read of that section.
     • weka 6.2.2

       15 May 2025 at 5:21 pm

       did they vote Green while Eugenie Sage was there?

       As Conservation Minister, Sage led the development of Te Mana o te Taiao, the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy,[38] began a governance review of Fish & Game New Zealand,[39][40] and initiated a controversial cull of imported Himalayan tahr on conservation land which resulted in her receiving death threats and was eventually scaled down.[41][42][43]

       She established the $1.2 billion Jobs For Nature programme as part of the government's COVID-19 relief efforts and opened the Paparoa Track Great Walk in 2020.[44]

       However, she failed to deliver a planned and funded drylands park in the Mackenzie Basin or a proposed prohibition on mining on conservation land.[35] The latter was reportedly due to Government parties disagreeing on the policy.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Sage#Minister_in_the_Sixth_Labour_Government,_2017%E2%80%932020
       • Ad 6.2.2.1

         16 May 2025 at 8:57 am

         Sage was an awesome Minister. That expansion to Kahurangi National Park was neat.

         The Paparoa Track is a good stern test and make sure you have really good wet weather gear because it chucks down.
   • gsays 6.3

     15 May 2025 at 5:04 pm

     Great comment Dave.

     A few good tips to counter common reactions.
   • weka 6.4

     15 May 2025 at 5:26 pm

     Back in the Day the Greens dominated in the social media space and yet despite the lack of engagement in those forums for some time, the party has retained and grown voter support. To average around 12% in the polls so far this year despite MP controversies isn't too bad. The Roy Morgan Poll had the party at 15.5% in February and 14% last month.

     I believe that self-generated social media largely operates in siloed communities and doesn't have wide reach, it just feeds the already converted. The road show is a smart move and so is the encouragement for ordinary members to to become ambassadors for the Green Budget in their own communities.

     It's an interesting perspective, and I'm not suggesting the Greens restart their twitter account. But they livestreamed on FB and then I couldn't find it later in the day. I'll assume it's oversight rather than strategy, but if SM isn't considered useful how are people generally supposed to hear what the Greens are saying without being filtered through the MSM?

     I'm the already converted, for sure, but for me to talk with family and friends about GP policy, I have to know what it is on GP terms. The policy doc is useful, but so are the speeches. One of the best ways to understand green thinking is via their speeches.
   • weka 6.5

     15 May 2025 at 5:40 pm

     love what you are saying here about a populist approach that is policy based and smart.

     Davidson made a great point on BHN about why would you want to do politics that make things more ugly? Her words here are the anti-dote to right wing populism,

     I'm really proud of appealing to the best of us rather than appealing to the worst of usm which is clearly what other parties have no qualms about doing.

     Fancy having a strategy of power that relies on you racking up the ugly in us. Fancy that.

     I'm really proud of us appealing to the best of our values, appealing to compassion, appealing to kindness, appealing to common sense, appealing to the politics of care rather than the politics of division. I'm really proud of us. We'll keep doing that with all of our throats.
7. Bearded Git 7

   15 May 2025 at 4:01 pm

   Chloe excellent this morning in relation to the Greens alternative budget on Morning Report.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018987216/free-gp-visits-and-new-taxes-in-greens-alternative-budget

   “91% of New Zealanders will pay lower tax and 97% of New Zealanders will not pay the Wealth Tax”
   • Drowsy M. Kram 7.1

     15 May 2025 at 5:13 pm

     It will cost a pretty penny to gradually repair the unprecented damage being wrought on our society, the environment et al. by this regressive, small-minded CoC govt; particularly the Act party leader and his congenital defence of division by wealth.

     The Green's alternative budget is up front about who will foot much of the repair bill, and fair enough too, imho.

     For the Many, not the moneyed!
   • weka 7.2

     15 May 2025 at 5:16 pm

     very good interview.
   • ExpertCant 7.3

     18 May 2025 at 11:40 am

     Yeah, it had some good high level whishy washy quotes. But Swarbrick got destroyed on most issues.

     In particular, she could not defend the wealth tax. The 33% tax on inheritance of farms would mean that the farm would have to be liquidated and sold to a larger company, or new debt would have to be taken on to the tune of millions of dollars. This policy would destroy any farm, and ironically it would benefit large companies who now have an abundance of cheap farms to buy that people were forced to sell. Terrible policy.
     • weka 7.3.1

       18 May 2025 at 2:54 pm

       the farm one is the test for the Greens I reckon. I saw farmers on twitter talking about their wealth tax the first time they bought it out, and maybe one convo last week. I can't tell if the Greens don't understand the impact on family farms, or don't consider it important. It runs against their ag policies though, so I suspect they haven't given it enough thought.

       The 33% inheritance part wasn't well explained in the policy. It's talking about over a lifetime? How does that work? But it's also on assets above $1m. The Greens did take feedback generally after the first time and adjusted their figures upwards. Maybe it's an issue of details rather than the tax being wrong per se.
       • ExpertCant 7.3.1.1

         18 May 2025 at 4:33 pm

         Imagine being about to inherit your childhood home that your parents spent their life paying off, and assume it costs $1 million. Then imagine having to cough up a $333k mortgage so you can live in the house.
         • weka 7.3.1.1.1

           18 May 2025 at 7:03 pm

           don't think that's the plan.

           from the policy doc,

           To prevent evasion, a 1.5% tax will apply to net assets held in private trusts, and a 33% wealth transfer tax will apply to significant gifts and inheritances received, over an accumulated lifetime threshold of $1,000,000, similar to Ireland’s Capital Acquisitions Tax.

           I read that as 33% on assets above $1m. So if you inherited a house, assuming it was mortgage free, and it was worth $1m, you would pay $0.

           If it was worth $1.2m, you would pay 33% of $200,000 ie $66,000.

           Honestly, if I was in that situation I would be ok with that. But I have 3 siblings, so maybe we wouldn't pay anything, because my inheritance would be $300,000.

           There aren't any details in the policy, so it's hard to say. That's a problem.

           The farming one is different though. If a farm is worth $5m and is freehold, and there is only one person inheriting, then would they have to sell the farm to pay the tax? Again, we don't have the details, but it would be bad if they did.
         • Incognito 7.3.1.1.2

           18 May 2025 at 7:24 pm

           Imagine your read and comprehend the Green Budget before you spout your nonsense and repeat RW attack lines here.
     • Incognito 7.3.2

       18 May 2025 at 3:15 pm

       In the Green Budget they clearly say “… similar to Ireland’s Capital Acquisitions Tax”. So, the prudent thing would be to go and check it out before making baseless and ignorant accusations.

       https://icmsa.ie/farm-policy/taxation/capital-taxes/ and https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-reliefs/agricultural-relief/index.aspx [Google is your friend]

       There was nothing in that linked RNZ interview @ 7 that corroborates your assertion, so you made that up.

       You chose to blow a brain vein just like the usual suspects of the right who’re all going absolutely apeshit over this and the Green Budget as if it’s copied & pasted from Das Kapital and the Little Red Book and taken through an AI app. You guys are shitting yourself more than a herd of cows with diarrhoea.
       • weka 7.3.2.1

         18 May 2025 at 3:37 pm

         maybe you could explain it? Because I looked at the Irish tax and I still didn't understand how it would work.
         • Incognito 7.3.2.1.1

           18 May 2025 at 7:14 pm

           No, sorry, I can’t and I shouldn’t; IMO, it’s up to the Greens to explain and fill in the blanks, so a good interviewer could ask the question and let a Green MP explain. The RW online army is all over it, so one would expect this to be taken up by the Greens sooner rather than later. The word “similar” suggests that there will be differences but what these might be is anybody’s guess until the Greens explain it. It would be good if the Greens were to alleviate some of the farmers’ concerns and I can see why this wouldn’t happen.
           • weka 7.3.2.1.1.1

             18 May 2025 at 9:33 pm

             fair enough, and I agree it's on the Greens to explain.

             The similar stuff was EC's derail, I was hoping someone might have understood the Irish system basics.
       • ExpertCant 7.3.2.2

         18 May 2025 at 4:27 pm

         "There was nothing in that linked RNZ interview @ 7 that corroborates your assertion, so you made that up."
         I was referencing the recent Q&A interview (at 5:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl1slr5sXvk.) So I did not make that up.

         Your quote from the Green's budget lacks context. Reading the quote in context changes the meaning: "threshold of $1,000,000, similar to Ireland’s Capital Acquisitions Tax". In this full context, similar is being used to compare the $1million threshold of the Green's Wealth tax to the €400,000 threshold of Ireland's CAT. Similar does not mean the same, and it is not being used to compare the policy as a whole, it is only comparing the threshold because they are of a similar value.

         If the Green's had meant to copy Ireland's CAT policy as a whole, the sentence would have said something like "A wealth Transfer tax, similar to Ireland's". Furthermore, if it was comparing the policy as a whole, you would also expect Swarbrick to cite Ireland's tax policy on farms, which she could not.

         In case you find that reading challenging, I have asked Chat-GPT to give a bullet pointed explanation:

         .The term "similar" most likely refers specifically to the $1,000,000 lifetime threshold, not the entire wealth transfer tax.

         .This interpretation is supported by the proximity of the phrase to the threshold in the sentence.
         • Incognito 7.3.2.2.1

           18 May 2025 at 7:52 pm

           You replied @ 7.1 to comment #7 that mentioned, referred, and linked to an interview on Morning Report.

           There was nothing in that interview that corroborates your assertions, so you most definitely made that up.

           You now pull an entirely different interview into it without making this clear nor linking to it in your reply @ 7.1. This interview may well corroborate your assertions but it shows that you’re a disingenuous commenter who wastes my time, for one, aka a troll.

           The rest of your comment is pathetic and an attempt to re-write and correct the text (language) of the Green Budget, with some speculation (straw men) thrown in for good measure. You may want to learn effective prompting for dummies so that you converse more effectively with gen-AI apps.
8. Corey 8

   16 May 2025 at 12:09 am

   If they really are advocating $88 billion in new taxation in a country with a gdp of $425 billion they are no longer a credible party.

   I like what they are offering don't get me wrong but this is a country that will not even allow a CGT.

   We only have three year terms which limits any real meaningful nation building but empowers amputating the state.

   That level of taxation would result in an ugly right wing revolution.

   Labour actually could win the next election, I think their timidness for once is their secret weapon because middle voters are deeply uncomfortable with the current governments "excitement" and could stomach a boring centerist labour govt.

   But middle voters will take one look at Labours friends TPM and the Greens and probably decide better the devil you know.

   Why replace a three way devil beast with another three way devil beast.

   If we had STV or fptp I believe there'd be a change of government but because we have MMP, Unless Labour can shoot way up in the polls I fear we won't get nat/act/NZF I think we'll get nat/act.

   The minor parties this term and yes even the greens and tpm have all made me embarrassed that we have MMP I used to be proud of mmp now it just seems like a system that empowers grifters to say crazy shit they no won't pass but they can just get away with blame labour or national and hold major parties to ransom on just 5-11% of the vote.

   I really really really really hope for a change of govt but the minor parties on both sides are just circuses

   I voted green last time and in 2017. I want to like them.
   • Incognito 8.1

     16 May 2025 at 8:59 am

     That level of taxation would result in an ugly right wing revolution.

     Have you been living under a rock?

     In any case, if you’re only looking at the bottom-line number instead of the (finer) details of what the Greens are proposing then you’re doing no better than the simplistic attacks by RWNJs that occasionally spout their brain farts here on TS.

     If you want to like the Greens, and by that I assume you mean their policies and ideas, then you may want to unload as much biased baggage to free up your mind and spend a little more effort on analysing & evaluating the details instead of chasing after headlines and bottom-lines, IMO.
9. aj 9

   16 May 2025 at 9:12 am

   Any budget produced by the left will be faced with the usual hysteria from the right about government debt.

   This is an interesting article and the last comment by Andrew Riddell (which I have quoted) puts some of these issues in perspective.

   https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/05/08/willis-caught-between-the-devil-and-her-deep-red-sea-of-debt/

   "The Govt says it’s floating in a sea of red ink; the Reserve Bank says Govt debt is low by global standards. They can’t both be right – can they?"

   First, we should be looking at the whole picture – changes in public wealth, not in debt, i.e. public assets – public debt. Public wealth is much greater than public debt. The Minster is misleading the country by just referring to debt levels (net core crown debt for example omits the $70 plus billion of the NZ Super Fund).

   Second, as the economists in the article above point out the purpose for public borrowing is very relevant. In the last budget, money was borrowed to cover the shortfall from tax cuts.

   Third, public debt is a private sector asset, so when the public sector is in deficit, this is net positive financial to the private sector. Conversely when the public sector is in surplus, this is a cost to the private sector.

   Fourth, in Aotearoa public debt is not great compared to private debt. Private debt however is very high, compared to other countries. High private debt reduces the appetite for the private sector taking on more debt. This government’s ‘going for growth’ strategy depends on the private sector increasing it debt levels even further.

   Fifth, we do not need to raise loans to fund public spending, that is a political choice. Central government creates new money when it spends. It is not dependent on first raising income from taxes, charges or borrowing. This is a fundamental difference between the way public finances operate and the way household finances operates. The Minster erroneously believes that public finances is the same as household finances.

   Sixth – government bond issues (government borrowing) are consistently over-subscribed. There is clear indication that the private (corporate) finance sector is not concerned with the level of public debt Aotearoa has.

   Seventh – to further put public debt in a real perspective, the cost of loans i.e. interest paid is around about 1.6% of the Crown’s total annual revenue (about 0.5% of GDP). An equivalent in the private sector would be interest paid on mortgages as a % of annual income. That % would be much greater.
10. Muttonbird 10

    16 May 2025 at 7:52 pm

    I used the tax calculator. I would be paying $3 less a week so I guess that makes me like Goldilocks' porridge.

    A progressive levy system on the new ACC is interesting. It's weird how we currently have a progressive income tax system but several things are flat and outside that progressive system. GST, ACC levies, council rates, etc.

    The Greens are usually very strong and broad on housing, but not much for private renters here, just the rental WOF and returning amateur landlords to the rock under which they've been hiding the last few years, so nothing new. As usual the Greens tend to ignore the working poor a bit to concentrate on the unemployed and unable-to-be-employed. Would be great if they could do both.

    No CGT which is interesting.

    RW media are already using this to drive a wedge between Labour and the Greens.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS