sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Treasury reports budget deficit was NZ$884 mln worse than expected in 8 mths to Feb; GST, corporate and PAYE receipts below forecasts

Bonds
Treasury reports budget deficit was NZ$884 mln worse than expected in 8 mths to Feb; GST, corporate and PAYE receipts below forecasts

By Bernard Hickey

The Government's budget deficit is running about NZ$550 million worse than expected because of weaker than forecast GST, PAYE and corporate receipts, but Treasury remains confident of a budget surplus in 2014/15.

Finance Minister Bill English reiterated the tightness of the budget outlook meant there was no room for a pre-election 'spend-up' and he later ruled out tax cuts in the May 15 budget.

Treasury reported a budget deficit before gains and losses of NZ$1.393 billion for the eight months to February, which was NZ$884 million below the Treasury's forecasts in the half year economic and fiscal update in December.

Core tax revenues were NZ$1.1 billion below forecasts. Treasury said about half of that would persist through to the end of the year with the rest was accounted for by timing differences.

"At this stage, it is anticipated that a stronger outlook for the economy will further boost tax revenues from their current position, largely offsetting the current weakness in revenue outturns, resulting in an outlook for tax revenue for 2014/15 that is broadly similar to that presented in the HYEFU," Treasury said.

"As a result tax revenue developments are not likely to impact on the forecast surplus for 2014/15," it said.

Core Crown tax revenues rose NZ$1.9 billion or 5% from a year ago, but this was NZ$1.1 billion less than forecast.

"Overall, it is expected that slightly over half of the $1.1 billion weaker year to date outturn will remain at year end once the elements that appear timing-related reverse," Treasury said.

"There are risks associated with this view and, owing to the timing of tax assessments, much of the expected narrowing may not be apparent until June data is received. Updated tax revenue forecasts will be released as part of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update in May," it said.

Political reaction

Finance Minister Bill English said the figures reinforced the need for restraint in government spending.

 "We remain committed to reaching surplus next year and Budget forecasts next month will confirm we are on track," he says.

"But today's figures confirm what we have said repeatedly: It is a challenging task that will be achieved only if we remain disciplined."

"While some of the variance is due to timing issues and is therefore likely to dissipate over coming months, corporate tax, GST, other individuals' tax, source deductions and customs and excise duties were all below forecast," English said.

"These figures will be factored into next month's Budget and reinforce the need for restraint in government spending. They also confirm that there will be no capacity for reckless spending promises ahead of the election later this year."

English later spoke to reporters before National's Parliamentary Caucus meeting.

"As we have indicated over the past few months it is making this budget a bit tighter," English said on the shortfall. "We want to get to surplus because it is important that we move towards paying down debt. The fact that tax revenue's lower than expected makes that job just a bit tighter," he said.

"We want to make sure we can balance the books in this next year so we need to take into account the fact that tax might be just a bit lower. But bear in mind we are in a growing economy. Tax is up a lot on 12 months ago. It's just not up quite as far as we expected," he said.

English said there was a "bit of s squeeze" on new spending and he reiterated the Government's priority was debt reduction.

"Bear in mind that our debt has risen from sort of $10 or $12 billion six years ago to over $60 billion now and it is time to get it to stop rising and start paying it down," he said.
Asked to rule tax cuts in or out of the May 15 budget, English said: "We are not ruling stuff in or out, but we are not going to be announcing tax cuts in this budget."

Opposition says Government 'bad with money'

Green Co-Leader Russel Norman said the Government had failed to manage its books in a prudent way, building up NZ$60 billion of debt and never running a budget surplus.

“Announcing tax cuts for the top ten percent of income earners has been responsible for NZ$5 billion of accumulated debt alone. National is not delivering on its promise to run surpluses and reduce debt," he said.

"National has ignored the big structural problems with our economy – our high levels of private debt, our high current account deficit, and our on-going reliance on one or two industries to earn all our export income."

“The truth is that the Nats are just bad with money.”

Labour Finance Spokesman David Parker said English needed to explain why the Government was not receiving the forecast receipts from a growing economy.

“When the economy grows tax revenue should increase. Bill English should have a chat to Michael Cullen on how to run a budget – he ran nine surpluses in a row in the last Labour Government," Parker said.

“National’s excuses are wearing thin. If wages were rising, the tax take would be increasing."

(Updated with English's comments from news release and standup, Greens' reaction)

No chart with that title exists.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

22 Comments

Hoo Boy .....the nations next Budget is going to be a Humdinger

The news feed is like a see saw , euphoria about the boom , and then a bigger deficit to bring us down to earth .

 

 

Up
0

You reckon the " Rockstar Economy " will more likely resemble a rockstar's daughter .... flat dead on the bathroom floor ....

 

... pray that the booble heads at Fonterra don't stuff things up again ... we're hanging by a thin milky thread...

Up
0

Well said GBH.

 

Running a 'perception management' government only takes you so far before your chickens start coming home to roost.

 

The hen house is definitely starting to fill up.

Up
0

So from that I note what was not said- Previously Treasury has been saying something to the effect of "we think this is a temporary dip and we will see a rebound in the next figures" but they don't seem to be saying it this time.

Up
0

This time they are claiming the timing related shorfall will 'dissapate'.

Up
0

Pinnocchio co-leader of the Greens....Russel Norman that is a rather rich statement........now just how much did Government Debt go up under your coalition arrangement from 2004 until your demise from power?

And How much did the WFF and Sudent loan arrangments cost the taxpayer? And weren't the people told it was being funded from growth?

Up
0

While my memory is a wee bit rusty on 2004, I dont recall the Green's being in Govn as such, but meerly a supply of confidence vote (or some such term) Hence the purse strings were all if not mostly labour.

URLs?

 

Oh and Govn debt to GDP was lower 2004 to 2005

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp

or,

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/mei/archive/pdfs/nzecp-charts-feb13…

page 8 steeply falling.

Fiscal balance was positive...

regards

Up
0

This timeout is hideous - lost my reply.

 

You are correct it was a confidence of supply agreement. Part of that confidence supply agreement was budgets.

WFF was fully supported by the Greens with them voting in favour for the Bill to be passed. If your supporting and voting for WFF then you're supporting and voting for the costs involved.

The following link leads to a very good article which I feel the content should be widely available.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/election-2014-fact-check-both-sides-peddle…

Up
0

notaneconomist,

I agree with you on one thing- interest.co.nz does seem to have reverted to a very short and frustrating timeout again, without any warning over lost messages.

That aside do you accept that your first statement was an absolute nonsense?

As Steven has noted, NZ Government Debt under Helen Clark steadily declined from 33.4% of GDP in 1999 to 17.4% of GDP in 2008. Under the Nats it immediately and consistently rose back to 37% of GDP in only 4 years, before finally coming off last year to 35.9%. 

There may or may not have been extenuating circumstances, but those are the facts. You are either one of National's spinmeisters, or have been totally taken in by them.

Up
0

Whoa-up Stephen........Are you sure you are not confusing Government Debt with Government Annual Expenditure?

Up
0

Stephen's number look right to me, though sitting in an airport using an iPad I am not to keen to chase it up. from memory raw borrowing was completely flat through the Clark (or perhaps we should say Cullen years) so with GDP growth the percentage went down pretty dramatically over the period. Under National raw borrowing went up massively each year.

Up
0

Apologies DH, Stephen and Steven my fault I used the wording Government Debt by mistake in my original post. I was not talking govt debt but rather Government annual expenditure that was why I placed the link to the NBR article.

 

 

Up
0

No worries; have been guilty of the occasional inadvertent mis labelling in the past. By the by, there was a discussion here last week covering government expenditure as well. The data showed that expenditure per GDP under Labour stayed fairly constant; and although conveniently in "Core expenditure" the Nats are now 1-2% lower, having initially been a lot higher; when you add back in earthquake expenditure, they are still higher spenders per GDP than Labour. The reason the earthquake spend should be included is that the earthquake work is included in the GDP numbers. 

Up
0

WFF is a tax credit - just another name for a tax cut in the lowest tax bracket, but one that is targetted/applied only to those on lower incomes.

 

I find it ironic that none of the folks complaining about WFF also complain about the tax cuts that were applied to the upper tax bracket for those on higher incomes.

Up
0

... not none , one ! ... I reckon we should've kept a higher tax threshold , but not at a mere $ 60 000 p.a. as Sir Mickey Cullen placed it , $ 120 000 or so , and above ...

 

Some folks on $ 100 000 p.a. are getting WFF .... lots of people who earn $ 30 000 or so , are paying a full whack of tax , 'cos they don't qualify for WFF ...

 

... is that  " a fair go " to you ?

 

It's a shame that Cunny dropped his tax-free threshold , that would've assisted more low income earners ... as it has in Australia , $A 18 000 p.a. there , before income tax kicks in ..

Up
0

Same in UK.  NZD20,000 'personal allowance' that you deduct from your earnings before you start paying tax on the rest.

Up
0

Customers and markets are both needed to provide an economy

 

PAYE is directly in proportion to the income of the nation - the wannabe customers cannot spend. Down.

 

GST is directly in proportion to reduced customer spending. Mainly because of the above item. Also down.

 

Corporate Tax is also down because of slow stock-turn due to both of the above items.

 

Simple. Now for the spin.

 

I have just returned from a one month visit to my old hometown. Business people are using the word "hopefully" - having just injected personal funds to pay the business accounts. The latest ANZ business confidence survey is based on pixie glitter.

 

 

 

 

 

Up
0

Agree...

regards

Up
0

so where do people turn if the markets stagnant?

they have to borrow.  borrow to live, borrow to keep working, borrow to keep the business refreshed in light of poor retained earnings.

Who wins? the lenders of created money  (as opposed to save-loan societies).

Who is the biggest loser, the people and the government because the interest is tax deuctible and reduces ability to buy and ability to pay higher wages.

Up
0

They are blaming this on timing issues again?

 

" half of that would persist through to the end of the year with the rest was accounted for by timing differences."

 

This is at least the 3rd time they have blamed the shortfall on 'timing issues'  that will reverse out.  What time period do they use, ten year blocks?

Up
0

A mere bagatelle.

Only  a deficit down down of 884 rich immigrants at a million a pop.

I do belive a Royal flush will beat the next "election spend-up".

Bang goes another million or two.

But who is counting.

 

 

Up
0

Gosh I wonder how much revenue is not being delivered by the SOEs/

Oh well

Up
0