新西兰2026年大选的一项核心经济分歧，是政府应该通过对资本收益等征税来增加公共服务投入，还是坚持不增加新税、控制政府开支并推动经济增长。

这不仅是税收问题，更关系到普通家庭的生活成本、医疗和教育质量、就业机会、住房负担，以及未来政府财政能否持续。

截至2026年10月15日，两党的财政方案已经公布。工党承诺将政府经营账目在2028/29财年恢复盈余，并增加医疗投入；国家党同样承诺在2028/29财年实现盈余，但主要依靠支出重新排序、控制开支和减少债务。

NZ Labour

一、工党提出的新增税收，会用在哪里？

1. 资本利得税：重点投入公共医疗

工党提出对住宅投资物业和商业物业的资本收益征收28%的资本利得税（Capital Gains Tax），并承诺将这项税收收入全部用于医疗卫生。其财政方案提出，在预测期内增加155亿新西兰元的医疗资金，涵盖医疗成本压力及相关政策承诺。

计划包括每年三次免费全科医生就诊、免费处方药、免费宫颈筛查、免费孕期扫描，以及为护理专业毕业生提供就业保障等。

2. 教育及学校投入

工党计划在未来资本预算中安排4亿新西兰元用于学校，并承诺增加教育公共服务投入。学校能否获得更多资金、改善设施和支持学生，取决于具体预算拨款及政策实施。

3. 住房与基础设施

工党计划在四年内为 Kāinga Ora 住房安排29亿新西兰元资本资金，并为医院等基础设施提供额外拨款，目的是增加住房供给、改善公共设施。

4. 小企业与普通家庭

工党承诺冻结燃油税三年，并将公共交通票价上限定为奥克兰、惠灵顿和基督城每周20新西兰元，其他地区每周10新西兰元；同时提出恢复薪酬公平立法，并提高护理及支援工作者的工资。

这些政策的目的，是降低部分家庭的交通开支，并改善低收入劳动者的待遇。

需要注意：工党并不是把所有新增税收都直接分配给每个家庭，而是通过医疗、教育、住房及其他公共服务，让民众间接受益。 其中，工党明确承诺资本利得税收入全部用于医疗；其他项目则按照其整体财政计划安排资金。

二、工党新增税收，究竟由谁承担？

这里必须区分：征税对象不一定等于最终承担经济成本的人。

税种或政策	主要直接影响对象	需要注意的问题
28%资本利得税	出售符合规定的住宅投资物业及商业物业、实现应税资本收益的人	可能影响投资回报、资产出售时间及部分租赁市场决策
小企业税务调整	年营业额低于1000万新西兰元、符合条件的企业	工党提出提高低价值资产即时扣除门槛，并以更有针对性的支持取代现行 Investment Boost
其他政党提出的财富税、土地税、银行税等	视具体税基而定	不能全部算作工党的政策，也不能将其他政党的税收方案一并归到工党名下

以上政策区别可参阅 PwC 对2026年大选税收政策的整理。

资本利得税是否会增加普通家庭的负担？

有三点值得考虑。

• 自住房与投资物业要区分。 工党提出的这项资本利得税针对住宅投资物业及商业物业，不应简单理解为所有家庭出售自住房都要缴纳28%的税。
• 税率不等于房价的28%。 28%是针对符合规定的应税资本收益，而不是直接按物业总售价征收。
• 经济成本可能间接传导。 投资者可能调整售价、投资计划或租金策略，但租金是否上涨，还取决于住房供求、市场竞争和租赁需求，不能直接断言征税必然导致租金上涨。

因此，真正需要审视的是税制设计、豁免范围、执行成本和长期投资影响，而不只是28%这个数字。

三、国家党不增加新税，如何平衡财政预算？

国家党的核心思路：不增加新税，优先控制开支和债务。

国家党在2026年10月12日公布的财政方案中，承诺在2028/29财年实现经营盈余，继续控制政府支出，并将债务占GDP的比例逐步降低。

主要依靠以下五种方式。

1. 削减或重新安排政府支出

国家党表示，过去三个预算案通过重新安排支出，累计调整约500亿新西兰元，用于优先支持医疗、学校等公共服务。

但需要注意，500亿是跨多个预算案重新安排的资金规模，不等于政府净节省了500亿现金。

真正应该追问的是：哪些项目被削减？节省的钱是否真正投入了医疗、教育和其他公共服务？削减是否影响服务质量？

2. 控制未来预算增长

政府可以限制每年新增的日常开支，而不是让所有部门的预算随着需求不断扩大。

这种做法有助于控制财政赤字，但如果人口增长、医疗成本和学校需求持续增加，预算增长低于实际需求，就可能出现服务不足、候诊时间延长或设施维护延后等问题。

3. 减少福利及海外援助支出

国家党的财政方案计入了削减海外援助及部分福利支出所带来的预期节省。

这能够降低部分政府支出，但也必须评估具体影响：节省的金额有多大？是否会使真正有需要的家庭失去支持？削减后是否会产生更高的其他社会成本？

4. 依靠经济增长扩大现有税收收入

如果就业增加、工资提高、企业盈利改善，即使税率不变，政府也可能收到更多所得税、消费税及企业税收入。

国家党预计未来四年新增22万个就业岗位，工资增速将快于物价；不过，这些属于其财政预测，而不是已经实现的结果。

如果经济增长不及预期，税收收入也可能低于预算预测，财政平衡就会更困难。

5. 通过控制债务降低利息负担

政府减少借债，可以降低未来的利息支出，并为应对自然灾害、经济衰退等突发事件保留空间。

国家党预测，核心政府净债务将在2027/28财年达到GDP的43.9%，到2030/31财年降至39.5%；经营盈余则预计从2028/29财年的40亿新西兰元增加至2030/31财年的117亿新西兰元。

这些数字同样依赖经济增长、利率、税收收入和支出控制等假设。

四、两党的财政方案，放在一起比较

比较项目	工党	国家党
新增税收	以针对性资本利得税等措施支持政策目标	承诺不增加新税
医疗投入	预测期内增加155亿新西兰元医疗资金	未来四年安排154亿新西兰元额外医疗投入
学校与公共服务	承诺撤销部分计划削减的支出，增加相关投入	优先安排现有资源，控制整体支出增长
财政盈余目标	2028/29财年	2028/29财年
财政平衡方式	新税收、支出安排、经济增长与投资	控制开支、重新安排预算、经济增长与债务管理
主要风险	税收收入不及预期、投资行为改变、政策执行成本	削减或限制支出影响服务质量、经济增长低于预期

资料来源：两党公布的2026年财政方案。

这里有一个重要区别： 两党公布的医疗资金数字口径和涵盖内容并不完全相同，不能只看155亿和154亿，就断言工党一定比国家党多投入1亿，或两党的实际医疗服务承诺完全相同。

同样，两党都承诺2028/29财年实现盈余，也不代表它们对经济增长、政府债务、公共服务和税收公平的判断相同。

五、从普通新西兰家庭的角度，应该怎样判断？

我认为，可以从四个问题评估两党的方案。

1. 家庭实际生活成本能否下降？

不仅要看税收有没有增加，还要看房贷、租金、食品、电费、汽油、医疗和交通等实际支出。即使不加新税，如果公共服务费用上涨或家庭需要自行承担更多医疗教育开支，家庭未必更轻松。

2. 公共服务是否真正改善？

应关注看家庭医生是否更容易、医院候诊时间是否缩短、学校资源是否充足，而不只是政府公布了多少预算。

3. 谁承担成本，谁获得利益？

工党的思路是让部分资产收益者承担更多税收，以支持医疗等公共服务；国家党的思路是限制政府支出和税收增长，让个人和企业保留更多收入。两种方式都会产生受益者和承担成本的人。

4. 财政承诺是否经得起经济下行考验？

如果经济增长放缓、失业增加或利息支出上升，政府能否在不大幅削减服务、不大幅增加债务的情况下继续履行承诺？这才是检验财政方案可持续性的关键。

工党和国家党实际上代表两种不同的财政选择。

工党认为，针对资产收益征税，可以为医疗等公共服务提供资金，并通过公共投入改善普通家庭的生活；其主要挑战是确保新增税收和经济增长足以支撑承诺，同时避免不必要地抑制投资。

国家党认为，政府应优先控制支出、降低债务，依靠经济增长扩大收入，而不是引入新税；其主要挑战是确保节省开支的同时，不让医疗、教育和其他公共服务承受过大的压力。

对普通选民而言，最值得追问的不是“加税一定不好”或“不加税一定更好”，而是：哪一套方案能够在不让家庭生活成本进一步恶化的前提下，提供足够的公共服务，并且真正实现财政盈余？

财政盈余是一项重要指标，但它不应成为唯一指标。如果政府账面改善了，普通家庭却面临更高的生活成本、更难获得医疗服务和更不稳定的就业，那么这种财政改善是否真正让国家变得更好，仍然值得认真检验。

New Zealand’s 2026 Election: Labour’s Tax-and-Investment Strategy Versus National’s Spending Restraint

How should New Zealand pay for public services without placing an even greater burden on ordinary households?

One of the central economic debates in New Zealand’s 2026 general election is whether the government should raise additional revenue through taxes on capital gains and other targeted measures to fund public services, or avoid introducing new taxes and rely instead on spending restraint, economic growth and tighter debt management.

The issue goes beyond taxation. It concerns the cost of living, access to healthcare and education, housing affordability, employment opportunities, economic fairness and the long-term sustainability of public finances.

As of 15 October 2026, both Labour and National have committed to returning the government’s operating balance to surplus in the 2028–29 financial year. Their proposed routes to that goal, however, differ considerably.

1. Labour’s proposed taxes: Who pays, and what do taxpayers get in return?

Labour’s approach is to raise additional revenue from specified capital gains and direct that funding towards public services, particularly healthcare.

Capital gains tax and healthcare

Labour has proposed a 28 per cent capital gains tax on gains from residential investment properties and commercial property, with the revenue earmarked for healthcare.

Its fiscal plan projects an additional NZ$15.5 billion in healthcare funding over the forecast period. The proposed measures include three free GP visits a year, free prescription medicines, free cervical screening, free pregnancy scans and employment guarantees for nursing graduates.

The underlying argument is straightforward: those who realise taxable gains from property investments should contribute towards services on which the wider community depends.

However, the tax would apply to qualifying gains, not 28 per cent of a property’s total sale price. Nor should it be confused with a blanket tax on every family selling its home. The precise treatment depends on the policy’s rules and exemptions.

The wider economic effects also deserve scrutiny. Investors may alter their selling decisions or investment plans, while any effect on rents would depend on housing supply, demand and market conditions. Higher taxes do not automatically translate into higher rents, but neither can indirect effects be ruled out.

Education and public infrastructure

Labour has proposed NZ$400 million in school capital funding and additional investment in public infrastructure, including hospitals.

It has also committed NZ$2.9 billion in capital funding for Kāinga Ora housing over four years.

These commitments are intended to strengthen public infrastructure, support housing provision and address pressure on essential services. Their ultimate value will depend on how effectively the money is allocated and whether it produces measurable improvements.

Relief for households and workers

Labour has also proposed freezing fuel taxes for three years and introducing weekly public transport fare caps of NZ$20 in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, and NZ$10 elsewhere.

Other commitments include restoring pay-equity legislation and improving remuneration for care and support workers.

These measures are designed to reduce selected household expenses and improve conditions for lower-paid workers. They would not, however, resolve all the pressures facing households from food prices, electricity bills, rents and mortgage repayments.

The central question is whether the benefits delivered through public services and targeted relief would outweigh the additional tax burden and any unintended economic consequences.

2. Who ultimately bears the cost of new taxes?

The person or business legally required to pay a tax does not always bear its full economic cost.

A capital gains tax would directly affect people realising taxable gains from qualifying investment properties and commercial property. The indirect consequences could extend further, depending on how investors, businesses and property markets respond.

Three distinctions matter.

First, a tax on capital gains is not a tax on the full value of a property. It applies to qualifying gains under the relevant rules.

Second, the treatment of owner-occupied homes must be distinguished from that of investment properties. Labour’s proposal should not be characterised as a blanket 28 per cent tax on all homeowners selling their homes.

Third, the effects on investment, property prices and rents are not predetermined. They depend on the design of the tax, exemptions, housing supply, investor behaviour and broader economic conditions.

A serious assessment should therefore examine the tax base, administrative costs, revenue projections and distributional effects, rather than focusing on the headline rate alone.

3. National’s alternative: How can the government balance its books without new taxes?

National’s approach is based on a different proposition: government should restrain spending, reprioritise existing budgets, reduce debt and allow economic growth to increase revenue without introducing new taxes.

Its 2026 fiscal plan also targets an operating surplus in 2028–29.

Spending restraint and reprioritisation

National says its first three Budgets have reprioritised approximately NZ$50 billion in spending towards its priorities, including healthcare and education.

But the figure needs careful interpretation. Reprioritising NZ$50 billion across several Budgets does not mean the government has saved NZ$50 billion in net cash. It refers to the scale of spending redirected or adjusted over time.

The more important questions are which programmes have been reduced, which services have received additional funding, and whether the changes have improved outcomes for the public.

Limiting the growth of government expenditure

A government can improve its operating balance by restraining the growth of day-to-day spending rather than allowing every department’s budget to rise with demand.

That can help control deficits. Yet healthcare costs, population growth and school enrolments do not necessarily remain within fixed budget limits.

If spending grows more slowly than demand, the pressure may emerge elsewhere—in longer waiting lists, stretched school resources, deferred maintenance or higher costs for households forced to obtain services privately.

The effectiveness of spending restraint must therefore be measured against service quality, not simply the size of the budget.

Reducing selected welfare and overseas aid spending

National’s fiscal programme includes savings from reductions in overseas aid and some welfare expenditure.

Such measures can reduce government outlays, but the consequences depend on which programmes are affected, how much is saved and whether reduced support creates additional social or economic costs.

The relevant question is not merely whether spending falls, but whether the resulting savings justify the consequences for people who rely on those services.

Relying on economic growth

National expects employment to increase by 220,000 jobs over four years and forecasts wage growth to outpace inflation.

If more people are employed, wages rise and businesses become more profitable, government revenue can increase even without higher tax rates. Income tax, GST and company tax receipts may all benefit from stronger economic activity.

But these are forecasts, not guaranteed outcomes. If growth disappoints, unemployment rises or business profitability weakens, revenue may fall short of expectations, making the fiscal targets harder to achieve.

Reducing debt and interest costs

National also aims to reduce net core Crown debt as a share of GDP. Its forecasts show the ratio reaching 43.9 per cent in 2027–28 before declining to 39.5 per cent in 2030–31.

It projects an operating surplus of NZ$4 billion in 2028–29, rising to NZ$11.7 billion by 2030–31.

Lower debt can reduce future interest costs and leave the government better placed to respond to recessions, natural disasters and other unexpected events. But the projections depend on economic growth, interest rates, revenue and expenditure assumptions.

The question is whether the government can achieve those targets without allowing essential public services to deteriorate.

4. Labour versus National: What do the fiscal plans mean in practice?

Issue	Labour	National
Tax policy	Targeted capital gains taxation and other revenue measures	Commitment not to introduce new taxes
Healthcare	Projects NZ$15.5 billion in additional funding over the forecast period	Plans NZ$15.4 billion in additional healthcare funding over four years
Education and public services	Additional investment and restoration of selected spending commitments	Reprioritisation of existing resources and tighter control of spending growth
Return to surplus	2028–29	2028–29
Main fiscal strategy	Additional revenue, expenditure planning and economic growth	Spending restraint, reprioritisation, debt management and economic growth
Principal risks	Revenue shortfalls, changes in investment behaviour and implementation costs	Underfunded services, the effects of spending restraint and weaker-than-expected growth

Sources: The parties’ published 2026 fiscal plans. The healthcare figures cover different periods and may use different accounting and policy assumptions; they should not be treated as directly equivalent without examining the underlying documents.

The comparison reveals an important point: both parties are promising a return to surplus in the same financial year, but they differ over how the burden should be distributed and what government should prioritise along the way.

Labour is more willing to raise revenue from specified asset gains to support public services. National places greater emphasis on controlling spending and preserving existing tax settings.

Neither approach is automatically sustainable. Labour must demonstrate that its proposed revenue and economic assumptions can support its spending commitments. National must show that its savings are achievable without undermining essential services or shifting costs onto households.

5. The test that matters most to ordinary New Zealanders

For households facing high grocery bills, electricity costs, petrol prices, rents and mortgage repayments, the debate should not be reduced to whether taxes are rising or falling.

Four questions deserve particular attention.

First, will the cost of living actually improve?

A government can avoid introducing new taxes while households face rising out-of-pocket healthcare costs, transport expenses or other charges. Equally, a government can raise taxes without delivering meaningful relief to ordinary families.

The relevant measure is disposable income after essential expenses—not simply the headline tax rate.

Second, will public services improve?

Are GP appointments becoming more accessible? Are hospital waiting times falling? Do schools have the resources they need? Are housing programmes delivering homes at a scale that makes a difference?

Budget announcements matter, but actual outcomes matter more.

Third, who pays and who benefits?

Labour’s model asks people realising specified taxable asset gains to contribute more towards public services. National’s model seeks to limit the growth of government spending and taxation, leaving more income within the private sector.

Both approaches create beneficiaries and people who bear costs. The issue is whether the distribution of those costs and benefits is fair, economically sensible and sustainable.

Fourth, can the fiscal plan withstand an economic downturn?

If growth slows, unemployment rises or interest costs increase, can the government maintain essential services without sharply increasing debt or imposing further burdens on households?

That is a more meaningful test of fiscal credibility than a surplus target alone.

A balanced budget is a means, not an end

Labour and National offer two different answers to New Zealand’s fiscal challenge.

Labour argues that targeted taxation of capital gains can help fund healthcare and other public priorities, spreading the cost of essential services more broadly across society. Its challenge is to ensure that the revenue is sufficient, the tax is well designed and the resulting investment delivers measurable benefits.

National argues that spending restraint, debt management and stronger economic growth can restore fiscal balance without new taxes. Its challenge is to prove that expenditure savings will be sufficient and that essential services will not suffer as a result.

For voters, the most important question is not whether higher taxes are inherently bad or whether avoiding new taxes is inherently good.

It is whether either approach can improve living standards, maintain reliable public services and deliver a sustainable fiscal position without making life harder for ordinary New Zealanders.

A surplus is a useful measure of fiscal discipline, but it is not the ultimate measure of a successful economy. If the government’s books improve while families struggle with rising living costs, patients face longer waits and employment becomes less secure, the public is entitled to ask who is really benefiting from that improvement.

The real test of economic policy is not simply whether the government balances its books. It is whether New Zealanders can afford to live, work, raise their families and access the services they need—with confidence that the country’s finances will remain sustainable for the next generation.