Labour’s $9 billion hole

October 27th, 2011 at 1:23 pm by David Farrar

National has released the total extra borrowing that will be needed under ’s policies, just in the next four years. It’s an extra $9 billion of . And these are generally conservative costings. The document doesn’t include the cost of their compulsory superannuation policy which will be released later today. I have no doubt it will be updated regularly.

Costs of Labour’s Promises

Tags: , ,

22 Responses to “Labour’s $9 billion hole”

  1. m@tt (632 comments) says:

    National’s ‘let’s muddle through’ policy will cost a hell of a lot more than these imaginary figures.
    The cost of National stopping contributions to the super fund alone outweighs all of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. James Stephenson (2,233 comments) says:

    So m@tt – who are you borrowing from, at what rate, to buy which shares? Or are you just going to be on the winner of the Melbourne Cup?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    “The cost of National stopping contributions to the super fund alone outweighs all of this.”

    /boggle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    @ James don’t you see the government borrows at a risk free rate and invests at market. It’s guaranteed!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. James Stephenson (2,233 comments) says:

    @KiwiGreg – bugger, you mean I’m not going to get any hot tips that will allow me to give up work this time next year?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Thanks to m@tt for explaining why Labour is running a No-Campaign Campaign. They blew all their campaign funds on Lotto tickets and pokies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. jaba (2,146 comments) says:

    would people on low incomes (to whatever level is deemed low) be forced into Labours compulsory Super Savings because even though it would be a good idea, it is a type of tax and would therefore reduce their weekly income?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. axeman (252 comments) says:

    Oh dear! How will Silent T and that odious brown nosing lickspittle g presland attempt to spin this one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    Even with these numbers, it looks like in 2016 the total operating impact starts heading back down again. Short term borrowing for long term gain would be the argument that Labour would make. They’d have a much better argument if they limited the borrowing by not lowering taxes until such a time as the CGT starts generating revenue, but that’s not how Labour works (and why they won’t gain the support of those that grudgingly agree with some of their policies).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (14,080 comments) says:

    Not to worry. The steady and competent hand of Double Dipton English will save NZ when Labour lite wins the November elections, yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    m@tt. You say National policies will cost more. Could you give us specific costings as to how?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. swan (665 comments) says:

    To be fair, our long term demographic issues are more important than the next three years (although $9b is quite scary). I wonder what the comparison would be at 2050 given Labours super policy announcement?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nick K (1,257 comments) says:

    You can add $750million to that list as Cullen Fund contributions are restarted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. pete (416 comments) says:

    Does this take into account the extra economic growth we’d experience under a Labour government?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. s.russell (1,646 comments) says:

    Does this take into account the extra economic growth we’d experience under a Labour government?

    Cannot….type…..laughing…. too……hard……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Not to back Labour (to be clear I loathe them) but the figures in your spreadsheet are absolute rubbish.
    – Why does the fresh food GST removal cost jump from $75 million in 2013 to $315 million in 2014 (420% increase in one year)?
    – Why does R&D credit cost jump from $38 million in 2013 to $223 million in 2014 (587% increase in one year)?
    – Why does $5000 tax threshold cost jump from $177 million in 2013 to $1,293 million in 2015 (731% increase in two years)?
    etc

    Why are these figures such total bullshit?
    Oh I see the answer in Notes, you used Treasury/Billy English economics.
    $9 billion cost, yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Joseph “…the figures in your spreadsheet are absolute rubbish.
    – Why does the fresh food GST removal cost jump from $75 million in 2013 to $315 million in 2014 (420% increase in one year)?”

    Follow the link to the article… “Labour’s figures”. Thar’s yer problem…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    These are National’s figures not Labours and have as much credibility as Bill English.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    You sure you not a Labour supporter there, Joseph? Your reading comprehension level indicates you might be… try it again:

    Joseph “…the figures in your spreadsheet are absolute rubbish.
    – Why does the fresh food GST removal cost jump from $75 million in 2013 to $315 million in 2014 (420% increase in one year)?”

    Follow the link to the article… “Labour’s figures”. Thar’s yer problem…

    One more time: The note on the fresh fruit and vege says “Labour’s figures”. Which bit of that was difficult?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. kiwi in america (2,511 comments) says:

    Joseph Labour troll Carpenter
    Read each footnote. They come from Labour’s own costings as published in policy releases or on their website or official Treasury costings or publications like the PREFU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Yes Kiwi, I’m a Labour troll even though as I stated I detest them and if you go through all my previous posts you won’t find one supporting them and in fact many criticizing National for not being right wing/conservative/reducing spending enough. But I guess suggesting that for example the spending on fresh food will increase 420% in one year might not be entirely accurate makes me Phil Goff’s bitch instead of someone who actually read the figures and doubts the ability of Treasury forecasting. And to be perfectly clear I think having differing GST rates is idiocy (in fact GST should be extended and apply to housing and financial services which both exempted currently).

    Would this be the same Treasury publications such as their Budget projection of 19/5/2011 and the ACTUAL results in PREFU of 25/10/2011 = $7.8 BILLION unplanned extra cash deficit in only FIVE months ($1815 per citizen/$8,900 more debt per nett taxpayer in only 156 days). Yeah they’re credible. ANYONE in the private sector who was this bad would be booted and the company would have serious solvency issues if not heading towards bankruptcy.

    But Kiwi is a Big Government statist and believes everything they say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Given Treasury’s GDP growth predictions have been consistently 1.5% higher than reality and the government is relying upon 3-4% growth to fund its $18.5B deficit, I’d say Bill and John have a bit of a deficit problem to worry about too.

    Haven’t seen any proposals of National to reduce their looming deficit blowout, at least Labour have come up with some actual proposals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote