Election 2026 Policies

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Election 2026 Policies - Labour

1 | 2

GV27

6038 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4264

#3502169 12-Jun-2026 07:05

OldGeek:

Logically, any local body with a lower cap will scrap it and take the Government subsidy.

Agreed, I see a lot of discussion about the Wairarapa line and the subsidy extending to it. Unsure if this is true but this would hugely disproportionate in terms of the benefits accruing to one small part of the country.

Incidentally, this is why I don't like TOP's land tax - it would punish those with higher land values but on smaller sections in urban areas compared to those in rural areas, even though the same levels of service cost far more to provide to rural areas than smaller parcels of land in cities - supposedly in the name of promoting efficient land use.

OldGeek

996 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 412

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3502225 12-Jun-2026 08:08

Handle9:

OldGeek:

Google estimates there are 700,000-800,000 of us who live in semi-rural or rural areas. That is a sizeable minority whose road taxes will help to pay for a benefit they cannot receive.

It's also a sizeable minority that gets roading substantially subsided by people living in cities.

It'd be nice to see a policy being judged on the overall benefit to the country rather than what's in it for me but here we are.

Your comment on urban subsidisation of non-urban populations is irrelevant as it is too general, but suffice to say that the huge majority of Northland roading by distance is maintained by local bodies (and funded locally). I acknowledge your point though on benefit payments.

I was commenting on a specific proposal from Labour that they purport to benefit all of us. Since that comment, significant credible doubt has been cast on the costings from Labour which are far more powerful an argument against this policy.

--

OldGeek.

SaltyNZ

9139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10240

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3502230 12-Jun-2026 08:39

GV27:

Incidentally, this is why I don't like TOP's land tax - it would punish those with higher land values but on smaller sections in urban areas compared to those in rural areas, even though the same levels of service cost far more to provide to rural areas than smaller parcels of land in cities - supposedly in the name of promoting efficient land use.

Speaking as someone who actually lives on one of those rural area parcels of land - I don't get any council services here except for rubbish collection, and until that changed over to the standard bins about 18 months ago we paid the contractor directly.

Arguably the road is now "my" road as opposed to State Highway 1 which it used to be (and therefore would have been maintained to that level regardless of whether there was a house here or not).

The costs to empty our septic tank every 3 years include some council charges for the disposal into the waste water system but that is on top of still having a wastewater component in our rates.

Finally, the suburban sections can often be subdivided or otherwise built to intensify housing which ammortises the cost to service the property. Rural sections like ours can't be, at least not by right. You could always apply for an exception but there is no guarantee. The higher land tax on these properties is designed at least in part to encourage this, so that more people can take advantage of things like PT which work better in denser populations.

So in summary the reason rural properties would pay less for their land tax is because they receive less service in the first place.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

GV27

6038 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4264

#3502980 14-Jun-2026 20:43

SaltyNZ:

So in summary the reason rural properties would pay less for their land tax is because they receive less service in the first place.

But the land tax isn't a rates levy for the services you receive. It's promoted in the name of promoting 'more efficient use of land'; i.e. if you can't afford it, sell your land to someone who can develop until the economies of scale means that that land can generate enough income to pay a land tax.

No one is knocking down my half of a duplex on a postage-sized stamp section near an airport to build an apartment block. So I'm unsure what realistic development me having this land is being held-back and why I should be taxed on it in the first place. Meanwhile, the same $$ value would buy you a far larger amount of land in a small town, which will presumably be taxed at the same rate. So either the flat rate is wrong, or the whole reason for the tax to exist in the first place is wrong.

TOP policy usually seems to confuse complexity for superiority and that's the complete opposite of how tax policy should work. It can't always be simple but it should always be elegant.

Anyway, this isn't the TOP thread. I do wonder if we'll see some electoral ****-housery ala Epsom with the opposition parties making a deal here and there. It's about time they wised up to it.

gzt

19190 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8302

Lifetime subscriber

#3503001 14-Jun-2026 22:29

The purpose of TOP's land tax is to rebalance investment between the productive sectors of the economy and the relatively non-productive real-estate proportion of the economy. It isn't about developing land. TOP's current policy is 1.75% on urban land, 0.5% on rural land. The net result is the growth in real-estate value is restrained. The real-estate rising land value proportion of the economy in relative terms will be smaller.

Overall assuming some ballpark median incomes it is likely that your scenario in the post above will gain an additional income of NZ$10K every year:

https://www.opportunity.org.nz/tax-reset-calculator-2026

gzt

19190 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8302

Lifetime subscriber

#3503398 15-Jun-2026 21:39

Newsroom's Tim Murphy reviews the party responses to Labour's transport policy announcement:

https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/06/12/labour-leads-with-its-chin-on-transport-cap-costs-critics-swing-wildly/

Summary: Labour's claimed cost is based on net change and includes increased income from expected increased patronage. Murphy dismisses National's claimed $1.6 billion cost.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

9139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10240

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3503431 16-Jun-2026 07:42

Regardless of who you believe on the exact costing, it's clear that the National Party think it's a good vote-winning policy if nothing else. If not, why would they almost immediately respond with "Oh yeah, well ... we'll take money out of the emergency fund and spend it on public transport, so there!"?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

GV27

6038 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4264

#3505384 23-Jun-2026 10:07

https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360996573/no-wealth-taxes-and-inheritance-taxes-hipkins-draws-red-line-greens-proposals

Not a policy per se, but sounds like a bottom line. Greens tax "reform" is DOA.

“The Labour Party has been absolutely crystal clear that the policy change that we’re campaigning on in tax is a simple targeted capital gains tax that applies to residential property, excluding the family home and commercial property, and we wouldn’t go further than that,” he said.

“So, no to wealth taxes, and inheritance taxes, and increased corporate taxes. We’ve been pretty clear on that.”

SaltyNZ

9139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10240

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3505390 23-Jun-2026 10:21

GV27:

Not a policy per se, but sounds like a bottom line. Greens tax "reform" is DOA.

Yes, everything is DOA right up until it isn't because you need the votes to become PM.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

GV27

6038 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4264

#3505393 23-Jun-2026 10:32

SaltyNZ:

Yes, everything is DOA right up until it isn't because you need the votes to become PM.

I mean there's no path to Labour going into power without concessions to The Greens and TPM.

So we're up for some fairly substantial bait-and-switch on a lot of Labour policies one way or the other.

sen8or

1961 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1464

#3505398 23-Jun-2026 10:51

GV27:

SaltyNZ:

Yes, everything is DOA right up until it isn't because you need the votes to become PM.

I mean there's no path to Labour going into power without concessions to The Greens and TPM.

So we're up for some fairly substantial bait-and-switch on a lot of Labour policies one way or the other.

Theres no path to pretty much any party getting into power without concessions to one or two coalition partners, thats the name of the game for MMP, all dogs will have fleas

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gzt

19190 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8302

Lifetime subscriber

#3505417 23-Jun-2026 11:37

GV27:
SaltyNZ:
Yes, everything is DOA right up until it isn't because you need the votes to become PM.

I mean there's no path to Labour going into power without concessions to The Greens and TPM.
So we're up for some fairly substantial bait-and-switch on a lot of Labour policies one way or the other.

Not usually. I'm sure there are plenty of other Green policies Labour can find enough common ground with.

SaltyNZ

9139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10240

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3505425 23-Jun-2026 11:59

On a related note, apparently Winston Peters is old enough to predate the concept of irony.

But since the pandemic, Peters has repeatedly ruled out forming another government with Labour.

"Is it a problem that some of you people are slow learners or something?" he asked Bridge.

Pressed on the issue, Peters said National was "not in control of this election ... in any way, shape, or form". He called suggestions he might go with Labour "yesterday's news", quoting a 1967 song by the Rolling Stones, Yesterday's Papers.

"What's wrong with you people? Do I need to come and put a brand on your head? We're not going with Labour... I haven't been around this long to come on this programme to talk about that sort of w****r question."

The pair went on to discuss the Middle East situation and the UK's apparent revolving door of prime ministers, during which Peters - who first entered Parliament in the late 1970s - derided "career politicians".

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Handle9

12153 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9988

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3505472 23-Jun-2026 14:41

SaltyNZ:

GV27:

Not a policy per se, but sounds like a bottom line. Greens tax "reform" is DOA.

Yes, everything is DOA right up until it isn't because you need the votes to become PM.

The master negotiators from the Greens always manage to get the weakest deal possible from Labour. They’ll fold again like they always do.

SaltyNZ

9139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10240

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3505582 23-Jun-2026 16:19

Handle9:

The master negotiators from the Greens always manage to get the weakest deal possible from Labour. They’ll fold again like they always do.

:-P

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | 2