Written By:
- Date published:
6:21 pm, August 1st, 2026 - 139 comments
Categories: atlas, Christopher Luxon, political parties, TOPS, uncategorized -
Tags:
Well colour me surprised.
It appears that the Opportunity Party has a rather hidden objective.
One that makes you wonder why Christopher Luxon ruled them out of contention as a coalition partner.
Because they want to make huge cuts to the Public Service, cuts that even Act would look at and think “that is brave”.
And they have been less than open about the cuts.
From Thomas Coughlan at the Herald:
Opportunity’s tax plan promises $3.8 billion in “administration savings” a year. The tax policy document said these savings would come from MSD and IRD.
The Herald queried the figure, noting the combined departmental budgets of both agencies is significantly less than $3.8b – the personnel bill for the entire core public service is a shade over $11b a year.
On Thursday evening, the party’s general manager, former Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway, replied saying the modelling underlying the public parts of the tax policy “identified savings in more departments than just MSD and IRD” and laid out where those savings would occur.
He also said a significant amount of savings would come from being able to eliminate student loan living costs through the party’s citizen’s income policy, a form of universal basic income of $19,400 a year that every citizen and resident would receive, paid for by a $24b land tax.
“I acknowledge that the public-facing material could be much clearer. We’ll fix that,” he said.
To date it has not been fixed. One wonders why.
TOP provided this table to the Herald. As at the time I write this it does not appear to be on their site.
Their tax reset policy suggested that the savings would come from MSD and the IRD. Cutting 10% of OT’s budget, 23% of Justice’s and 60% of MSD’s budget need some explanation. MSD’s presumably relates to the universal basic income but the other cuts do not on the face of it appear to be justified.
For a party that rails against left and right and conventional politics and that wants us all to expect better I did not think that they would be a trojan horse for Atlas type cuts to Government.
Also they talk the talk about the importance of addressing climate change. But there is not a cent allocated for this purpose. They propose to repriortise dividend income which is hardly revolutionary.
I always doubted them. Any brand new party that thinks they can bring Labour and National together have no understanding of politics or history.
At this stage the Opportunities Party have policies to make deep cuts to the Public Service and have been less than up front about this. And despite talking a big talk about climate change they propose nothing more than reallocation of an existing income stream.
Do not trust them.
Vote Labour Green or Te Pati Maori.
Top could likely save msd far, far more than $3.8 billion a year simply by means testing the pension and if they did have a policy to do that I'd absolutely be voting for them.
The pension is the overwhelming vast majority of msd's entire annual budget, why should my generation that likely never receive the pension have to pay for rich pricks who don't need the pension to get it. Meanwhile if I lose my job and need a benefit I have to be means tested for the benefit.
Im debating a vote for TOP or the Green party, the Labour isn't even a consideration because it is offering nothing of substance
I like the green partys economic policies (even though they are a bit fantasy land in places I like that there's a party advocating them) but I hate the green partys obsession with identity politics and the left desperately needs to win young male voters back but the greens party list showed they are still deeply committed to USA style idpol, which as a working class gay male voter, is poison
Top I like, I like a great deal, they are to the left of labour only because labour are a center right wing party economically and TOP are dead center, if labour ever becomes a center left Keynesian party again I'll vote labour happily, at present it's a warmer smiley neoliberal party offering absolutely sfa
If TOP is close to 5% come election day I'm gonna vote for them as are many left wing males under 40 alienated by the greens idpol and labours nothingness are debating, I want more parties in politics not less and the ones we have are absolutely useless, even with full majorities labour was visionless
Some of tops reform agenda like an upper house and formal written constitution, a land value tax a sugar tax legalized marijuana and their tepid support for federalizing NZ, appeal to me
But their reluctance to even talk about how the ubi will effect benefits makes me question that vote
I really wish their was a working class Keynesian left wing minor party in NZ that was by and for the working class and focused solely on workers and renters rights, the greens are kooky waiheke island upper middle class outfit and the labour party are a liberal party with labour branding who offer cheap buses like cool but where is the nation building and economic reform programs that the first four labour govts had even the fourth one as bad as it was had vision.
Tldr no amount of pearl clutching is going to change peoples minds about top, there IS a place for them in parliament, its called the center, which is to the left of labour at present! they'd be a great coalition partner and attract many of the males that the green party and labour party have alienated (those who are bothering to vote and I don't blame those who don't because if you're a poor left wing working class male under fourty you have two middle class parties who hate you and will do nothing to make your life better and three parties who actively will make your life worse)
I actually don't care if top gets in and works with national or labour I just want a new party to be elected to prove to others it can be done, is much prefer they stay on the cross bench and be a party that works with governments but isn't apart of a govt
Yeah, you are the problem rather than the solution. Opportunity are for too comfortable dilettantes who may have never worked for a net dollar in their lives.
"Opportunity are for too comfortable dilettantes who may have never worked for a net dollar in their lives."
Your comment reflects why TOP will likely get 5%. So tired of cynicism of most legacy parties supporters. You have pushed me closer to voting for them. I have worked for 30+ years
I love the strength of your political conviction.
"Top I like, I like a great deal, they are to the left of labour only because labour are a center right wing party economically and TOP are dead center".
Reread the post. This sized cuts to the public service is not a centrist policy.
They're kinda ia the centre…. round the back somewhere between Green Party and ACT, but somewhat closer to ACT.
Absolute faith that their ideas will work and zero practical experience in the art of turning ideas into public policy, the getting form here, (current policy settings) to there (their imagined perfect world). Once they get into the sausage factory f government this ideas will be sawdust on the floor.
They are not part of TOP's policy either.
Simply, there's no point means-testing the pension.
If you're earning more from employment, you'll be bumped into a higher tax bracket, clawing back some of that dosh if you don't earn much, and quite a large amount if you do.
Richies will game the system, cheating to get it anyway. They already do this for things like student allowances for their children. If you are midling rich you can hide your real income by eg. living in homes where a family trust covers your housing costs. Because you can afford accountants to set up all the dodges.
Read about the history of universal benefits in NZ. MJ Savage made modest pensions, benefits and free healthcare available to all, because he knew that if richies didn't get them, they'd simply vote in governments that would screw the amounts down and down and down for the poors who were getting them. Smart psychology.
Savage was a young man in the 1880's depression in Oz, with something like 30% unemployment. He went on the swag and encountered many injustices. After seeing families lose their one asset, their home, because that made them ineligible for the minimum poverty relief available, Savage decided that basic state support should generally not be means tested. He then worked for 40 years to get his vision enacted, lucky for us, in NZ.
Getting freebies always appeals to richies, because most believe they've earned their wealth through valiant effort, while the poors are just lazy drug-takers.
Labour offered MW increases at above inflation whereas the coalition does at half the inflation rate.
It also offered Industry Awards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Pay_
Ended by NACT.
Renters rights would be better as well.
Changes made since 2023 here.
https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/law-changes/
On the above figures the employment reductions are expected to be $1.7 billion only, not $3,8 billion. The reduction in MSD spending is obviously related to the UBI; and they probably believe, rightly or wrongly, that the increase in family incomes will lead to improvements in child health, and less crime. I'm not sure where the IRD and MBIE savings would come from. Greater repayment of student loans, and fewer loans being made, seem self explanatory.
However, these are merely their expectations, and are not cast in stone.
I don't understand why they could cut Justice and Oranga Tamariki.
apparently they believe that crime will decrease as poverty decreases from the tax and UBI policies. Twitter rumour.
Maybe that is true but it's not going to show up in the first years of the new policies.
Maybe that is true but it's not going to show up in the first years of the new policies.
Their changes will not show up in full in the first few years either. They are planning a transition period: land taxes in urban areas 0.5% and zero in rural areas, the UBI will at first be given to 18-29 year olds.
Does it really matter? It’s just talking points to give them heaps of exposure and paint them as something ‘fresh’ and ‘innovative’ and allegedly somewhere above the traditional Left-Right partisan politics of the legacy parties. It’s very smart PR, as you might expect from TOP given their backgrounds (and founders & funders).
If TOP were to form a coalition with National and ACT, then I’d fully expect the cuts to the Public Service to be adopted & actioned and the UBI to be watered down to homeopathic levels.
If TOP were to form a coalition with National and ACT, then I’d fully expect the cuts to the Public Service to be adopted & actioned and the UBI to be watered down to homeopathic levels.
If you would prefer that plenty of children got sick and crime rates remained high so that all OT and JD staff could keep their jobs then you would be right to feel concern.
NACT have no intention of ending poverty.
mikesh – Grasping at straws if you think T-Ops Party will cure the problems that you mention. A bit of sticking plaster will be offered here and there, meanwhile problems from homelessness, nits, rats, millipede of locust swarms, syphilis, scams, robberies, dying in hospital corridors when there is no current plague, and bird flu; and homelessness and hunger will be accepted as normal and will not covered by the news.
Maybe, hidden behind other news but no detail, and disagreeing and raising problems and unmet promises by government will become harassment of our pollies whose good nature can no longer be stretched to the limit. Their acolytes will be feeding this into AI now so their garble can be prepared in advance.
Yes. I had read your article, and I agree with the policies described therein. But it's just tinkering. Incrementalism is not going to achieve anything.
"and the UBI to be watered down to homeopathic levels."
Elegant expression there, Incognito.
TOP are actually promising a transition period in which some of their policies will be "watered down". e.g. the UBI will be offered initially only to 18-29 year olds.
They are not proposing to do so. As I said above, these are not policies, but estimates of the savings their policies might make in the areas of child health and in the incidence of crime. e.g. many have said that child poverty is really a matter of parental poverty, and of course this can lead to health problems; and the alleviation of poverty could lead to less petty crime.
And of course they could be completely wrong. It's really up to the voters to make judgement on that score.
TOP has no credibility yet they try to sound as convincing as AI.
I agree they will have a hard job convincing narrow minded sceptics.
Narrow-minded sceptics = oxymoron
Perhaps I should have written "sceptics".
Every seasoned political thinker is sceptical TOP.
Not to be so would be naïve.
I guess you can make no claim to being a "seasoned" political thinker. Your comment suggests that you are not.
I didn't claim to be seasoned. I'd describe myself as mercurial 🙂
Mercurial?
In other words slippery, wobbly and toxic?
TOP has no credibility
Empty words!
Deep Thought
Saturday, 26 September 2026
20 September 2026, Wellington. A must for Mikesh.
that's not what Deep Thought thought
True, but it also took its bloody time. But better late than never, if the outcome is meaningful in a practical sense.
Both dates too deep for me I'm afraid.
No worries, stick to what you do best, i.e., scratching the TOP of the surface.
What they do best?
Pimping for TOP?
Yup, a TOP shill aka a CNJ (Centrist Nut Job). I mean, arguing that costs or cost benefits resulting from and/or associated with policy are ‘estimates’ and ‘merely their [TOPs] expectations’ but not policy is pathetically defensive and a hallmark of an apologist shill.
As deep as a long drop maybe, and probably as full of shit.
I like your self-awareness – Deep Thought referred to your shallow, meaningless, and belated reply to my comment of 1 August 2026 at 9:24 pm to which you’d already replied on 1 August 2026 at 11:48 pm. Unfortunately, your cognitive capacity didn’t allow enough tokens to take my full comment into account. Hence, the reference to DT.
You've lost me there. All of this seems to have come about because I was taking issue with Micky's statement that staff reductions in some government departments were TOP policy. That was definitely untrue, though this was probably just a mistake on Micky's part rather than a deliberate lie.
OF course you had to "push the boat out further" by alleging that a TOP/Nat coalition would make further cuts, even though it's highly unlikely that TOP would participate in such a coalition with those policies in in the mix.
x has no credibility yet they try to sound as convincing as AI.
Where x is a political party.
Any party will do. It's still just empty words.
Well, when your top donor is a former whizz kid tech bro pornographer who's donated to every other RWNJ party…
/
In a statement on his website, Cartmell said he had donated equally to the three coalition parties as well as to Opportunity. The ACT Party told RNZ it had received a total of $200,000 from Cartmell last year. The Electoral Commission said a $100,000 donation to Opportunity from Cartmell had been disclosed. Neither National nor NZ First would confirm donations from him.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/589237/queenstown-based-tech-entrepreneur-brian-cartmell-donating-hundreds-of-thousands-to-political-parties
What about the end of student loans and debt?
TOP is shite. Our self described gurus of centre, centre, centre left politics are pimping this abnormally funded stupidity as legitimate and reasonable.
Read that as you will.
Do you have an argument, or should we just write of your comment as piffle.
Muttonbird has excellent political radar. I say that because their assessment of TOP matches mine perfectly 🙂
You're a great wee soldier for TOP, Mikesh, relentlessly covering their back!
Thank you for the compliment; I always knew I was heading in the right direction.
" I always knew I was heading in the right direction."
Oh dear.
Great stuff thankyou Mickey and Mr Coughlan.
Very few families from Palmerston North to Wellington are currently undamaged by this governments current and future public service devastation, and benefit cuts.
Nearly a million people.
That's a mere taste of an Opportunity Party program.
I'll make sure I give grief to our friendly Wanaka Opportunity candidate.
…and her Opp attired dog.
Cutting P/S jobs is not TOP's policy. That was just a misunderstanding on Micky's part.
And presumably on your part also.
This published policy of funding cuts will require massive personnel cuts no matter what their other policies are.
They need to come out and clarify.
They need to come out and clarify.
Perhaps they do. Whilst they are not threatening public service cuts, they ARE listing savings, in certain public service departments, that they think their tax and UBI policies will engender. If they are wrong and those savings do not eventuate then, presumably, the status quo will prevail. But if their arguments are sustained and those savings are in fact made then one would have to ask "what would YOU do".
You are beginning to sound like a luddite.
If Opportunities can't be consequential about their budget proposals then they do not deserve to be in Parliament let alone in a coalition government.
You can see what I would do if you just read Labour's policy rollout – and their new stuff I wrote a column on this week. And that is from the political party that actually active grows the public service to deliver public services.
The general problem with Opportunities' vast and massively ambitious public service proposals is this: if your answer to a major policy problem is a simple and obvious one, then it is wrong.
If Opportunities can't be consequential about their budget proposals then they do not deserve to be in Parliament let alone in a coalition government.
There are some things about which the consequences cannot be calculated with certainty. However that doesn't mean they should be ignored. e.g. more income with which to pay doctors' and dentists' bills, and to pay for better nutrition, must surely give rise to expectations of better health, even if one cannot calculate precisely how much better
That’s one area where the benefits of a UBI might be seen.
if your answer to a major policy problem is a simple and obvious one, then it is wrong.
Why?? Think about Alexander the Great and his solution to the problem of the Gordian knot. Was his answer wrong?
Vested interests may be the reason the obvious answer is not being adopted already.
Arguably, yes, he was wrong given that he was a coloniser who caused untold harm.
Trust you to find an out-of-context answer!
Nice comment Corey, I've been stuck voting labour greens mostly for ever because national and act and now nzf have become so toxic I don't even bother with policy in general.
But I actually am doing a little homework on top and will continue to till I vote.
Ad I asked a top candidate recently what there policy on government as work creationist, in hard times , he’s still picking splinters out of his arse from the fence he perched on
he’s still picking splinters out of his arse from the fence he perched on
That's what happens when you ask a silly question. No party is advocating a return to keynesianism. Desirable though that may be, it seems impossible at present.
Also, Thomas Coughlan is not bipartisan and never will be so I'd be wary of quoting anything he says because it is more than likely a position which benefits conservative politics.
Not this item yesterday.
What worked in the effort to reduce child poverty 2017-2023.
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-01-08-2026/#comment-2068477
Excellent work Micky. Secretive, sloppy and apparently ad hoc policies were never going cut the mustard.
I have always thought that as the policies of the Opportunists came under more scrutiny their polling would head towards the basement. They are all smiling waffle…and Weka has a point below…a bit naive.
If people want to vote for slashing public service jobs they will vote ACT. If people want to vote for a Land Tax (effectively a Wealth Tax) they will vote Green.
OPP will be a wasted vote.
“apparently ad hoc policies were never going cut the mustard”
Hardly "ad hoc"; and as I pointed out earlier the stuff that Micky wrote about were not their policies. Their policies are: UBI, land taxes and slight increases in income tax. A UBI is an idea that has been floating around for a long time, and land taxes are nothing new. The world's main UBI guru at present would probably be Britain's Guy Standing (phd in economics from Cambridge, specialising in labour economics). An earlier advocate though was Thomas Paine in the late eighteenth century, who advocated it for America just after the revolution.
The only sense in which they could be considered "naive", would be due to an expectation that other members of parliament might be open minded enough to accept their ideas.
It's good they're being called out on this, but I'm not yet convinced it's an Atlas trojan horse so much as they're incredibly naive.
The savings are meant to come from the UBI/Tax reset. eg the UBI would mean less WINZ admin.
As mentioned above the Justice savings are meant to be because crime would drop as poverty drops, and so on.
I agree that TOP is not an Atlas pawn per se but they certainly heavily promote policy that will be music to Atlas ears.
true. That's why their policies and naivety are dangerous. The right will cherry pick the bits it can make use of.
Milton Friedman, who did like any tax, thought that if one had to have a tax, a land tax would be the best one to have.
I don't think the Atlas lot would have advocated a UBI, though I understand that someone in American financial circles advocated dropping money from a helicopter. Was that Milton Friedman, or someone else?
That UBI outcome sounds like a pipe dream; like supposition, reckons, that I reckon is how much of our solid regulations and laws are decided on. Superior brains with some specialised knowledge deciding on how to advance, control and manage the hoi polloi, supposedly for their own good and never having to say sorry if it doesn't work out.
Those in charge hardly need to glance at their posits probably because they are in line with something learned at university from some high-falutin' person who has had greatness placed on their posits, had a brainfart and delivered it with assurance and some helpful analyses, charts and tables. not zipped in with real life but held with ties at the edges! My favourite is: Giddens –
The So-called Third Way | jstor https://www.jstor.org › stable by R Higgs · 2000 · Cited by 9 — In The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge, he offers a recipe for "social democratic renewal."
Perhaps the way should be to avoid ideology, wish fulfilment, or tendencies for commissions or pay-offs like finders' fees, to officials that organise profitable-to-developers projects from councils or government. Anybody wanting to direct a project would go through stages of what is needed, how much cost, is it practical and who or what will it serve, will it get plenty of use, can low income people use it but perhaps boost income by high-price events or such while not limiting citizen use.
Here in Nelson one of our founding institutions, now called The Centre for Performing Arts often has a shortfall in funds with anxiety, (they have expanded the old buildings after say one hundred years). But the Council is considering $70 million on a new building for premises, also replacing the library I think. Spending on water and sewage systems is needed as shown by Wellington, but the local councils seem to be drawn to large-budget borrowing which is backed by a shonky rates valuations, with demand for land pushing up annual payments. A vicious circle?
Why should our precious arts related buildings and people-oriented ventures reaching a large number of ratepayers and residents, be short of funds but expensive projects bringing debt for decades (at a time of fiscal uncertainty, climate infrastructure destruction cost bringing uncertainty into what we can pay for and have in the near future?
The Troy scum always rises to the top…
Untill Ulysses brings it down
Or Philokteites. The Delphic Oracle predicted that Troy would not fall until a shaft was fired from the bow of Heracles. Philokteites was Heracles's descendent, and therefor had inherited Heracles's weapons.
Good spotting and response, bwaghorn!
This is currently money that the government borrows to fund and has to be repaid.
It is thus recorded as an asset in the governments books until then.
The other amount would be the interest free component cost.
There would be pressure from those with historic living cost debt to repay to cancel that debt – including from those overseas.
This is currently money that the government borrows to fund and has to be repaid
When it comes to government expenditure, what matters is cash flow. Borrowing short and lending long can be problematic.
I have a friend who studied the UBI concept.
He explained it to me several times but I just can't get over a concern that it is like the accommodation supplement – when you give everyone the same head start, the competition between individuals remains the same but the prices go up by the amount of the supplement.
Anyway, I digress. Apparently, part of the funding for UBI comes from the savings from processing welfare applications and policy. When you give everyone the same, no one needs to apply and you don't need to have other teams analysing the applications. Nor do you need teams working out who should qualify. Hence, public sector savings.
the positives about TOP's UBI are:
1) it removes all welfare sanctions and constraints eg the abatement rate where people can end up being taxed at 100%.
2) it enables people in the precariat to have more income security eg someone who has irregular work over the month.
3) people who want to do non paid work can do those jobs and not end up in poverty
Those are good things.
The negatives about TOP's model,
1) they hate welfare and their welfare top ups are ill informed and badly designed.
2) paying for the UBI would be from a land tax, which would penalise low income earners. TOP say no-one will be worse off, but what is the point of having a UBI if people lose that benefit via a land tax?
3) land taxes are antithetical to nature and ending poverty. They reinforce that land is a commodity that is best treated as investment income, which both degrades the mana of land and pushes the housing crisis.
As for cost of living going up, yes that is a concern with something like rent, but cost of living can be controlled in other ways. UBI is no different than wage increases but we don't argue against those.
[deleted]
No link, and you misrepresented the piece by converging the quotes (which you have been warned about before).
mod note
Sorry about the missing link, but no intent to misrepresent. I just used it to bridge time on the topic since Greens have supported land taxes in principle ever since I got into their economic policy development circa '91. Curious as to why you seem to be swimming against their flow. Seeking clarification…
TOP's land tax would penalise low income people (home owners and renters), and it treats land as a commodity for investment which reinforces our separation from nature (and flow on effects) as well as drives the housing crisis.
What is teh Green Party's land tax policy?
Not aware of any specific policy from the GP on land, but it played a large role in our govt funding in the 19th century and back then it was big elsewhere as a principle of governance. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/George.html
It seems to have been seen historically as a progressive way of doing economics. When I first considered it, I felt it was an effective way of taxing the rich, so I agreed with the leftists in principle back then.
you said,
if they don't have a land tax policy, what makes you think they support land taxes in principle?
No, I meant Greens generally, not the current GP. Greens in my generation got their heads into the global view mid-'60s so the ethos was always extremely broad. That's why so many folk resonate with Green political thought even when not voting for the GP.
TOP's land tax would penalise low income people
This may well be true generally, but in TOP's case the expense would be more than offset by the UBI. Land taxes would mostly penalise the wealthy more since tend town more expensive land, and more of it.
You say the expense would be more than offset by the UBI, yet the UBI is only $370 a week.
Once you take away the weekly cost of the annual land tax, it doesn't leave one much to live on if at all.
For example, the average residential land value in Palmerston North is $368,000. The weekly land tax payment equates to around $208, leaving a mere $162
$368,000 @1.75% = $6,440/yr
which wouldn't make much a dent in $38,800/yr (UBI for a couple)
But, even so, 1.75% seems rather steep.
The Green Party has no tax on the family home (except over $10M as part of the wealth tax).
https://www.greens.org.nz/tax_system_for_all
Agree with both.
Agree and also spare them from the orbit of reporting to W and I.
Agree. It would help so many voluntary groups, that community comes to depend on, to survive.
I like non-working partner eligibility – this helps one income couples and also sole parents
My advice, start light.
*those working part-time can choose the UI option (an assessment first, then maybe have an annual review).
*non working partners doing charity work get UI (helps people broaden work experience at the same time).
3) land taxes are antithetical to nature and ending poverty. They reinforce that land is a commodity that is best treated as investment income, which both degrades the mana of land and pushes the housing crisis.
The land is already being treated as "a commodity that is best treated as investment income". Land taxes are best thought of as compensation for that. It would probably be better if land was treated as a "common" and owned by no-one, but I cannot see that arrangement being brought about any time soon.
Guy Standing makes a distinction between work and labour. Labour, he says, is work that you would not want to be engaged in, and which you do only because you need to make a living, while work is desirable activity, even if you don't make much money from it. The former tends to be stultifying and wearing, and the latter enhancing. He believes that it is in workers' interests to support policies that move toward the reduction of labour, and leave them more time for work, recreation and leisure. This would entail a shift from labour, as the main source of income, to unearned* income; but the wealthy seem to have a monopoly on unearned income, and an interest in keeping the workers labouring.
As Marx said: the workers have nothing to lose but their chains.
*Rents, interest, dividends, intellectual property, capital gains, etc
UBI is sorts like a big tax rebate, or a negative tax bracket.
UBI is also a huge wage subsidy, so accomodation supplement in reverse. Pretty quickly wages will go down by the amount of the UBI, with that going straight into employer profits. Nothing in the UBI for the worker, it all goes up the chain fast.
I take my hat off to Opportunity for realising and pointing out the the current system isn't working and radical change is needed, but their solutions come from a very narrow and comfortable view point.
UBI is also a huge wage subsidy,
It's not really a wage subsidy since persons not earning a wage, e.g. housewives, will also receive it.
It may lead to some downward pressure on wages: workers had better unionize.
hadn't thought about that kind of wage suppression. How would that work? They can't drop wages below minimum wage, so there would be some kind of compressing of higher wages towards minimum? Wouldn't people in those higher paid jobs just go elsewhere?
The solution of course would be full employment. I would love to hear Wong talk about the potential for wage suppression.
and of course, the right would love this. Another reason why TOP is dangerous in their support for the right.
I first came across the UBI concept in one of the more out there right wing blogs. They touted it as getting rid of welfare and as a subsidy of employment costs, particularly at mid-level. It's interesting to see TOP extending this to bring in reductions in other government spending by creating some nirvana where nothing goes wrong.
I see their ideas fitting with younger, affluent or aspiring urban centre-right voters. They probably ride e-bikes and spend a lot of time in cafes trying to solve the world's problems, but don't have a very wide experience of that world. Know a lot of them around here. Last election they put National in government, the one before they gave Labour aa clear majority. This time my pick is they'll kick National out, either by wasting their vote at 4.95%, or National being arrogant in coalition negotiations and burning off NZF and TOP.
It ends processing, that is the sanctions regime on Job Seeker Benefit.
It would still have Work Staff focused on assisting the unemployed into training and jobs.
And there would also still be Income staff for those on above the base rate (& above the UI rate) sickness/disability/sole parents seeking hardship grants.
Also a role with emergency Housing.
The best thought in the UBI area seeks to move workers out of "bullshit jobs*", wearisome jobs and drudgery, giving the space to engage in the work that they really want to do. I don't know whether TOP's candidates are up with best thought, but I will certainly be asking them if I get a chance to meet them during the campaign.
*For the lowdown on these, see Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber.
Sorry, I meant the above as a reply to weka's 14.1.5.2.1 above.
the competition between individuals remains the same but the prices go up by the amount of the supplement.
Yes, this could be a problem, particularly if a land tax is applied. But on the other hand housing costs could fall, which could counteract the need for rent increases. Even so, some form of rent control might be necessary.
Well weka top T best are going to scrape in , so I'm picking there ideas will be more up for debate then going to happen, greens and top dragging middle management labour to the table I'd my hope
Ans wadda bout no student loans!!!?
they're not intending to remove student loans.
I agree they are good for bringing the debate to the table. Their rise may cost the left the election.
They would still have fees for study (they might even increase the fees).
It’s confusing …who gets the UBI in for instance in a family of 6, 2 adults, 4 children ? The way it has not been explained is that a form of elitism must occur with some families receiving a huge amount of money each week. What makes no sense is that a household with say 4 related members with good jobs on good pay each must need to pay another “ levelling “ tax otherwise nothing changes from current systems, except maybe MOBIE or similar grows even larger just to sort out the anomalies.
they want to redesign child support payments. Families with kids already get more under the current system.
Adults in a household of whatever size should get their own UBI. That should be happening with welfare but isn't.
I agree it creates a different set of disparities eg a single person renting vs a family. I don't know enough about child support to know if their ideas are good or not. Gareth Morgan originally said the UBI would force women on the DPB to live together to survive.
https://www.opportunity.org.nz/tax-reset
Weka if they arnt cutting student loans why does above graph have zero in their propesd cost column
That refers to not paying "living costs" as a loan to students who do not qualify for the student allowance.
The student loans would still include borrowing money to pay the course fees.
Of course they will save $millions by not paying out benefits. All benefits will be replaced by the UBI thing. Beneficiaries will get not one cent more than right now.
And any unfortunate beneficiary owning their home will be landed with likely around $9k in land tax. Pensioners can defer this, so government just takes a large part of their estate when they die. Younger beneficiaries cannot defer it. Absolutely no idea what they do, presumably they’d have to sell up – in fact the plight of beneficiaries is very obscure in the TOP blurb.
Trying to fathom who actually does benefit here, it seems like anyone earning a decent whack and renting comes out very nicely indeed. I wonder if this is the ‘TOP’ generation simply paying itself? Bugger the rest.
Alarming though, that many voters may think from the promo headlines that something very tasty is offered, then find they get a kick in the teeth instead.
TOP's origin story is anti-welfare. Seriously anti-welfare. That's residual now eg they have ideas about top ups for people on core benefits that can't work. But they treat welfare as an add on, rather than social security being fundamental to society beyond the UBI. I don't trust them on this.
The people that might do well would be the precariat. People in work but with not enough hours, people who work jobs where they don't get guaranteed income across the year.
Also of benefit would be the removal of punitive welfare and barriers for beneficiaries. This would be enormously beneficial. However because they haven't published actual welfare policy (eg how supplementary benefits would be administered), I think there is reason to not trust this. They need to show us the money (metaphorically)
The land tax is heinous.
They're not very good at listening.
I think this is a case of "the perfect being the enemy of the good".
I believe them when they say no-one will be worse off, beneficiaries and superannuatants included. However I think beneficiaries and superannuatants ought to be able to expect to be better off, like everyone else.
Land tax at 1.75% seems excessive: land taxes we have had in the past I think were less than 1%, and in 2023 TOP were touting 0.75%.
I think we have to get rid of neoliberalism, and it seems to me that TOP's policies are heading in the right direction, even if they are not perfect as yet.
There is no financial good in this for beneficiaries and superannuatants.
This will massively increase poverty and all the costs that come with that
There is no financial good in this for beneficiaries and superannuatants.
This is possibly true.
This will massively increase poverty and all the costs that come with that
I assume that here you talking about superannuatants. If that is so then I think you are under a misapprehension.
depends on what happened to housing costs. But renters would be better off if on the dole (or in some cases super) because the abatement rate would be gone. This means they would get the UBI at whichever rate, plus they could earn extra money with no penalties. This is significant.
If TOP persist with high rate of 1.75%, then I would hope house prices do fall significantly, otherwise the tax may be unaffordable for some. Those on the dole may lose any top-up they had before taking a job, but if the bulk of their benefit is the UBI, then of course that would be safe.
Removal of the abatement rate will allow those that can work to keep their total after tax earnings from that work. However, that income will be required to make up the shortfall between current benefit rates and the lower UBI. Moreover (as you noted) the potential loss of their accommodation supplement and other add-ons along with the tax impact on rents and wider inflation
Just worked out my land tax under TOP rules.
House= $800,000
Land tax 1.75% annual
That's $14,000 per year, every year, which has to come out of our Super/UBI.
Now, if I lived alone in this house…. A single person receives $28,000 per year after tax, currently on NZ Super.
Pensioners should know this….
The tax is only charged on the land, not on the complete property. How much is the land worth.
Ah, yes.
It's on my newly arrived rates bill (which is a land tax too)
Land value = $470,000 so, 1.75% of that is
So… $8225 a pensioner has to find. EVERY year. I imagine it's more for others – our section is very skinny.
Still reckon all these fans of TOP haven't done their sums.
Why are earnings from windfall profits, shares, hedge funds commodities, futures, crypto etc exempt from tax? Surely it's the Financial casino where the worlds money is being funneled, and governments should be targeting it, if they are going to be able to function as a government should?
The theory is that the UBI balances out the land tax.
From what I can tell Super would be replaced by the UBI, plus a top up.
UBI $19,400/yr each (tax free)
Topup single $10,000 = $29,400
Topup couple $5,250 = $24,650
That takes the TOP UBI to the current after tax Super rate (a bit less).
I can't for the life of me see how they can claim that you wouldn't be worse off, because you then have to pay the land tax.
I tweeted about it in case anyone wants to follow there (someone might enlighten me)
https://x.com/wekatweets/status/2086331102915084493
Yes, now that mention it, $22,000 is about what we are receiving at present, after tax has been deducted. I hadn't noticed that.
A TOP supporter has pointed out that the Super rates used in TOP's calculations are the 2025 ones.
Yes, I have been aware of that for some time. That's why I have frequently remarked that I think the land tax rate at 1.75% is too high. However, their policy statement also mentions regional housing support, though I don't know the details, or what it would be worth, if anything, for a couple living in Wellington.
Parties in parliament have greater access to information, so TOP's policies could be fine tuned when they reach the house.Also, they are promising a transition period with lower benefits and inputs. In particular land tax would be set initially at 0.5% apparently.
My rating valuation – old 4 bedroomed house about $100,000 , section with small lawn and shrubs at back $800,000 or so. Land value is being inflated by incomers – supply and demand -by the many property developers and speculators ripping us off.
Still reckon all these fans of TOP haven't done their sums.
I'm a fan of TOP and I have certainly "done my sums". I calculate that the cost of the LVT at 1.75% on our place would be about $9,000, or $4,500 approx each for my wife and myself. However, TOP have said that they will have a transition period with lower costs: 0.5% for the LVT in urban areas, so the axe won't fall for quite a while.
Incidentally, rates are not a “land tax”.
how are rates not a land tax?
They are not paid to central government.
that's how I've seen it too, but other people have been saying it's a tax on land value.
have a look at the chart I posted above. It looks like feijoa's household would be worse off by $8,500 per year, but I'm open to being corrected on this if I got the calculation wrong.
It's based on property values without regard for income. That's the situation in Wellington anyway; I don't know about other areas.
I used to have arguments with a chap I know who believed that rates should not be subject to GST. He argued that they were a tax and that taxes should not be subject to GST. I kept pointing out that they were an indirect payment for the services provided by local authorities and therefor should be GS taxable. Simply calling something a "tax" doesn't change that.
I'm soooooo tired of "mikesh" pulling/dragging the discussion here back to TOP!!!
the post is about TOP
It's dragging on and on and on.. like no other post – why is that, do you think?
Seems normal to me. Why does it bother you so much? It’s people talking politics, that’s what we do here.
[It's dragging on and on and on.]
In all your comments on this post, you haven't made a single concrete contribution about either TOP, or about tax in general, so it's no wonder you are getting bored with it all. I, and the various other commenters on this post have, with facts and arguments that may have been right or wrong, been arguing our respective positions for the most part. All we got from you some sort of vague notion that you anti TOP. We have no idea why you might be anti TOP since your comments haven’t been telling us.