Capital gains tax is the defining economic argument of this election, and the parties split further than the usual left–right line on state ownership and the superannuation age. Here is every position, with the source for each.
Who pays tax and how much, how big the state should be, and who should own the banks, power companies and supermarkets. All positions last verified 13 August 2026.
New Zealand should tax the profit people make when they sell an investment property.
This is called a capital gains tax. Right now, most profit from selling a rental or investment property isn't taxed. Every proposal on the table excludes the family home.
ACT
Strongly opposes
Opposed. Campaigning explicitly as the party of 'no new taxes' and a faster path to surplus through spending cuts.
Campaigning on a 28% tax on profit from selling investment property from 1 July 2027, with every dollar ring-fenced for health. Excludes the family home, farms, KiwiSaver, shares and businesses.
At the moment, if you buy a rental for $600,000 and sell it for $800,000, that $200,000 gain is usually not taxed at all, while someone earning $200,000 from wages pays tax on every dollar. A capital gains tax would tax the profit when the property is sold, not while you hold it. Every proposal on the table exempts the home you live in.
Supporters say
Someone earning money from a rental should pay tax like someone earning it from a wage.
New Zealand is one of very few developed countries without one, and it's why so much money goes into houses rather than businesses.
It raises revenue from a small group without touching most people's income.
Opponents say
It's a tax on investment, and investment is what builds new houses and businesses in the first place.
It's complicated and expensive to administer, and creates incentives to just never sell.
Landlords will pass the cost to tenants as higher rent.
People who own more than $10 million should pay a yearly tax on it.
A wealth tax charges a small percentage each year on what someone owns above a threshold, rather than on what they earn. The Greens propose 2.5% a year above $10m, with the family home exempt.
ACT
Strongly opposes
Strongly opposed. Campaigning on flattening income tax rates and cutting spending instead.
No published 2026 position on a wealth tax. Its platform contains no new capital taxes and relies on state ownership instead, but it has not explicitly ruled one out, so this is inferred from the policy it has published rather than a stated commitment.
Supports taxing accumulated wealth. The 2026 platform commits to making the wealthiest 'pay their fair share'; its most recent detailed tax policy proposed 2% on net wealth above $2m rising to 8% above $10m.
Income tax is charged on what you earn each year. A wealth tax is charged on what you own, a small percentage of your total assets, every year, above a threshold. The Greens propose 2.5% a year on net assets above $10 million, with the family home exempt. 'Net' means after subtracting debt.
Supporters say
The wealthiest New Zealanders pay a lower effective tax rate than a nurse, because their money grows as assets rather than income.
It funds services from a group small enough that almost nobody reading this would pay it.
Several European countries have run one successfully.
Opponents say
Wealthy people and their capital leave, so it raises less than forecast, several countries have repealed theirs.
Valuing private businesses, farms and shares every single year is expensive and easy to argue about.
It can force asset-rich, cash-poor people, like farmers, to sell things to pay a bill.
The government should fix the deficit by spending less, not by taxing more.
The government is currently running a deficit. Parties broadly split between closing it by spending less or by taxing more.
ACT
Strongly supports
Its central pitch, merging ministries (including folding Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry for Women and the Ministry for Pacific Peoples into Culture and Heritage) and finding savings year after year with no new taxes.
The government currently spends more than it collects. It can close that gap by spending less, taxing more, or growing the economy so tax revenue rises on its own. This question is about the first option versus the second.
Supporters say
Government has grown faster than the economy can pay for; debt costs money that could fund services.
Every dollar the state doesn't take is a dollar a business or household decides how to use.
Ministries can be merged and back-office roles cut without touching frontline services.
Opponents say
'Back office' cuts usually reach the front line eventually, fewer staff processing consents, claims or hospital admissions.
Cutting during a downturn takes demand out of the economy and can make the deficit worse.
Some spending, early childhood, preventive health, saves more later than it costs now.
The government should buy back a major bank and break up the power companies and supermarkets.
NZ First campaigns on nationalising BNZ and merging it with Kiwibank, splitting the four big power 'gentailers', and breaking up the supermarket duopoly.
ACT
Strongly opposes
Strongly opposed, argues for less state involvement in markets, not more.
Middle position, proposes a 'NZ Future Fund' to invest in domestic business, but has not committed to nationalising banks or splitting energy companies.
Flagship policy, nationalise BNZ and merge with Kiwibank to form a Crown-owned 'National Bank of New Zealand', split the four gentailers, and split Foodstuffs into two cooperatives.
In several markets, banking, electricity, groceries, a small number of firms hold most of the market. This question asks whether the government should intervene structurally: buying a bank back into public ownership, or legally forcing companies to split into smaller competing pieces.
Supporters say
Concentrated markets let firms charge more than they could if they faced real competition.
Electricity and groceries are essentials, you can't opt out, so normal market discipline is weak.
A publicly owned bank competes on price rather than maximising profit for overseas shareholders.
Opponents say
Buying a bank costs billions that could fund hospitals or debt repayment.
Forced break-ups create years of uncertainty exactly when the energy sector needs to invest heavily.
Splitting companies doesn't automatically create competitors, you can end up with the same concentration in new packaging.
The age you can start getting NZ Super should rise above 65.
The pension currently starts at 65 and isn't income-tested. Its cost is rising fast. 58% of voters told an RNZ poll they want it kept at 65.
ACT
Strongly supports
Supports lifting the age of eligibility, arguing the current settings are fiscally unsustainable.
NZ Super is paid to everyone from 65, regardless of income or assets. It isn't a fund you paid into, it's paid out of current taxes. As people live longer and the population ages, fewer working-age taxpayers support more retirees.
Supporters say
People live years longer than when 65 was set; the settings haven't kept up.
Without change, super crowds out spending on health, education and everything else.
Changes are always signalled decades ahead, so nobody near retirement is affected.
Opponents say
A universal pension at 65 is a promise people have planned their lives around.
It hits manual workers hardest, a builder's body may not last to 67 even if an office worker's does.
Māori and Pacific life expectancy is lower, so a higher age means a smaller share of those populations collect it at all.