Budget 2025: How Does Government Spending Actually Work?
Article – RNZ
There will be a lot of talk about government spending this week, but how does it actually work? Where does the money come from, and where does it go?
, Money Correspondent
You are going to hear a lot about government spending this week.
But how does it actually work? Where does the money come from, and where does it go?
First up, where does the government get its money from?
The government pulls in money in a few different ways.
Tax revenue is the big one.
The government brings in about $120 billion in tax revenue every year.
For the 2025 financial year, that was about $22,613 per person. It gets another $7833 per person from 'other income' from things like ACC levies, the emissions trading revenue, fines and other things.
Just under half of the tax it collects comes from individuals paying tax on their income.
Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said while our total tax bill is roughly 'middle of the pack' for the OECD, we are a bit unique in that our taxes are heavily paid by workers.
We do not have the capital gains or inheritance taxes that some other countries have.
Another 22 percent of tax collected comes from the GST we pay on things we buy, then 13 percent is from corporate tax, 6 percent from 'sin taxes' like tax on tobacco and alcohol, and 4 percent is from tax on interest and dividends.
Then the government spends it…
The money collected in tax is used to pay for the services the government provides.
Social security and welfare is top of the list. Not including NZ Super, that's $6486 per person a year in the latest year.
'People think welfare is just poor people,' Eaqub said. 'It includes the working poor, things like Working for Families, the accommodation supplement.'
Health is next, at $5804 per person, then NZ Super at $4352 per person a year. Education is in fourth place, at $4197 based on 2025 financial year numbers.
The government also spends $1400 per person per year on law and order, $3061 on transport and communications, $3153 on economic and industrial services, $592 on defence and $536 on environmental protection, among other things.
Spending can be classified as operational activities (sometimes called opex) and investment activities (sometimes called capex).
If you think about the way a household is run, opex might be things like paying your power bill or doing your grocery shopping.
Capex might be buying a house.
But what about the shortfall?
Eaqub said the government would earn about $30,446 for every New Zealander each year, but would spend $37,480.
So it has to cover that $7000 from somewhere, and that's usually through borrowing or selling assets.
Half of the shortfall borrowing is funding operating deficit – so that's your power bill or supermarket shopping.
The other 47 percent is for money that has been used for infrastructure investments. Provided these were a good investment, this should pay off over time and the borrowing is less of a concern.
The net interest payment made by the government – the difference between the interest on assets like bonds that the government sells to investors and the money it borrows – is about $550 per person per year.
'It's not the borrowing per se that's the problem, it's when you're borrowing for groceries… the last few years, we've done that repeatedly,' Eaqub said.
'It's not that debt is bad. Debt for stupid things is bad. Debt for high-quality infrastructure is good.'
But he said the government could not increase spending without increasing either borrowing or tax revenue.
'We can't have it all, we've got to choose. The trick in the coming Budget is that there is no money for new purchases.
'All announcements are funded by cutting something else, a shuffling of the deck chairs… we can all agree there is a whole heap of waste in a lot of things but rather than doing a once over lightly on every line of spend, we've got to pick things we are doing to stop. What are you going to stop, what are you going to start, what are you going to keep? If there's a reduced envelope of taxes we've got to make stopping decision really carefully but also really precisely.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
an hour 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
2 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.'
Scoop
3 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.'
