Labour’s tax plans would leave a gaping hole in public finances and add $18.5 billion dollars to net crown debt, Associate Finance Minister Steven Joyce says:
“At a time when an increasing number of large countries are wrestling with severe problems caused by too much debt, Labour’s recipe for New Zealand would be to borrow more each and every year on volatile world financial markets. . . “
Treasury’s models which are used for economic and fiscal projections for Budgets show Labour’s tax increases would raise around $21 billion of extra revenue out to 2024/25 while at the same time they’d forgo about $28.5 billion in revenue.
“That leaves a $7.5 billion revenue hole, on top of another $7.5 billion in extra interest costs Labour would have to pay on their higher debt. In addition, Labour would need to borrow billions more if it doesn’t proceed with the mixed ownership model for SOEs, pushing total net Crown debt $18.5 billion higher by 2024/25.
This would also put pressure on interest rates which would add costs to for households and businesses.
“And that is all on the assumption they could start a capital gains tax in 2013 and raise billions of dollars despite all their complicated exemptions and loopholes.”
The main reason for Labour’s debt and deficit blowouts would be:
-They have underestimated the costs and overestimated the revenue from almost all of their promises.
-They have no basis for adding in $300 million a year from tax avoidance measures – on top of the $800 million a year the Government is already on track to obtain from Budget 2010 measures.
-They have failed to include extra interest costs on their higher borrowing.
-They have not factored in the need to borrow billions of dollars more to maintain the Government’s level of capital investment – in the absence of proceeds from the mixed ownership model for four State-controlled energy companies.
To make matters worse, they have hidden in their numbers an Emissions Trading Scheme based on a $50 per tonne price for carbon across the entire scheme. That would mean Kiwi households would have to fork out four times as much for the ETS as they do currently under the National-led Government’s more balanced scheme.
Labour has made it quite clear they see the ETS as simply another way to raise revenue.
“And, of course, Labour has already admitted it will spend more. It is yet to announce its spending promises, but has railed against every decision this Government has made to contain spending. Any new spending would add even more to Labour’s debt each year,” Mr Joyce says.
Labour criticises every move National makes to rein in spending and has made absoultely no commitment to fiscal restraint should they get hold of the public purse again.
“When you look through all the spin, it’s the same old Phil Goff and Labour: overestimate the revenue, underestimate the costs and borrow the rest.
“In stark contrast, National has a credible plan to balance the books and start repaying debt within three years. We are building on the encouraging economic growth figures released last week with a plan to take New Zealand forwards, not backwards.”
There are those who can count and those who can’t. Then there’s Labour which doesn’t appear to worry about counting at all – and hopes the rest of us either can’t count or aren’t interested.
Their tax and spend policies put New Zealand into recession before the rest of the world and each policy announcement confirms they’ve failed to learn from their own past failures.
The breakdown of the costs of Labour’s package is here.

Keith Ng has a less partisan analysis of the differences between Labour’s and National’s costings. It’s not just, “Labour good, National bad”, or “National good, Labour bad”, but an analysis about who has the better numbers in each area of the package. His conclusion:
There’s about $4-5b of legitimate gripes here. And it crystalises my view of Labour’s tax package: Using CGT to pay off debt is a rock solid policy core, but everything else about the package is haphazard, with a lot of question marks and not much rationale.
LikeLike
Mmmmh but he’s indecisive though.
If there is any degree of uncertainty then it is prudent to eschew a CGT at this time.
LikeLike
Not a great argument, Cadwallader. I’m sure there was a degree of indecision around National’s tax cuts too, as to whether we could really afford them, but that didn’t seem to be a reason not to go ahead with them. I think a better argument would be to focus on whether the estimates are sufficiently conservative.
There can also be fairness reasons for pursuing a particular tax. I can’t really understand why wealth earned through labour is taxable, but wealth earned through increase in asset value is not.
LikeLike
These numbers of course are why Trevor Mallard tried to spin the line that the public didn’t need to know the details. Labour was defeated in 2008 because the voting public was sick of the party’s arrogance towards them. It seems that Labour has learned nothing from three years in the Opposition bences.
LikeLike
National and ACT need to get out there tell the populace the reason we have to sell of the silverware is because our gambling addiction with the Welfare state is killing our ability to get the engine on the car repaired.
We need to grow the income side leaving more money in the hands of those who produce the stuff, and get the impediment to its generation out of the road… less govt, less regulation, less of an excuse to extort money out of the populace.
LikeLike
“I can’t really understand why wealth earned through labour is taxable, but wealth earned through increase in asset value is not.”
In a few words its “risk and double taxation”.
Several million NZers receive salary or wages, compulsory holidays, holiday pay, sick leave and a very supportive Employment Court with advocates thereof. These people have only the slight risk of losing their jobs as witness even in this worst of recessions the unemployment rate has increased only by less than 3 percentage points.
There are something like 600,000 mainly small businesses in NZ. Virtually all of them were started with tax paid money and most received a personal loan from the bank secured by mortgage against their assets.. mainly their houses. The risk of business failure is high.. something like 50% fail or close in the first three years leaving the owner with the debt to pay and no business to help out and often no job.
The risks are thus huge and the money to start and run the business is tax paid.. and then theres the interest to pay on the loans.
There are 600,000 businesses in the land, yet according to the 2011 “Key Facts For Tax Payers” there are only 160,000 people with an income of $100,000 plus, and only 60,000 earning over $150,000.
Yes, one reason for our paucity of wealthy people is many have their wealth tied up in assets but many if not most took huge risks to get there and paid fortunes in interest on money borrowed and still form the backbone of all taxes paid.
The trick is not to look at the handful of people who have great asset wealth, but at those hundreds of thousands of businessmen and women with their (metaphorical) balls on the line and who pay themselves maybe $50-70,000 a year when the business can afford it. They have earned what assets they have built up many times over and continue to pay their fair share.
JC
LikeLike
Deborah @ 7:26am: Labour has been been confusing political policy with economic policy. In a bid to seek votes (political) they announced the first $5,000 tax free, scrap GST on food, and CGT with all sorts of political hooks. A series of vote catching bits with no over arching coherent economic policy.. It is now becoming clear it is not going to work Even Labour are very shrot on detail as Mallard admits
LikeLike
Really interesting table posted by the Doctor at Not PC.
I have trouble understanding why the imposition of double taxation is not readily apparent to all. That is what is proposed.
LikeLike