A Pathway To Surplus: Taxpayers' Union Releases Blueprint For Government To Cut Spending Deficit
Press Release – Taxpayers' Union
The report proposes a range of measures, including more targeted welfare spending, phasing out ineffective corporate subsidies, assessing state-owned enterprises for possible privatisation, and streamlining the public sector by eliminating overlapping …
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union has today launched the second in its series of briefing papers aimed at addressing the government's spending deficit. TitledA Pathway to Surplus, the paper outlines more than $35 billion in potential savings and over $100 billion in possible asset sales.
The release follows widespread concern expressed by New Zealanders during the Taxpayers' Union's Hīkoi for Balanced Budgets, which concluded yesterday.
'From Whangārei to Invercargill, people asked us the same question: how can the Government stop the debt from rising?' said Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams.
'This report contains the answers. It offers Finance Minister Nicola Willis oven-ready options to smash the deficit, stop the borrowing debt, and restore New Zealand's financial resilience.'
The report proposes a range of measures, including more targeted welfare spending, phasing out ineffective corporate subsidies, assessing state-owned enterprises for possible privatisation, and streamlining the public sector by eliminating overlapping bureaucracy.
'You don't have to agree with every proposal in the paper, and that's okay. But tough conversations and bold decisions are necessary. This paper makes the case for those decisions.'
'None of the ideas are radical. They are pragmatic, evidence-based recommendations rooted in fiscal common sense.'
While each recommendation is presented as an option, the paper stresses that inaction is not.
'New Zealanders deserve better than business as usual,' said Williams. 'We owe it to future generations to make the hard choices now while we still can. The pathway to surplus is clear. It's time for our leaders to take it.'
The report's key recommendations include:
Selling down assets making a poor (or negative) return, allowing the Crown to recycle capital and build quality infrastructure;
Reversing index-free student loans and free tuition policies;
Raising the pension age and indexing to life expectancy to sustain the Superannuation system amid an aging population;
Adjust the targeting of welfare support to only the most vulnerable;
Improve Government efficiency by abolishing redundant agencies and consolidating overlapping departments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Scraping the bottom of the barrel
Just when you think things can't get any worse, they often do. That is precisely what we have seen politically this week when it comes to the behaviour of our politicians. As if Leader of the House Chris Bishop's ill-conceived and poorly controlled ramblings at the Aotearoa Music Awards about a Stan Walker performance featuring Toitū Te Tiriti banners and people waving tino rangatiratanga flags weren't enough, the country had to endure even ghastlier behaviour in Parliament on Thursday. The debate about whether to endorse the recommendation to suspend three Te Pāti Māori MPs really showed New Zealanders the worst of Parliament. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi have now been barred from the House for seven days, 21 days and 21 days respectively for performing a haka in Parliament during debate last November about the waste of time, energy and money that was the Act party's contentious Treaty Principles Bill. Their intimidatory behaviour towards Act MPs then was at the core of the complaints considered by the Privileges Committee. Despite efforts by Opposition parties to reduce the length of the recommended suspensions, the government on Thursday ratified the committee's recommendations for punishments which, in the case of Ms Ngarewa-Packer and Mr Waititi, are the most severe ever handed down to MPs. While there can be little doubt that the behaviour of the three MPs last November was threatening and failed to meet the standards of Parliament, the severity seems unnecessarily vindictive. Interestingly, an RNZ poll of just over 1000 people, with a margin of error of 3.1 %, now shows that most respondents – 37% – think the punishment is 'about right" while 36.2% consider it too harsh. It is 'too lenient" in the minds of 17.2% of those surveyed. Of Labour Party supporters, 8% believe it should have been tougher, as do 3.8% of Green Party followers and, surprisingly, 9% of Te Pāti Māori supporters. The poll shows 54.2% of respondents either support the penalties or think they were too weak, a reflection of the government's view. While the impromptu haka by the three was seen by some as unacceptable and a breach of parliamentary protocol, it was Ms Ngarewa-Packer's foolish mimicry of shooting Act MPs which was the worst and most intimidatory action that day. The second she put her two fingers together, made the pretend gun and pointed it at Act leader David Seymour and colleagues marked the start of this whole sorry saga – though of course it can also be argued the real start came with the introduction of Mr Seymour's divisive Bill, allowed to happen by a prime minister too focused on stitching up a coalition deal with him at the top. The inciting incidents, the response and the reactions this week leave a stain on the reputation of Parliament. Some of the grandiloquence in the House on Thursday was vituperative and unwarranted. NZ First leader Winston Peters went way too far when he likened Mr Waititi's moko to scribbles, though he did apologise after the Speaker's intervention. Mr Waititi also stepped over the line by bringing a noose into the House. It was a bit rich for Mr Peters to tell RNZ it was a sad day in Parliament when he played a significant role in making it that. Parliament is no place for shrinking violets. We have seen that time and time again. It has had more than its share of biffo and nastiness over the years, which never led to suspensions anywhere near the length of those rubberstamped this week. Let us hope we don't see the like of this miserable drama again. Saw that coming It was always going to be a case of 'this town ain't big enough for the both of us". The implosion in recent days of United States President Donald Trump's simpering friendship with Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has been both highly predictable and highly amusing. Mr Musk has become increasingly caustic and is now calling for Mr Trump to be impeached. In turn, the president wants all Mr Musk's government contracts to be cancelled. When two such massive egos meet, there can only be one winner. Who that will ultimately be remains to be seen. In the meantime, let's be honest, the feud provides some much-needed light relief.
1News
8 hours ago
- 1News
Call to rethink tax on KiwiSaver
KiwiSaver members could be significantly better off if New Zealand adopted a taxation model similar to Australia's, an economist says. Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub ran some numbers modelling a system similar to Australia's, where contributions and returns are taxed at 15%. In New Zealand, full tax is paid on income contributed to KiwiSaver, and returns in PIE schemes taxed at an investor's prescribed investor rate up to 28%. Eaqub said an "average" KiwiSaver investor starting now could end up $60,000 better off in nominal terms at retirement on a model similar to Australia's. If tax was not paid on contributions or returns, they could be about $1 million better off - and if only taxes on returns were removed the gain would be about $300,000. "In Australia, the context is there's some conversation about whether the tax breaks are too generous for richer people. It's not that it's perfect but the point is in other countries it's heavily incentivised for people to save in their private pension." ADVERTISEMENT But it was not in New Zealand. Kirk Hope, chief executive of the Financial Services Council, which represents KiwiSaver providers, said the Australian model was different because that country has a means-tested pension. "The tax break that occurs in New Zealand occurs when you retire, when you get national super... that is the equivalent of about $500,000. So I think it's hard to do a comparative analysis without acknowledging that there are significant differences between the schemes and what they are trying to achieve." Winter's here, supermarket spying, and TikTok's new feature. (Source: 1News) But he said if the tax on savings for New Zealanders was reduced it would give future governments more "fiscal options" in relation to superannuation. He said New Zealand previously had a system that was EET — or exempt, exempt, taxed, where contributions were tax-exempt, exempt from tax within the scheme and then fully taxed when withdrawn. The Tax Working Group in 2018 acknowledged that the change from that system had potentially created incentives for New Zealanders to direct savings into investments like houses instead. ADVERTISEMENT Hope said it would be expensive to adjust back to EET but there could be other changes that would be more affordable. The tax working group estimated that ignoring behavioural changes, it would cost $200m to $300m a year to move to a system where returns and withdrawals were not taxed, and $2.5b a year to move to an EET system. "The higher initial cost for an EET regime arises from the fact that there will be a substantial deferral period before significant amounts are withdrawn from the scheme, and thus taxed under the third 't'. Although these are very different initial costs, the costs will be the same in the long run on a net present value basis." Hope said providing different forms of tax incentives would be beneficial for savers. He said removing or reducing the employer contribution tax would be particularly useful for low-income people. Kernel Wealth founder Dean Anderson said New Zealand was one of the few countries operating a TTE — taxed contributions, taxed returns and exempt withdrawal — model. "Our future savings would be much better off under an EET approach, where we don't pay tax on the way in but on the way out. ADVERTISEMENT "With low savings rates in NZ, the government should be exploring everything in its powers to grow savings rates, which benefits NZ and Kiwis over the long term. "But it's not a surprise. The recent meek KiwiSaver policy announcement did all the hard work to announce a positive gradual increase to KiwiSaver contributions, yet they fell short by announcing a three-year policy rather than outlining a decade plus long policy of incremental KiwiSaver increases." Ana-Marie Lockyer, chief executive at Pie Funds, said KiwiSaver members were at a disadvantage compared to Australians because there was no upfront tax incentive or concession as in Australia to encourage them to contribute more. "Maybe consideration of a mid-tier flat tax rate on savings up to a certain amount would encourage savings." She said employer contributions were also taxed so investors lost the benefits of compounding, and investors paid tax on bonds and deemed dividends on global equities so they were effectively paying a capital gains tax. "So contrary to the government's stated goal of helping New Zealanders' grow their KiwiSaver balances, these factors mean New Zealanders have less incentives to make voluntary contributions and pay more tax on investment earnings, resulting in smaller balances at retirement relative to our Australian friends."
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'
