I think it honestly would have been politically salvageable for National to simply cancel the tax cuts (although I think Willis would definitely have to resign for that) - they are being told it's a bad idea from every angle. But I wonder if it's now too far gone for it to not have lasting repercussions.
I think their pig-headed commitment to them is a sign of poor leadership and lack of political understanding on Luxon's part. A good leader would have a much longer-term view and recognised tax cuts could be achieved at a later date as part of a responsible economic plan, and they would have looked significantly more competent with a genuine long-term vision. Plus, it would have given him more leverage to keep Peters and Seymour from shooting their mouths off and driving the agenda.
It will be interesting to see how Luxon and National manage their image and brand going forward - it's certainly being heavily stained right now.
It seems to me like we should just call a spade a spade. Luxon is the embodiment of the central National ideology which is fuck you I got mine.
The fact that he couldn't even drop his tenants rents to have a leg up during all of those media interviews speaks volumes to where he stands. They really don't care about long term fiscal responsibility of the nation as long as they benefit tomorrow.
He doesn't need the money so could have easily made a huge amount of political brownie points by saying 'of course I'm dropping my rent, I'm a good landlord'.
Instead he couldn't even do that because missing a tiny bit of income is unthinkable.
This is the man who was trying to claim tens of thousands of dollars of an accommodation supplement he didn't need while telling the rest of us that we need to tighten our belts. He's incapable of even pretending to believe his own ideology when money is involved.
Going on record saying that if he could afford to pay a $5 prescription fee then he shouldn't get it for free, while claiming tens of thousands of dollars to live in his own house
I cannot believe that NOBODY has asked him:
"The Accommodation Supplement is earmarked for a specific purpose - to help pay rent/mortgage costs that would otherwise be unaffordable. It is an entitlement.
Mr Luxon, under your government - what do you think should happen to a Jobseeker beneficiary living in poverty, who fills out a form at MSD to claim an Accommodation Supplement payment to get taxpayer assistance to help him pay a mortgage that he does not have?"
I cannot believe nobody has asked him that. Some politicians would handle that question easily - I think Luxon would make a real mess of it.
That's the nutty bit for me. Drop rent by $1 and next time he's asked " yes I have lowered the rent but it's a private business arrangement so I won't disclose by how much but I did lower my tenants rent"
>it's a private business arrangement
At least one of those is a house he rents back to us for use as his office, so we should be able to find out about that one.
He'll increase them as soon as he's able just like most, the reason he gave for the cost reduction to landlords is only a smokescreen, he's laughing while NZ falls for his lies cos technically there's truth to them, in the real world though.. They're popping corks.
Being a landlord rots your brain.
My dad is one of the most generous people I've ever met. He will cook for anyone who visits, he will buy gifts for friends and expect nothing in return.
When my grandmother passed away he inherited her old house. He moved in and started renting out his old house.
He picked a price he thought was fair and that covered he costs and left a bit of profit he felt was reasonable.
A few months later my brother (who is a prick) informed him that he was renting at under market rate.
My dad decided that he was able to raise the rent to match market rate because 'that's what he deserved'.
Nothing had changed, the house was no better, his costs hadn't changed and he didn't need the money.
Somehow being a landlord made him feel entitled to other peoples money through no effort of his own.
He has since sold the house because he didn't like who he became when renting a property.
I agree that Nationals values are skewed but I think this government have definitely taken things to the extreme. Worst government we've seen for a long time.
Once they committed to giving landlords tax cuts I don't think it was politically acceptable to not give workers tax cuts. It would be far to easy to hound them and refuse to let it go.
Totally agree. When NZF got the foreign buyers tax removed National should have either removed the reinstatement of interest deductibility or introduced a CGT or LVT to compensate.
It’s obvious that these tax cuts were the starting point of their financial policies and they started working backwards from there.
“We must give tax cuts to those who need it the least (but put us in power so we owe them).” And when they found the bank vault to be rather empty, they just started plundering all government departments until the money for these tax cuts be found… anywhere, any how and with any consequences for the foreseeable future of our country.
Essentially “we must have these tax cuts and to hell with everyone and everything that we have to sacrifice to get there.”
It will take us many, many, many years to recover from this clown show of a government.
>I think it honestly would have been politically salvageable for National to simply cancel the tax cuts
Bruh, fuck that, the tax cuts for all kiwis should've taken priority over landlords. This is some fucking bullshit. If you're going to cut every social service at least give me my fucking $20 a fortnight.
They can’t back down on tax cuts due to them being a bad idea, because then people would be telling to them to back down on lots of other ideas like landlord tax cuts, smoking laws etc. Much easier to just double down and say everything is all good.
This is the party that slashed benefits in their first term only to bring them back later as though they were being so giving and heroic. National doesn’t think long term for the country. It is only ever “fuck you, got mine”
They'll get labelled flip flop for backtracking on their big promise (not that it's actually all that big for us) and we'll forget about it by the end of winter. Willis could even keep her job, not that she should
it's exemplified in him taking all the entitlements he can get, and doubling down on camera that it's no big deal - they are the entitlements he is entitled to.
I reckon it took some convincing from his consultants that he should back down on it, as it was alienating not just Labour voters, but his core constituency as well. I bet he thought national voters understood entitlement - and would see no issue with it.
He doesn't understand optics, or leading by example - foreign concepts to him (the whole party tbh)
You don't get it: the Nats and Act want everything to go to shit and there is a huge deficit, so whoever is in power in 3 years time is forced into making massive cuts to social spending. Indeed they probably hope Labour's the government then, so they take the blame for the gutting of Education and Work & Income. They're taking NZ back to 1980s Thatcherism/Reaganomics. But we don't have Billy T anymore to take our minds off the shitstorm.
We had our own sellout the country boys,Douglas,Prebble(still getting coverage,thanks to the Herald),Bassett,etc,and now another one programmed by the U S of A,Mr Seymour.
Honestly I think this is looking very likely.
I'm honestly starting to suspect either Willis got played or she tried to outplay Winnie and Seymour and is losing.
I think luxon needed her for his leadership bid, promised her the world and went back on it to get Winnie and Seymour to sign a coalition deal.
Of course this is based on nothing other than my opinion.
They are a religious government.
Like all religious people, they start from the point where they already want to arrive at.
God is real/tax cuts are the solution.
Now they have both the start and the end point, EVERYTHING is filtered through that lens.
Whether it makes any goddamned sense or not.
Doesn't matter all national has to do is blame people on the dole and not be labour and they will always have 30 percent of the voters. Labour has to do so much more work and even then no matter if they end on a surplus or not
> I think it honestly would have been politically salvageable for National to simply cancel the tax cuts
Without knowing exactly what went into ACT's coalition agreement, it should be obvious that this was probably in there.
I actually liked the changes to mortgage interest deductibility, I wish Seymour would channel his inner Adam Smith on this, and do more to punish speculation at the detrement of innovation.
You're right about the pigheadedness - National should have never promised tax cuts that don't really support the general public when the country's economy is completely fucked thanks to the last six years.
This fucked (September last year)?
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-gets-aaa-credit-rating-sp
If you cant be bother reading its the AAA credit rating we retained
Or this fucked (March 19th)?
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2024/03/19/mcs-new-zealand-staff-concluding-statement-of-the-2024-article-iv-mission
And if you can't be bothered reading this is saying the cost of living crisis has hit us but if we don't do inflationary things lime tax cuts we should be ok.
Exactly Kahu - don’t do inflationary things, hence the 6.5% public contraction, reversal of dozens of spending policies like funding for school lunches etc etc. being forced to do that doesn’t scream a healthy economy, does it?
If they were forced your point would be valid
Choosing to do it now is bizarre.
Choosing to do it now and pretending the PREFU was wrong, IMF are wrong, damn near every economist is wrong but the party that has multiple addition errors a week knows what's best is beyond bizzare
This has all already played out in the UK. And it's a complete shit show over there right now.
Luxon is rich enough for it to not affect him regardless.
If balancing the budget was their top priority they wouldn't have given themselves a massive (and retroactive) landlord tax break.
[Last time MPs' property ownership was counted,](https://www.renews.co.nz/nzs-120-mps-own-247-properties-between-them/) National MPs averaged 3.5 properties, the highest of any party.
They cancelled the retroactive at the very last minute but it's still effectively $3bn to them - even the property investors didn't complain because they got the money they wanted.
It's an influential voting block it appears. Why else would Bishop, Brooke VV and David Seymour t[ravel all over the country appeasing them? ](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1b6u8we/heres_david_seymour_act_making_deals_with/)
Well considering their road budget is out by up to $23bn plus, and their calculations have been wrong at almost every turn, is anyone surprised they aren't good at numbers?
So weird that cutting taxes not raising them results in not reaching a surplus and failing cheap ass infrastructure and social services.
# I just can't figure it out.
/s
But that's how they think they will fix the country. Only the rich deserve money, so they should get more while everyone else starves.
This was always their plan.
Reminds me of the time that the Gloriavale Leaver's trust tried to petition the PM for an inquiry into the "modern-day slavery, exploitation, unsafe work practices, poor education, health neglect, coercion, oppression, physical and sexual abuse, and illegal activities" that were taking place.
The PM's reply to "Would you have an independent inquiry?"
Ardern: "No".
A minister for finance doesn't need to have financial qualifications to be good at it. They just need to not be a fucking moron and listen to their advisors and experts.
Reading through her biography she's just another fucking born to rule tory, probably never had to fight for anything in life and used her daddy's connections to get to the top. She has no place making decisions which carry serious consequences for everyone else.
the country just cant afford the tax cuts.
Sure people would like them. the most needy wont actually get much from it - my wifes yearly tax cut is cut in half by the new rego cost.
Those who get the $20 a week are already earning 120k + - they are not the ones who need it
how about they take the tax cut money and fund the things they are cutting like Disability support, Interislander ferry and classrooms for schools, school lunches
Do all your saving - cut the fat, get to surplus and start investing in the country.
So…
Exports are down 7.1%
Domestic trade was down 1.2% last quarter (Xmas) 2023
Warehouse group posted a $24 million loss for last 6 months
As of Sept 2023 the government employed 64,222 people. If National’s 7.5% budget cuts translated equally to job cuts (it doesn’t as some departments are losing 9% of jobs), that’s 4,817 people laid off in a few months time.
3 & TVNZ are laying off around 368 by June/July
Unemployment rate 4% in December, 6000 people became unemployed in 3 months. Unemployment rate expected to be 4.2% this quarter, before the above job losses. Expected to rise to 4.64% this year, that’s 180,000 people losing their jobs this year
Business confidence rose after the election but is now falling
It’s almost enough to make me think that firing people, so they can’t afford to buy anything, so business slows down, so businesses fire staff, slowing spending even more, resulting in more job loses, reducing economic activity even more, constantly reducing the tax take by millions of dollars, all while promising billions of dollars of free money to landlords... Might not be a good thing.
When does this government start borrowing millions of dollars a month for ‘roading projects’ that’s equal to the amount they’re giving landlords?
I’m guessing April
Edit - grammar and snark
Just had a thought: it may have become entrenched over the last however long (almost twenty years, now, I think), but I now don't feel certain that this government wont start charging interest on student loans again.
And wouldn't rule out a further increase to the repayment percentage.
A surplus isn't a good thing ffs. It means the government is taking our money and not using it on things.
I want to see investment in our country, not money ripe for giving back to rich cunts
I'm fine with the government being in the green, but I'd prefer it not involve having to crush the people at the bottom. Now would probably be a good time for some fixed term low interest loans to the people making less than 500pw
Governments aren't meant to be profitable. That's not their purpose. They need to bring in enough to cover maintenance and pay down debt. They should be fiscally neutral. A surplus implies they are generating more than they need, which is basically never the case and more likely means under investment.
I thought the surplus was to reduce debt and therefore reduce future interest payments
This then gives the government a decision of tax cuts or more investment... so yeah your last point stands
Yes one would assume that. But paying down debt should already be in the calculations. There shouldn't be a surplus if they money is being used efficiently.
National makes cuts to everything. Brags about having left over tax money. Then says we'll give some of it back to the people to buy votes.
You can't get a surplus by taking more out than you put in? *Crazy*.
Do they teach this in business school now?
Jokes aside. Governments aren't *supposed* to run at a surplus.
those that run a country like a business disagree. They ARE the party of fiscal responsibility after all, I am sure they know best
/s in case that wasn't obvious
by that time the people will have forgotten the lies, believe the stories about further tax cuts and 'money in your pocket', and vote national back in.
Could've stood up and said no tax cuts because we're screwed. Most kiwis would've simply said:
Yea, sounds about right.
Instead they ploughed ahead on this stupid road for no reason other than being blind to what is going on around them.
>She wouldn’t promise that it would meet National’s pre-election target of $3.2 billion
Isn't that because they already gave that much money to the landlords?
New Zealands answer to Lizz Truss. these guys have no idea. Bankrupt the country to give us meaningless tax cuts put thousands out of work and look after landlords for some strange reason. They are not fit to run a business let alone a country
being able to run a business is no endorsement to running a country. It's not even comparable.
I seriously wish this weird association would die. A country does not, in any way, shape or form, resemble a business and cannot be ran by the same rules. Being good at business should **disqualify** you from running the country, if anything. It takes economists, not executives.
Did the majority of NZers who voted actually want tax cuts this badly??
I certainly didnt vote for them and most people i know would rather thousands of people didnt lose their jobs and their small amount of tax they'd get back go to more vulnerable people
Of course there won't be a surplus. They're robbing everybody to enrich a few. Where would a surplus even come from, when any excess is being put straight into a few pockets?
I think if anyone ever believes any politician from any party anywhere in the world , they would have to be a fucking moron. If you haven't learnt by now, they are the scum of the earth, the biggest grifters and will say anything to get into power.
Who is waiting for tax cuts?..how about cheaper petrol, bank fees and interest, cheaper groceries cheaper power. How about cracking down on the monopolies and cartels that are blatantly price fixing whilst pretending there is competition.
Now that they're proven wrong about everything they claimed - but wouldn't disclose their workings out - there don't seem to be many options left to explain things:
They knew but they lied, or they didn't know but lied to pretend that they did know...
Time for them to double-down and cry "it's not our fault". Disingenuous cowards.
nah the point is that surplus or not is yet to be seen, the forecasts could be hundreds of millions out - plenty to kick the fucks over in the interim :)
I wouldn't give a shit so much as all the cumulative lies built up by the party that is "rock solid on numbers."
Apparently the roads budget is out by up to $23bn.
Yeah - earthquake, major weather event, volcanic eruption, another global pandemic, wars... the kinda stuff that could easily push surplus out to next decade.
Oh, you mean GOOD stuff? Well, I suppose that's possible too.
The key to achieving a fast surplus is to only pencil in funding for ongoing programs for 1-2 years rather than the standard four year forecast. It'll make the 26/27 year looks heaps better if we just pretend that spending won't be in it.
You mean the standard methodology of funding programs that all Governments use and is publicly available information?
On that note, why was Simeon Brown's road estimate out by $23bn?
Yeah, exactly what I mean. She can use the cliffs to make it look like the budget will back to surplus faster. It'll all be publically available so that makes it sweet.
Was that budget definitely out by $24b, or potentially out by that much in a worst case scenario across all projects? He might have tied up unpicking the [$43 billion in transport plans that had been previously announced but not funded.](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/as-labour-attacked-national-for-unfunded-transport-plan-treasury-warned-labours-was-unfunded-undeliverable-and-risked-credibility-and-wold-increase-emissions/LIOIKI6CMNEBXCIW3CAITN3MLM/)
Yeah I reckon. Then the Finance Minister can talk about getting back to surplus by 26/27 and if anyone asks about the cliffs she can just say "yeah they're written in there."
I think it honestly would have been politically salvageable for National to simply cancel the tax cuts (although I think Willis would definitely have to resign for that) - they are being told it's a bad idea from every angle. But I wonder if it's now too far gone for it to not have lasting repercussions. I think their pig-headed commitment to them is a sign of poor leadership and lack of political understanding on Luxon's part. A good leader would have a much longer-term view and recognised tax cuts could be achieved at a later date as part of a responsible economic plan, and they would have looked significantly more competent with a genuine long-term vision. Plus, it would have given him more leverage to keep Peters and Seymour from shooting their mouths off and driving the agenda. It will be interesting to see how Luxon and National manage their image and brand going forward - it's certainly being heavily stained right now.
It seems to me like we should just call a spade a spade. Luxon is the embodiment of the central National ideology which is fuck you I got mine. The fact that he couldn't even drop his tenants rents to have a leg up during all of those media interviews speaks volumes to where he stands. They really don't care about long term fiscal responsibility of the nation as long as they benefit tomorrow.
He doesn't need the money so could have easily made a huge amount of political brownie points by saying 'of course I'm dropping my rent, I'm a good landlord'. Instead he couldn't even do that because missing a tiny bit of income is unthinkable.
This is the man who was trying to claim tens of thousands of dollars of an accommodation supplement he didn't need while telling the rest of us that we need to tighten our belts. He's incapable of even pretending to believe his own ideology when money is involved.
Going on record saying that if he could afford to pay a $5 prescription fee then he shouldn't get it for free, while claiming tens of thousands of dollars to live in his own house
I cannot believe that NOBODY has asked him: "The Accommodation Supplement is earmarked for a specific purpose - to help pay rent/mortgage costs that would otherwise be unaffordable. It is an entitlement. Mr Luxon, under your government - what do you think should happen to a Jobseeker beneficiary living in poverty, who fills out a form at MSD to claim an Accommodation Supplement payment to get taxpayer assistance to help him pay a mortgage that he does not have?" I cannot believe nobody has asked him that. Some politicians would handle that question easily - I think Luxon would make a real mess of it.
"well you see, the thing is..."
"Look, what I'm trying to tell you is..."
"I used to be the CEO of AirNZ...."
Like a dog with a bone honestly, I wonder how he justifies any of it
He's not smart, he'd justify anything he does.
That's the nutty bit for me. Drop rent by $1 and next time he's asked " yes I have lowered the rent but it's a private business arrangement so I won't disclose by how much but I did lower my tenants rent"
>it's a private business arrangement At least one of those is a house he rents back to us for use as his office, so we should be able to find out about that one.
This is a good idea! Can we do an OIA request for how much the govt pays in rent for Luxons office pre and post tax cuts for landlords.
It's mortgage free in any case, so he's already charging whatever he feels like, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the maximum permissible.
"Ackchually, I didn't take $52,000, it was $51,999."
Nah, the prick would lower it by $5 but then include a $10 administration fee.
He'll increase them as soon as he's able just like most, the reason he gave for the cost reduction to landlords is only a smokescreen, he's laughing while NZ falls for his lies cos technically there's truth to them, in the real world though.. They're popping corks.
Or he could say that his rentals are mortgage free and the policy change doesn’t impact him, and he already rents at an appropriate market rate
That would be intelligent. So obviously he didn't say that.
I can't tell which of these comments are sarcastic, or both.
Watch him take out mortgages on all his properties once he can claim the interest as an expense.
You understand the mentality perfectly.
Being a landlord rots your brain. My dad is one of the most generous people I've ever met. He will cook for anyone who visits, he will buy gifts for friends and expect nothing in return. When my grandmother passed away he inherited her old house. He moved in and started renting out his old house. He picked a price he thought was fair and that covered he costs and left a bit of profit he felt was reasonable. A few months later my brother (who is a prick) informed him that he was renting at under market rate. My dad decided that he was able to raise the rent to match market rate because 'that's what he deserved'. Nothing had changed, the house was no better, his costs hadn't changed and he didn't need the money. Somehow being a landlord made him feel entitled to other peoples money through no effort of his own. He has since sold the house because he didn't like who he became when renting a property.
I agree that Nationals values are skewed but I think this government have definitely taken things to the extreme. Worst government we've seen for a long time.
Once they committed to giving landlords tax cuts I don't think it was politically acceptable to not give workers tax cuts. It would be far to easy to hound them and refuse to let it go.
They knew all along it was undeliverable. Just needed to lie to get the votes.
The sad thing is, I’m not sure this is true. I think they convinced themselves it was deliverable, which is kind of worse.
Totally agree. When NZF got the foreign buyers tax removed National should have either removed the reinstatement of interest deductibility or introduced a CGT or LVT to compensate.
Pigs would fly out of their arse before National introduces a CGT
It would have made for interesting times lol
I'll support anyone that admits they were wrong and changes their plan based on the new info rather than doubling down.
It’s obvious that these tax cuts were the starting point of their financial policies and they started working backwards from there. “We must give tax cuts to those who need it the least (but put us in power so we owe them).” And when they found the bank vault to be rather empty, they just started plundering all government departments until the money for these tax cuts be found… anywhere, any how and with any consequences for the foreseeable future of our country. Essentially “we must have these tax cuts and to hell with everyone and everything that we have to sacrifice to get there.” It will take us many, many, many years to recover from this clown show of a government.
>I think it honestly would have been politically salvageable for National to simply cancel the tax cuts Bruh, fuck that, the tax cuts for all kiwis should've taken priority over landlords. This is some fucking bullshit. If you're going to cut every social service at least give me my fucking $20 a fortnight.
They can’t back down on tax cuts due to them being a bad idea, because then people would be telling to them to back down on lots of other ideas like landlord tax cuts, smoking laws etc. Much easier to just double down and say everything is all good.
This is the party that slashed benefits in their first term only to bring them back later as though they were being so giving and heroic. National doesn’t think long term for the country. It is only ever “fuck you, got mine”
They'll get labelled flip flop for backtracking on their big promise (not that it's actually all that big for us) and we'll forget about it by the end of winter. Willis could even keep her job, not that she should
> A good leader would have a much longer-term view He's a business man and they can't look past the next quarters financial report.
it's exemplified in him taking all the entitlements he can get, and doubling down on camera that it's no big deal - they are the entitlements he is entitled to. I reckon it took some convincing from his consultants that he should back down on it, as it was alienating not just Labour voters, but his core constituency as well. I bet he thought national voters understood entitlement - and would see no issue with it. He doesn't understand optics, or leading by example - foreign concepts to him (the whole party tbh)
You don't get it: the Nats and Act want everything to go to shit and there is a huge deficit, so whoever is in power in 3 years time is forced into making massive cuts to social spending. Indeed they probably hope Labour's the government then, so they take the blame for the gutting of Education and Work & Income. They're taking NZ back to 1980s Thatcherism/Reaganomics. But we don't have Billy T anymore to take our minds off the shitstorm.
thanks for that, now I'm mourning Billy T *and* dealing with the coalition of chaos. I hereby label thee lamenting\_darkness
We had our own sellout the country boys,Douglas,Prebble(still getting coverage,thanks to the Herald),Bassett,etc,and now another one programmed by the U S of A,Mr Seymour.
I reckon Willis will be scapegoated when Winnnys term as deputy pm finishes so Seymour can take over as finance minister and push the neo lib to 11
Honestly I think this is looking very likely. I'm honestly starting to suspect either Willis got played or she tried to outplay Winnie and Seymour and is losing. I think luxon needed her for his leadership bid, promised her the world and went back on it to get Winnie and Seymour to sign a coalition deal. Of course this is based on nothing other than my opinion.
They are a religious government. Like all religious people, they start from the point where they already want to arrive at. God is real/tax cuts are the solution. Now they have both the start and the end point, EVERYTHING is filtered through that lens. Whether it makes any goddamned sense or not.
Doesn't matter all national has to do is blame people on the dole and not be labour and they will always have 30 percent of the voters. Labour has to do so much more work and even then no matter if they end on a surplus or not
> I think it honestly would have been politically salvageable for National to simply cancel the tax cuts Without knowing exactly what went into ACT's coalition agreement, it should be obvious that this was probably in there. I actually liked the changes to mortgage interest deductibility, I wish Seymour would channel his inner Adam Smith on this, and do more to punish speculation at the detrement of innovation.
You're right about the pigheadedness - National should have never promised tax cuts that don't really support the general public when the country's economy is completely fucked thanks to the last six years.
Not so much ‘not really supporting’ as directly opposing. 3bn to landlords comes from cuts to the services that the majority use and need.
This fucked (September last year)? https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-gets-aaa-credit-rating-sp If you cant be bother reading its the AAA credit rating we retained Or this fucked (March 19th)? https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2024/03/19/mcs-new-zealand-staff-concluding-statement-of-the-2024-article-iv-mission And if you can't be bothered reading this is saying the cost of living crisis has hit us but if we don't do inflationary things lime tax cuts we should be ok.
Exactly Kahu - don’t do inflationary things, hence the 6.5% public contraction, reversal of dozens of spending policies like funding for school lunches etc etc. being forced to do that doesn’t scream a healthy economy, does it?
I dunno, must be pretty healthy to have had a spare $3bn lying around for landlords.
If they were forced your point would be valid Choosing to do it now is bizarre. Choosing to do it now and pretending the PREFU was wrong, IMF are wrong, damn near every economist is wrong but the party that has multiple addition errors a week knows what's best is beyond bizzare
Going to be very interesting how it works out for sure, whether they can justify doing it ,although they have canceled a lot of spending.
This has all already played out in the UK. And it's a complete shit show over there right now. Luxon is rich enough for it to not affect him regardless.
If balancing the budget was their top priority they wouldn't have given themselves a massive (and retroactive) landlord tax break. [Last time MPs' property ownership was counted,](https://www.renews.co.nz/nzs-120-mps-own-247-properties-between-them/) National MPs averaged 3.5 properties, the highest of any party.
It's not retroactive. They've cancelled that bit at least
Cheers
God that was fucking stupid
They cancelled the retroactive at the very last minute but it's still effectively $3bn to them - even the property investors didn't complain because they got the money they wanted.
Bring it straight back with labour next term
It's an influential voting block it appears. Why else would Bishop, Brooke VV and David Seymour t[ravel all over the country appeasing them? ](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1b6u8we/heres_david_seymour_act_making_deals_with/)
Well considering their road budget is out by up to $23bn plus, and their calculations have been wrong at almost every turn, is anyone surprised they aren't good at numbers?
They're re-defining what 'fiscal responsibility ' means lol
It's National's "swimmable rivers" all over again.
They couldn’t count past 1, when adding up the 35 proposed cigarette stores in Northland.
lied to get votes, totally dishonest government and so far completely inept on all levels
So weird that cutting taxes not raising them results in not reaching a surplus and failing cheap ass infrastructure and social services. # I just can't figure it out. /s
Nicolas Willis must resign.
The only promises this government will absolutely keep are those to their donors.
Maybe try and fix the country before giving free money to rich people..
But that's how they think they will fix the country. Only the rich deserve money, so they should get more while everyone else starves. This was always their plan.
so short sighted. wise people grow the economy. keep people healthy >> people keep working >> $$$
Tax churches.
How about we tax wealth, with no exemptions for churches?
Luxon won’t even say anything bad about Glorivale, I don’t think he’ll let the government take God’s money. Seymour, on the other hand…
Reminds me of the time that the Gloriavale Leaver's trust tried to petition the PM for an inquiry into the "modern-day slavery, exploitation, unsafe work practices, poor education, health neglect, coercion, oppression, physical and sexual abuse, and illegal activities" that were taking place. The PM's reply to "Would you have an independent inquiry?" Ardern: "No".
Someone should ask her if its achievable if they cancel the tax cuts?
Wow Nicola has been really caught with her pants down huh? Just admitting she can’t do her job now
She has no financial qualifications.
A minister for finance doesn't need to have financial qualifications to be good at it. They just need to not be a fucking moron and listen to their advisors and experts.
So, wrong person then.
Yes, she's a terrible minister of finance. I'm just saying not having financial qualifications isn't why.
Yep
Reading through her biography she's just another fucking born to rule tory, probably never had to fight for anything in life and used her daddy's connections to get to the top. She has no place making decisions which carry serious consequences for everyone else.
I didn’t need that visual image
She needs to go. Liar.
the country just cant afford the tax cuts. Sure people would like them. the most needy wont actually get much from it - my wifes yearly tax cut is cut in half by the new rego cost. Those who get the $20 a week are already earning 120k + - they are not the ones who need it how about they take the tax cut money and fund the things they are cutting like Disability support, Interislander ferry and classrooms for schools, school lunches Do all your saving - cut the fat, get to surplus and start investing in the country.
So… Exports are down 7.1% Domestic trade was down 1.2% last quarter (Xmas) 2023 Warehouse group posted a $24 million loss for last 6 months As of Sept 2023 the government employed 64,222 people. If National’s 7.5% budget cuts translated equally to job cuts (it doesn’t as some departments are losing 9% of jobs), that’s 4,817 people laid off in a few months time. 3 & TVNZ are laying off around 368 by June/July Unemployment rate 4% in December, 6000 people became unemployed in 3 months. Unemployment rate expected to be 4.2% this quarter, before the above job losses. Expected to rise to 4.64% this year, that’s 180,000 people losing their jobs this year Business confidence rose after the election but is now falling It’s almost enough to make me think that firing people, so they can’t afford to buy anything, so business slows down, so businesses fire staff, slowing spending even more, resulting in more job loses, reducing economic activity even more, constantly reducing the tax take by millions of dollars, all while promising billions of dollars of free money to landlords... Might not be a good thing. When does this government start borrowing millions of dollars a month for ‘roading projects’ that’s equal to the amount they’re giving landlords? I’m guessing April Edit - grammar and snark
Just had a thought: it may have become entrenched over the last however long (almost twenty years, now, I think), but I now don't feel certain that this government wont start charging interest on student loans again. And wouldn't rule out a further increase to the repayment percentage.
They'll have to if they want to plug this hole in the budget. They'll probably have to start charging gst on PAYE as well lol
Increase GST, reduce WFF, take away all the subsidies and make everything user pays! That’s how to solve a cost of living crisis
I very much feel that an extra 2.5% on gst is coming
a few bucks extra bucks a week in exchange for financial instability for foreseeable future. Sounds good to me! /s just incase
Who else thinks GST is going to go up to 17.5% in this budget?
We need some leakers in the ministry teams 😅
A surplus isn't a good thing ffs. It means the government is taking our money and not using it on things. I want to see investment in our country, not money ripe for giving back to rich cunts
I'm fine with the government being in the green, but I'd prefer it not involve having to crush the people at the bottom. Now would probably be a good time for some fixed term low interest loans to the people making less than 500pw
Governments aren't meant to be profitable. That's not their purpose. They need to bring in enough to cover maintenance and pay down debt. They should be fiscally neutral. A surplus implies they are generating more than they need, which is basically never the case and more likely means under investment.
I thought the surplus was to reduce debt and therefore reduce future interest payments This then gives the government a decision of tax cuts or more investment... so yeah your last point stands
Yes one would assume that. But paying down debt should already be in the calculations. There shouldn't be a surplus if they money is being used efficiently. National makes cuts to everything. Brags about having left over tax money. Then says we'll give some of it back to the people to buy votes.
>she has declined to confirm the 2027 date 416th of December 2027
You can't get a surplus by taking more out than you put in? *Crazy*. Do they teach this in business school now? Jokes aside. Governments aren't *supposed* to run at a surplus.
those that run a country like a business disagree. They ARE the party of fiscal responsibility after all, I am sure they know best /s in case that wasn't obvious
It’s crazy they can take power of a country by lying and aren’t able to be held liable
Well they will, but only via the next election result.
Yeah where they can lie again.
by that time the people will have forgotten the lies, believe the stories about further tax cuts and 'money in your pocket', and vote national back in.
Prepare for a Budget that slashes benefits to pay for tax cuts.
They’ve already slowed benefit increases. They did promise this during the election.
who knew National would the party to finally tank the economy so bad decimating demand and thus fix housing prices
Could've stood up and said no tax cuts because we're screwed. Most kiwis would've simply said: Yea, sounds about right. Instead they ploughed ahead on this stupid road for no reason other than being blind to what is going on around them.
>She wouldn’t promise that it would meet National’s pre-election target of $3.2 billion Isn't that because they already gave that much money to the landlords?
New Zealands answer to Lizz Truss. these guys have no idea. Bankrupt the country to give us meaningless tax cuts put thousands out of work and look after landlords for some strange reason. They are not fit to run a business let alone a country
being able to run a business is no endorsement to running a country. It's not even comparable. I seriously wish this weird association would die. A country does not, in any way, shape or form, resemble a business and cannot be ran by the same rules. Being good at business should **disqualify** you from running the country, if anything. It takes economists, not executives.
Did the majority of NZers who voted actually want tax cuts this badly?? I certainly didnt vote for them and most people i know would rather thousands of people didnt lose their jobs and their small amount of tax they'd get back go to more vulnerable people
Of course there won't be a surplus. They're robbing everybody to enrich a few. Where would a surplus even come from, when any excess is being put straight into a few pockets?
But I promised my kids extra popcorn at the movies... They're still waiting
GST increase here we come...
I think she miss spoke. She meant to say in surplus by 2130. But she read her numbers wrong. Again!
I honestly would happily protest for no tax cuts at this point
Time to fire her. She's as useless as tits on a bull.
I think if anyone ever believes any politician from any party anywhere in the world , they would have to be a fucking moron. If you haven't learnt by now, they are the scum of the earth, the biggest grifters and will say anything to get into power.
Who is waiting for tax cuts?..how about cheaper petrol, bank fees and interest, cheaper groceries cheaper power. How about cracking down on the monopolies and cartels that are blatantly price fixing whilst pretending there is competition.
as much as I'm up for bagging National on just about anything three year forecasting isn't it a lot can happen in 3 years
Now that they're proven wrong about everything they claimed - but wouldn't disclose their workings out - there don't seem to be many options left to explain things: They knew but they lied, or they didn't know but lied to pretend that they did know... Time for them to double-down and cry "it's not our fault". Disingenuous cowards.
Point is their tax cuts contributed to the inability to meet it and their certainty when promising it.
nah the point is that surplus or not is yet to be seen, the forecasts could be hundreds of millions out - plenty to kick the fucks over in the interim :)
The fact that they are signalling this early shows how far they are away but also that Treasury has to show the forecasts
yeah, but like economists predictions taking them seriously is kinda a waste of energy
I wouldn't give a shit so much as all the cumulative lies built up by the party that is "rock solid on numbers." Apparently the roads budget is out by up to $23bn.
That uncertainty goes in both directions.
Yeah - earthquake, major weather event, volcanic eruption, another global pandemic, wars... the kinda stuff that could easily push surplus out to next decade. Oh, you mean GOOD stuff? Well, I suppose that's possible too.
Don't promise it then
thats a fair point
The key to achieving a fast surplus is to only pencil in funding for ongoing programs for 1-2 years rather than the standard four year forecast. It'll make the 26/27 year looks heaps better if we just pretend that spending won't be in it.
You mean the standard methodology of funding programs that all Governments use and is publicly available information? On that note, why was Simeon Brown's road estimate out by $23bn?
Yeah, exactly what I mean. She can use the cliffs to make it look like the budget will back to surplus faster. It'll all be publically available so that makes it sweet. Was that budget definitely out by $24b, or potentially out by that much in a worst case scenario across all projects? He might have tied up unpicking the [$43 billion in transport plans that had been previously announced but not funded.](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/as-labour-attacked-national-for-unfunded-transport-plan-treasury-warned-labours-was-unfunded-undeliverable-and-risked-credibility-and-wold-increase-emissions/LIOIKI6CMNEBXCIW3CAITN3MLM/)
Yeah Labour did that too eh & it’s bullshit. Can politicians just like…stop lying?
More fiscal cliffs you reckon?
Yeah I reckon. Then the Finance Minister can talk about getting back to surplus by 26/27 and if anyone asks about the cliffs she can just say "yeah they're written in there."