Budget 2025: How Does Government Spending Actually Work?
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."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Warriors defensive woes, voting reforms, David Seymour and dropkicks, passport name-changing
It is just too easy for opponents to exploit the frailties we have here. Alan Walker, St Heliers. Voting reforms How are the changes to voting going to make it harder to cast a vote? The election date is announced months in advance, so people have no excuse to not enrol to vote. Also, by making it illegal to have entertainment or food offerings within 100m of a voting station is just common sense, votes must be cast freely and no inducement should be offered. It seems the only ones complaining are the ones who use this as an election-day strategy. Mark Young, Ōrewa. David Seymour and dropkicks David Seymour has again demonstrated his gift for insult, this time calling tardy voting registrants 'dropkicks'. Such boorish, sneering, self-righteous language, while not surprising coming from Seymour, really shows what a massive dropkick he is. Brian Dwyer, Welcome Bay. Passports It is so hard to understand what the Government is trying to do in changing the order of name on our New Zealand passports. The use of te reo is a source of pride in the unique embracing of our heritage through our original language. Other countries praise us for it. There are no obvious nay-sayers except certain voters who are dwindling in number as they 'get' the unique lustre of 'Aotearoa New Zealand'. In that order. Christine, Northcote Point. What's in a name? I am a New Zealand citizen living in South Dakota. I recently had my New Zealand passport renewed and noticed the Māori word for New Zealand was placed above the English word on the passport. I was somewhat mystified and offended by this change, as I view myself as a New Zealander, not an Aotearoan. I presume this renaming order is a manifestation of 'woke' ideology derived from the previous Government under Dame Jacinda Ardern. I find this form of 'virtue signalling' distasteful and not becoming of the Commonwealth country New Zealand is. To the three leaders of the current Government, congratulations are deserved on their sensible and appropriate name reversal on the front of the New Zealand passport. Quentin Durward, South Dakota, US. Cost of living We are currently in Perth and there are five different supermarket chains to shop at, plus a whole host of independent stores. One greengrocer in particular, Spud Shed, is 17 stores strong. Many of these are open 24 hours, offering an exciting shopping experience for the customer. It is a lot easier to shop around here to keep them honest. Some purchases included red capsicums for $1.75 each, two for $4 cabbages, $5 blueberries, and large 500gm strawberries for only $4.99. Two chips of cherry tomatoes for $3, and a block of Aussie butter for $6.79. Their in-season Sumo mandarins are magic, but it is not all beer and skittles in the produce world; we spotted our gold kiwifruit for $12.99/kg, and we miss our glorious New Zealand apples dearly. However, one thing is for certain, our New Zealand grocery retail needs some serious competition. Glenn Forsyth, Taupō.
1News
3 days ago
- 1News
Greens want passenger trains between Auckland and Tauranga
The Green Party is calling on the Government to extend the Auckland-Hamilton passenger rail network to Tauranga. However, Bay of Plenty Regional Council's chairman said now was not the time for regional passenger rail. Green Party transport spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter was in Tauranga on Thursday launching a petition urging Minister of Rail Winston Peters to "Restore Regional Rail". Te Huia, the Hamilton to Auckland passenger rail link, had proven the demand for the service, she said. "It's time to extend that service to the people of Tauranga and some of the smaller towns in between." Extending the service could be done "relatively quickly and at an affordable cost," with operating costs of $10 million over the first four years, Genter said. Last week, Peters threw his support behind a Sunday service for Te Huia, so it made sense for him to look at extending the service to Tauranga, she said. "Aotearoa was once linked up by rail services and bus services that were affordable and frequent, and they linked our major centres, and they enabled people to get to even rural parts of our beautiful country. "It's time to get our rail network back on track." The party's plan would require new stations in Tauranga, Morrinsville and Waharoa but could be run with existing trains. It would also need passing loops and full double-tracking, including through the Whangamarino Swamp in Waikato, to speed up the service. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including Hulk Hogan dies, sentencing for a New Zealander who assaulted two airline stewards, and a big accolade for Te Papa. (Source: 1News) The plan stated the initial proposal could be up and running in the next two years. The Greens' full plan was costed at $3.3 billion, with stage two including additional trains for extra services in peak conditions, station refurbishments, a depot in Waikato and duplication of the single track near Meremere rolled out over the next five to 10 years. These improvements would make a trip between Tauranga and Auckland take two-and-a-half hours, the plan stated. Asked if passenger rail would clash with the freight trains, Genter said the initial proposal would be a couple of services a day and there was capacity on the line for that. Stage two would increase network capacity and extend electrification, which would benefit passengers and freight, she said. "It makes sense to make use of our existing rail lines for those passenger services." Passenger rail between Tauranga, Hamilton and Auckland was discontinued in 2001 because of low patronage and high operating costs. Asked if it would be different this time, Genter said everywhere that rail was invested in, patronage was growing. "The privatisation of the rail network in the [1990s] led to underinvestment and a decline, but now rail patronage is growing across the world – it's what people want. "Now is the perfect time to use the track we already have and revitalise our passenger rail network." Stage two would increase network capacity and extend electrification, which would benefit passengers and freight, she said. "It makes sense to make use of our existing rail lines for those passenger services." Passenger rail between Tauranga, Hamilton and Auckland was discontinued in 2001 because of low patronage and high operating costs. Asked if it would be different this time, Genter said everywhere that rail was invested in, patronage was growing. "The privatisation of the rail network in the [1990s] led to underinvestment and a decline, but now rail patronage is growing across the world – it's what people want. "Now is the perfect time to use the track we already have and revitalise our passenger rail network." Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale was "conditionally supportive" of a Tauranga to Auckland passenger rail service. A transit time of two-and-a-half hours from Tauranga to Auckland needed to be resolved to make it an "attractive option", he said. The service would also need to deliver value for money, Drysdale said. He also had "questions" about the Kaimai Tunnel and freight impacts. "From a Tauranga perspective, I would like to see some options of utilising our local rail network and finding a way to connect passengers from the Mount, Te Puke/Pāpāmoa and Ōmokoroa/Te Puna. 'Considering we have trains running through our city centre, the availability of passenger services could make a huge difference to our public transport system.' Genter said they would be open to looking at passenger rail within Tauranga. "Tauranga absolutely needs more passenger transport options." Traffic was "so bad" in Tauranga and it was not from a lack of roads, she said. "You can build as many highways as you want, the traffic is only going to get worse over time and transport costs will escalate." The petition also called for the overnight rail service between Auckland and Wellington to be reinstated, and for the return of the Southerner connection between Christchurch and Dunedin. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
1News
3 days ago
- 1News
Big, awkward, neglected: Auckland scores poorly on international report
The recent report comparing Auckland to nine international peer cities delivered an uncomfortable truth: our largest city is falling behind, hampered by car dependency, low-density housing and 'weak economic performance'. Timothy Welch reports. The Deloitte State of the City analysis was no surprise to anyone who has watched successive governments treat the city as a problem to manage, rather than an engine to fuel. The report's findings were stark: Auckland rates 82nd out of 84 cities globally for pedestrian friendliness, and its car-dependent transport system is more carbon-intensive and slower to decarbonise than peer cities. (Source: This is the direct result of decades of planning failures, including what urban researchers call the 1970s 'great down-zoning' which halved central Auckland's housing capacity. ADVERTISEMENT This isn't just Auckland's problem. When we mismanage what geographers call a 'primate city,' it reveals our fundamental misunderstanding of how modern economies work. The concept of the primate city was formalised by geographer Mark Jefferson in 1939. Such cities are defined as being 'at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant'. Auckland fits this definition perfectly. With more than 1.7 million people, it is over four times larger than Christchurch or the greater Wellington region. The city accounts for 34% of New Zealand's population and is projected to hit 40% of the working-age population by 2048. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including Hulk Hogan dies, sentencing for a New Zealander who assaulted two airline stewards, and a big accolade for Te Papa. (Source: 1News) Auckland contributes 38% of New Zealand's gross domestic product and its per-capita GDP is 15% higher than the rest of the country's. Its most productive area, the central business district, enjoys a 40% productivity premium over the national average. To economists, these numbers represent the 'agglomeration benefits' research shows primate cities generate. It is the economic effect of combining businesses, talent and infrastructure. Yet New Zealand systematically underinvests in the very place generating this outsized economic contribution. ADVERTISEMENT A pattern of infrastructure failure Auckland's infrastructure deficit follows a predictable pattern. The City Rail Link, while progressing, has grown from an initial budget of NZ$2-3 billion to $5.5 billion, with opening delayed until 2026. The first train to be tested in Auckland's City Rail Link travels through Maungawhau in February. (Source: City Rail Link) Light rail was cancelled entirely after years of planning. A second harbour crossing has been studied for decades without a shovel hitting dirt. Each represents billions in opportunity costs while congestion worsens. This goes well beyond project mismanagement. It is a deep structural problem. The Infrastructure Commission-Te Waihanga identifies a $210 billion national infrastructure shortfall, with Auckland bearing a disproportionate burden despite generating a disproportionately high level of revenue. International research by the OECD shows successful countries treat metropolitan regions as engines of national growth, not a burden. ADVERTISEMENT The 'Wellington problem' Public policy expert Ian Shirley called it the 'Wellington Problem': the way Auckland's governance became an obsession for politicians and bureaucrats based in Wellington. The tension dates to 1865 when the capital was moved from Auckland to Wellington, establishing a pattern where political power was deliberately separated from economic power. Parliament (file image). (Source: 1News) Auckland loses an estimated $415.35 million annually in GST collected on rates. This goes to Wellington and into government revenue rather than being reinvested locally. Central government properties in Auckland, worth $36.3 million in rates, are exempt from payment while still using Auckland's infrastructure. When Auckland speaks with 'one voice' through its unified council, Wellington responds with legislative overrides. The recent National Land Transport Programme, for example, cut Auckland's transport funding by $564 million. Mayor Wayne Brown said the government's transport policy 'makes zero sense for Auckland'. ADVERTISEMENT Learning from others The contrast with international approaches reveals just how counterproductive New Zealand's approach has been. London has an integrated Transport for London authority with congestion charging powers, generating £136 million annually for reinvestment. Paris is investing more than €35 billion in the Grand Paris Express transit project. Paris: city of trains (Source: Japan's 'Quality Infrastructure Investment' principles include ¥13.2 trillion in regional infrastructure investment. Australia's A$120 billion infrastructure programme explicitly recognises its largest cities contribute over 50% of GDP and require proportional investment. Research has shown excessive urban concentration in one country can create problems. But denying the primate city resources only leads to a 'deterioration in the quality of life' that drags down the entire national economy. The solution lies in making strategic investments that maximise the benefits of agglomeration while managing any negative costs to the national economy. ADVERTISEMENT Growing pains Auckland isn't a problem to be managed, it is an asset to be leveraged. Every successful developed economy has learned this lesson. Paris generates 31% of France's GDP and gets treated accordingly. Seoul produces 23% of South Korea's output and receives massive infrastructure investment. Tokyo drives Japan's economy. The international evidence is unambiguous: countries that strategically invest in their primate cities achieve higher productivity growth and maintain competitive advantages. Auckland doesn't need sympathy or special treatment. It needs what every primate city in every successful economy gets: infrastructure investment proportional to its economic contribution, governance structures that reflect its scale, and political leadership that understands agglomeration economics. The question isn't whether Auckland is too big. The question is whether New Zealand is big enough to nurture its primate city. Timothy Welch Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.
