Written By:
- Date published:
6:11 am, June 22nd, 2026 - 48 comments
Categories: election 2026, greens, tax -
Tags: super-rich
The whole page of the Green Party’s new tax policy is just so good. It’s exciting to see them leading with such awesome comms:
The excitement comes from both what they are signalling here, but also that they’ve significantly upped their comms game.
They’re going hard on the super-rich and the big corporations. This video is sublime, god I hope it gets played on prime time television.
Lots of great memery on the Greens’ Facebook page if you want to grab it and share it around.
They’ve changed tack from the big, ballsy wealth tax to pay for a UBI with welfare bolted on of the past few years, to a streamlined tax policy that borrows from Grant Robertson’s work on a wealth tax and is much closer to something New Zealand could implement in the near future.
The big ballsy stuff mattered, because it helped shift the public consciousness around wealth and taxation and fairness. Now we need policy that Labour can say yes to.
The tax policy is stand alone, not tied immediately to paying for specific social services, but instead lowering taxes for most people. Fair tax cuts. More policy will be released in the coming weeks. The messaging for now is this is how we get relief from the cost of living crisis and create a more fair society.
Here’s the Press Release from the Greens’ yesterday,
Greens commit to tax the super-rich and large corporates fairly, cut income tax for 96%
Posted by Marama Davidson and Chlöe Swarbrick June 21, 2026 1:19 PM
The Green Party has announced their 2026 tax policy ‘a tax system for all of us’ today.
Green Party Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says, “All New Zealanders deserve the opportunity to thrive. Today we are proud to announce a tax policy that will tackle inequality and corporate greed to rebuild our country and put more money in the pockets of 96% of New Zealanders.”
“People aren’t dumb. They know that while their cost of living has gone through the roof, corporate profits have skyrocketed and the wealthiest 150 rich listers now own more than half of the country. The big rip-off ends here.”
“Current tax settings allow multi-millionaires to pay only $9 in tax out of every $100 they make, while a teacher pays $22 in tax out of every $100 they earn. This grossly unfair, and it’s robbing us all of the investment needed in our communities, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure.
“Right now, Facebook, Google, Amazon and other multinational corporations are being allowed to make billions out of New Zealanders and pay next to nothing in tax for it, while small, local businesses are chased by the IRD into liquidation. That’s not right, and the Green Party will fix it,” Swarbrick says.
Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson says, “If everyone contributes fairly, Aotearoa has more than enough for everyone to receive good healthcare, pursue education and training, feed their children, and pay their power bill. Instead, homelessness, unemployment, and poverty are increasing – while banks, the supermarket duopoly, power companies, and big tech make massive profits.”
“New Zealand’s economy is the largest it’s ever been, with record profits being made by some. Yet the cost of living is through the roof for ordinary people, and our hospitals, schools, public transport, and environment are all starved of funding.”
“These are critical social services that all New Zealanders need, including the super-rich.”
“Essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure could be funded if the super-rich and mega-corporates like the supermarkets duopoly, banks, and power companies contribute fairly to the society they profit from,” says Davidson.
The Green Party’s tax policy will:
Address inequality
- Introduce a 2.5 percent tax on the net assets of the super-rich above $10 million. There will be an exemption for family homes.
- Implement a Capital Acquisitions Tax on assets and gifts received worth over $1 million, with family farms and family homes exempted.
Tackle corporate greed
- Return the corporate tax rate to 33 percent for the 0.7 percent biggest corporations, like the supermarket duopoly, energy companies, and banks.
- Keep the corporate tax rate at 28 percent for small and medium enterprises, levelling the playing field for local businesses.
- Introduce a Bank Levy of 0.06 percent on the liabilities of the four big banks, like Australia has.
- Make big tech companies pay their fair share by enforcing the 5 percent withholding tax rate on the profits they send offshore.
- Reverse Luxon’s landlord tax cuts and the changes to the brightline test.
Create fair income tax rates for people earning wages or salaries
- Create a new tax-free threshold of $10,000, giving 96 percent of New Zealanders a tax cut.
- Create a new tax rate for income over $160,000.
‘A tax system for all of us’ will increase net revenue by $5.35 billion in 2027/28, rising to $5.94 billion by 2030/31.
For more info, visit A tax system for all – Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Marama Davidson and Chloe Swarbrick’s announcement and media Q & A from yesterday,
Folks need to feel that the govt is supporting them; the election will be a verdict on the coalition. In that context, the Greens are offering a re-balance toward equity, which seems to provide a positive alternative to the status quo.
I agree their presentation seems suitable, with potentially wide appeal, yet contemporary culture has a wide swathe of disaffected, so voter impact remains conjectural. Polls will only partially inform us of how much their policy will resonate in the public mind.
So very true. All Luxton can say is the Nats are "about Growth Growth Growth!" But who is that growth for??
Just what the economy for is a fundamental question that is seldom addressed – but it is being firmly addressed by this Policy announcement . So what is the economy for anyway? It's about providing the greatest good to the greatest number over the longest time.
Nothing else matters.
Yes Macro 100%, as apposed to everything for the Very Sorted and "devil take the rest!"
The Greens excellent tax proposals appear to be a result of the injection of fresh thinking into NZ's political discourse from inequality and wealth tax campaigner Gary Stevenson. Chlöe Swarbrick was interviewed by Stevenson and she attended his talk in Auckland. No doubt they met privately as well. His fingerprints are all over these ideas!
Given the gross intellectual laziness and lack of curiosity of our client journalists and political elites that isn't surprising, but it is a sad commentary on the ossified ideological carapace of small minded thinking that now cloaks our main parties in a stygian gloom of managerialism and incrementalist timidity that it we can't come up with any of these ideas ourselves anymore.
Great to see this, especially the tax-free threshold. It will be interesting to see whether it is a "policy Labour can say yes to," and what excuse will be offered if it isn't.
Also, expect some weaselry from big tech along the lines of "Yes it was no trouble for us to apply GST to your citizens' financial transactions with us, but it would be far too complex for us to be able to pay taxes ourselves, that would just be technically unfeasible."
RNZ has reported that a typo caused an $800 million error: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/615085/greens-change-tax-policy-costings-after-mistake-put-it-out-by-800m
Good to have an expert economist on board, but maybe a competent proof-reader is also required in their media interface. Chloe didn't say the devil did it, btw…
A "typo"?
A typo would be putting in a figure of $80 million for the extra funding when you mean to put $880 million.
Putting something in as a revenue item rather than a cost isn't a typo. Who was the "expert economist" by the way?
An answer may be found towards the end of the RNZ article Dennis linked to @5.
It is a 4 year figure.
$400M of revenues spent as funding to Inland Revenue counted as revenue.
Thus an $800M reverse in outcome once corrected – $200Mpa.
The work was done by Infometrics – economists, not accountants.
An excellent tax proposal from Greens, but unless they get good support on 7 November Labour will be reluctant to accept the Green policy. The tax reductions for the bottom incomes groups need to be fully explained and quantified.
Awesome from Chloe and Marama. The future is bright and Green. This is the type of policy and articulation that completely nullifies the right wing projection of anger and austerity as necessary evils.
Is it a coincidence that the new tax bracket is just under a backbench MP's salary? I guess making it just over the salary would look bad.
The Green's proposed new top tax bracket kicks in at $160,000, comfortably under a backbench MP's annual salary of $177,600, set to increase to $181,200 from 1 July.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360980971/how-much-are-our-mps-paid-and-who-decides-how-much-they-get
All Kiwis earning under $160,000 would apparently pay less tax:
That Kiwis “earning the least” would benefit “the most” may be a challenging change
My mistake, I saw an old figure of $168,000 which seemed suspiciously close.
Great post thanks weka. Luxon and some (but not all) of his supporters may be triggered by the idea that tax changes could actually be of most benefit to Kiwis “earning the least”, because this runs counter to NAct’s taxation
principlesideology. https://vote.nz/National is the party for the future is the slogan they're rolling out for this election.
But it isn't true.
Having won the election in 2023, National has been the party for the past two and a half years, and is the party for the present time, too.
Point is, do they want you to reflect on the past two and a half years or on the present time, or only the future?
The future is where dreams can become realities and so the message is "Look into my eyes. When I count to three, you'll forget the mess we've made, the promises we've broken and just hear what we tell you the future is going to be like".
" 'Do we want to keep tinkering, or do we want a brand new deal? Are we willing to reset the rules?… It's not going to happen overnight and it's not going to be easily handed over, but history tells us we can, and the demands of the future require we must.' Chloe Swarbrick, January 2024 "
LABOUR'S SWIFT rejection of the Green Party’s new tax policy tells us far more about Labour than it does about the Greens. According to Green co-leader Chloe Swarbrick, the party provided Labour with the full details of its proposal before the public announcement. Yet on the very day the policy was released, Labour leader Chris Hipkins dismissed it almost instantly, as though it had never been seriously considered. That speed of rejection was not the behaviour of a party weighing up a potential coalition partner’s ideas. It was the behaviour of a party determined to signal, loudly and clearly, that it will not deviate from the neoliberal orthodoxy that has governed New Zealand for decades.
In that sense, Labour stands shoulder-to-shoulder not only with the governing parties and the business sector but also with much of the corporate media, which treated the Greens’ proposal as an eccentric outburst rather than a legitimate attempt to rebalance a deeply skewed tax system.
No Weka there will be no reform of the tax system or any policy to assist the many out here while the NZLP in its current form and its participants adhere to unregulated capitalist policies.
Sure make catching the bus a bit cheaper but what about addressing the huge unfair imbalances in our unregulated capitalist economy ?
" This is the heart of the problem. Labour in government has repeatedly shown that it will not contemplate meaningful tax reform. It will not touch wealth. It will not confront the structural imbalance that allows asset-rich New Zealanders to accumulate more and more while wages stagnate and public infrastructure decays. And because Labour refuses to move, the Greens find themselves trapped in an impossible position: they can propose the most progressive policy platform in the country, but by tying their political fortunes to Labour’s, they ensure that most of those policies will never see the light of day "
https://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2026/06/labour-rejects-green-partys-tax-policy.html
" Finance Minister Nicola Willis delivered her Budget speech with the usual ritualised empathy. She spoke of struggling families, rising hardship, and the pressures facing ordinary New Zealanders. Then, with the next breath, she raised rents for some of the poorest state housing tenants in the country. The crocodile tears dried quickly. For all the rhetoric about compassion, the Budget offered nothing that would materially improve the lives of most New Zealanders. In fact, for many, it will make things worse: higher costs, fewer services, and a government proudly committed to shrinking the very institutions that hold society together.
What is perhaps even more alarming is the near-total inability — or unwillingness — of the Labour opposition to call austerity for what it is. In the Budget debate, Labour MPs danced around the term as if it were radioactive. They criticised the Government’s “choices,” its “priorities,” its “cuts,” but they refused to name the ideology driving those cuts. That silence is not accidental. Austerity is woven into the fabric of the neoliberal orthodoxy that Labour itself embraced decades ago and has never meaningfully abandoned. To condemn austerity outright would require Labour to confront its own record, its own complicity, its own refusal to challenge the economic model that has produced crisis after crisis "
https://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2026/05/budget-2026-wheres-opposition-to.html
If the Greens were on 20% and Labour needed them to govern, then Labour would have to change. So how about instead of just damning Labour, we do the work to get more Green MPs in parliament? and government.
As much as it pains me to say it, Helen Clark was right about the Greens then and Hipkins is right to distance himself now
I am a long time Labour person. It pains me to say it, but they are lacking courage imo.
We all talk of the need for change, but shy away from the perceived complications, and try to rationalise not supporting said change.
This is the first policy I have seen that could change the settings.
Ergo my finacial support will continue for Labour, (as they will be there with the Greens) but 2 party votes for green party from this household to strengthen their bargaining power in a coalition.
Yes, agreed. Labour lacks the ability to do anything but tinker round the edges of neoliberalism – the same old oppression by money, but with a smile instead of a gleeful gloat.
A party vote for Greens to give them more clout to drag Labour, protesting, further left.
I support the few policies Labour has announced, but it's timid tinkering imho. Disappointed Hipkins is currently ruling out most of the progressive tax changes proposed by the Greens – maybe he's trying to boost the Green party vote?
If Labour maintains their polling momentum then they're on course for at least 35% of the party vote. Provided the Greens can bring another 12%, which requires only a small increase on their 11.6 % result in 2023, that should be enough to make the dire nACTf coalition of wreckers a one-term govt.
Spoken like the true dirty politics troll we have come to expect Puckish. See the brand don't change much from election to election.
If we had a real Labour party, they would have similar policies to the Greens.
That Labour had a copy of the Green's tax announcement before it was publicly released and still Mr Hipkins misrepresented what it said when providing some rationale for rejecting it says a lot about Labour.
There is much to like about this policy.
And it seems to have been re-designed to avoid much of the controversy of their previous policy (Granny tax) – by upping the threshold to over 10 million – and exempting the family home – before the wealth tax kicks in. Which is comfortably above the amount that the majority of Kiwis would have to worry about (regardless of the increase in house prices over the last 30 years).
In practical terms, I don't know how much it would actually bring in. Perhaps it's more of a symbol to the base-membership.
I like the split of the corporate tax rate to benefit small and local businesses. Which is a truly business-friendly policy (not something that we often say about the Greens).
And moving to match Australia over the bank levies – seems like a very easy win.
Not unhappy about the 5% for international companies sending profits offshore, although I don't know how effective it will be. These guys have very deep pockets when it comes to creative accounting….
I would like to see a shift in the tax brackets in general – not just the 10K free and the 160K increase. In particular, the shift from 17.5% to 30% at 53,500 catches an awful lot of 'ordinary' Kiwis.
ATM a CGT seems unlikely to gain much, if anything – given the flat state of the market. But, I guess this is something that the GP have already committed to. And a capital acquisitions tax (which seems much like the Aussie stamp duty) – in capturing a chunk of every house sale over 1 million (above the average price in Auckland) – may also depress prices. OTOH, at time when most people would see little chance of having to pay such a tax (because of depressed prices), might be the perfect time to bed it in.
The biggest issue, is that Labour seems unlikely to support any of it.
From Chris Hipkins on National Radio this morning.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/616641/fundamental-issues-need-to-be-addressed-with-national-s-kiwisaver-policy-labour-says
According to the table way down on page 6 of the PDF, it's about $4 billion per annum.
I guess we'll never know if we don't try.
Might tax brackets other that "the 10K free and the 160K increase" also shift?
Tables on page 8 suggest "an awful lot of 'ordinary' Kiwis" would pay less income tax.
Imho, implementing the Green's tax policy would lead to much-needed improvements in NZ's socioeconomic resilience, so yes, it's disappointing Hipkins and Luxon are united in their opposition to these progressive tax changes. Party Vote Green https://vote.nz/
Yanno. This response was largely in agreement with the Green policy in this area.
Every time you nitpick like this, you make me less likely to support you and the party you advocate for.
You may want to re-think your strategy. Not about me – that ship has sailed – but about how you interact with other centrists who might be inclined to support some GP policy.
Yanno, imho "this response" provided information you appeared to be lacking ["I don't know how much it would actually bring in."], including on tax bracket shifts.
Re your last point [Hipkins' opposition to progressive tax changes], I agree with you.
Really clear you're not getting my point.
Really clear you didn't like my response @11.1 – was it the cartoon?
Still not getting it……
Reflection seems to not be your strong suit.
On reflection, helpful relies seem not to be your strong suit B.
You chose to label my comment @11.1 as nitpicking, and I genuinely don't understand why. Maybe other readers can spot the nitpicking.
According to the table way down on page 6 of the PDF, it's about $4 billion per annum.
I guess we'll never know if we don't try.
Might tax brackets other that "the 10K free and the 160K increase" also shift? Tables on page 8 suggest "an awful lot of 'ordinary' Kiwis" would pay less income tax.
And then there's that cartoon
Keep digging.
Your political opponents will be delighted by the effect you are having.
Politics can be dirty
Soooo helpful B – it's been 'delightening' – time to bury this?
https://www.greens.org.nz/tax_system_for_all
Party Vote Green https://vote.nz/
Hipkins is just doing market share. He seems to believe Labour's brand will suffice due to mental inertia of sheeple. Neolibs take comfort from market share niche thought.
Now if he were intellectual, he'd extrapolate that stance: those with faith in the neoliberal paradigm are numerous enough to get a victory for Labour, which will re-validate their brand. His gamble could work, eh? Doesn't matter that no Labour leader is informing the public of this strategic thinking. Logic can be subliminal. Who knew?
Not me, I've read too many books by scientists declaiming logic as conscious activity. Yet I have noticed that the wisdom of the crowd is as often influenced by inherent logic of social darwinism as by sociopathy. So Hipkins does tribalism to divide the left prior to the election, whilst retaining the option of uniting the left subsequently.
thanks for that policy detail thoughts.
I think it's smart move. Close enough to the centre to be pragmatic, but left enought to pull Labour in that direction.
Hipkins can say what he likes now, and he will be campaigning to get as many votes for Labour as possible. But the Greens are saying it's the voters that decide. If they get enough MPs and Labour need them to govern, then why wouldn't Labour change?
And of course, the whole policy is also about shifting the Overton window on wealth, disparities and tax reform and what is fair.
I agree, Weka. It seems like a smart policy from the Greens.
When you’re getting Centrists like me agreeing on some elements – then you know that it’s not outright alienating that group of voters who have a significant role in deciding elections. That may be anathema to hard-core supporters, but it’s political reality that you have to be able to work with a range of viewpoints to get policy over the line.
Until we see what the Labour policy actually is – then we won’t know how closely it aligns with the GP one. But Hipkins isn’t doing his future self any favours by his current reactions.
It strikes me as FPP thinking, that he wants Labour to govern alone. Not that the thinks that is possible but that it's still the underlying strategy in an election year.
To be fair, the Greens aren't as friendly to Labour as they were when Turei and Shaw stood up with Little and vowed to change the government together. Not exactly unfriendly, but more hard core about the mission. Will be very interesting to see what happens in coalition negotiations after the election.
I'm not sure if the Greens have one cos their maths is a Not Achieved ,,, but the TOP tax calculator is really user friendly and a pleasant surprise.
The one error was a categorisation mistake valued at $200M pa (placing the extra funding required for IRD administration into the revenue raised)
Who verified the TOP assumptions?
I recommend using the TOP calculator for your IRD returns this year and then to see what that achieves.
This is excellent from Henry Cooke at the Post, a calculator to try out the various aspects of the GP policy. Paywalled sorry.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/361029516/calculator-how-green-partys-tax-policy-would-impact-you
Silly question weka – would it not be better to post a work around – rather than post to a paywalled site?
yes, please post any work around you are aware of thanks.
Generally any interactive elements (like a calculator) don't work in the page screenshots, which are the typical work-around options.
Although, if Adam knows of a site which does make this possible – I'd be interested.
the Post has a very cheap subscription running at the moment.
This could be managed (individuals without children) with a change to the IETC.