IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nzt/nztans/an26-03.html

Raising taxes to fund health and pensions in an ageing New Zealand – Alternative tax bases

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Binning
  • Murat Özbilgin
  • Christie Smith
  • Hanna Vu

    (The Treasury)

Abstract

New Zealand, like many advanced economies, faces long-term fiscal pressures arising from population ageing. Over coming decades, demographic change is projected to increase government expenditure on New Zealand Superannuation and public health care relative to the size of the economy. Addressing these pressures will ultimately require policy choices about how government revenue, expenditure, and public debt evolve over time. This Analytical Note is one of a series of background papers that informed the Treasury’s 2025 Long-term Fiscal Statement (LTFS). The LTFS considers a broad range of possible responses to long-term fiscal pressures, including changes to government spending, revenue, and the design of major policy settings. The background papers supporting the LTFS provide additional technical detail on particular modelling approaches and policy scenarios, complementing the more accessible analysis presented in the LTFS itself. In this paper we use the Treasury’s overlapping generations (OLG) model to explore how different tax bases interact with demographic change and fiscal sustainability. The scenarios examined are stylised analytical exercises designed to illustrate the economic mechanisms within the modelling framework rather than represent specific policy proposals. The model assumes that health and pension spending follow projections based on current policy settings, and that tax policy adjusts over time to fund these expenditures and stabilise the government debt-to-GDP ratio. We examine three illustrative fiscal strategies. In the Baseline strategy, increases in expenditure are funded through higher marginal tax rates on labour income. In the GST strategy, expenditure increases are funded through higher consumption taxes. In the Combination strategy, fiscal adjustment is shared across labour income taxes, consumption taxes, and capital income taxes. These alternative strategies highlight how the choice of tax base affects economic behaviour and fiscal outcomes within the model. Taxes influence labour supply, saving, investment, and consumption decisions, which in turn affect economic activity and the size of the tax bases available to fund government spending. Because the labour, consumption, and capital tax bases differ in size and respond differently to taxation, the strategies generate different macroeconomic and fiscal outcomes over the projection horizon. Within the model, strategies that rely entirely on labour income taxation lead to larger reductions in effective labour supply and economic activity over time than strategies that spread fiscal adjustment across other tax bases. Strategies that rely more heavily on consumption taxation or a combination of tax bases tend to generate somewhat stronger labour supply and capital accumulation outcomes in the long run. However, the transition paths and distributional consequences differ across strategies, and households born in different periods and with different lifetime income profiles experience different outcomes. The OLG framework can be used to examine these distributional and intergenerational effects. The model shows that the alternative fiscal strategies have different implications for households with different lifetime income levels and for people born in different years. Some strategies impose larger adjustment costs on households currently alive, while others shift more of the fiscal adjustment toward future generations. While the analysis highlights the efficiency implications of different tax bases within the model, governments may pursue particular tax structures for a range of reasons, including redistribution or equity considerations, and administrative or political constraints. These broader considerations are outside the scope of this Analytical Note. The purpose of this paper is instead to provide technical insight into how alternative tax bases interact with demographic change within our OLG modelling framework. Together with the other background papers released alongside the LTFS, it contributes to the evidence base supporting discussion of New Zealand’s long-term fiscal sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Binning & Murat Özbilgin & Christie Smith & Hanna Vu, 2026. "Raising taxes to fund health and pensions in an ageing New Zealand – Alternative tax bases," Treasury Analytical Notes Series an26/03, New Zealand Treasury.
  • Handle: RePEc:nzt:nztans:an26/03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2026-03/an26-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Auerbach, Alan J & Kotlikoff, Laurence J & Skinner, Jonathan, 1983. "The Efficiency Gains from Dynamic Tax Reform," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 24(1), pages 81-100, February.
    2. David Altig, 2001. "Simulating Fundamental Tax Reform in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 574-595, June.
    3. Eric M. Leeper, 2015. "Fiscal Analysis is Darned Hard," CAEPR Working Papers 2015-021, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    4. Shinichi Nishiyama & Kent Smetters, 2005. "Consumption Taxes and Economic Efficiency with Idiosyncratic Wage Shocks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(5), pages 1088-1115, October.
    5. Auerbach, Alan J & Kotlikoff, Laurence J, 1987. "Evaluating Fiscal Policy with a Dynamic Simulation Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 49-55, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrick Macnamara & Myroslav Pidkuyko & Raffaele Rossi, 2022. "Taxing Consumption in Unequal Economies," Economics Discussion Paper Series 2210, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    2. Andrew Binning & Murat Özbilgin & Christie Smith & Hanna Vu, 2026. "Raising taxes to fund health and pensions in an ageing New Zealand – Alternative labour tax progressivity," Treasury Analytical Notes Series an26/04, New Zealand Treasury.
    3. Akira Okamoto, 2025. "The optimum quantity of debt for an aging Japan: welfare and demographic dynamics," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 1-52, January.
    4. Woodland, A., 2016. "Taxation, Pensions, and Demographic Change," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 713-780, Elsevier.
    5. Okamoto, Akira, 2025. "Pension reform for an aging Japan: Welfare and demographic dynamics," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Okamoto, Akira, 2021. "Immigration policy and demographic dynamics: Welfare analysis of an aging Japan," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    7. Anh D. M. Nguyen & Luisanna Onnis & Raffaele Rossi, 2021. "The Macroeconomic Effects of Income and Consumption Tax Changes," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 439-466, May.
    8. William Gale & Kyle Pomerleau, 2023. "Consumption Taxes: The Good, The Bad, And The Unworkable," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(3), pages 846-852, June.
    9. Heer, Burkhard & Polito, Vito & Wickens, Michael R., 2020. "Population aging, social security and fiscal limits," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    10. Andrew Binning & Murat Özbilgin & Christie Smith, 2026. "An overlapping generations model to investigate the fiscal implications of New Zealand's ageing population," Treasury Working Paper Series wp26/01, New Zealand Treasury.
    11. Okamoto, Akira, 2022. "Intergenerational earnings mobility and demographic dynamics: Welfare analysis of an aging Japan," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 76-104.
    12. Shinichi Nishiyama & Kent Smetters, 2006. "Social Security Privatization with Income-Mortality Correlation," Working Papers wp140, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    13. Andersen, Torben M. & Bhattacharya, Joydeep & Gestsson, Marias H., 2021. "Pareto-improving transition to fully funded pensions under myopia," Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 169-212, June.
    14. Lopez-Daneri, Martin, 2016. "NIT picking: The macroeconomic effects of a Negative Income Tax," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-16.
    15. George Kudrna & Alan D. Woodland, 2013. "Macroeconomic and Welfare Effects of the 2010 Changes to Mandatory Superannuation," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89(287), pages 445-468, December.
    16. Fullerton, Don & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 2002. "Tax incidence," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 26, pages 1787-1872, Elsevier.
    17. Gerhard Glomm & Juergen Jung, 2013. "The Timing of Redistribution," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(1), pages 50-80, July.
    18. Emin Gahramanov & Xueli Tang, 2013. "Should We Refinance Unfunded Social Security?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(319), pages 532-565, July.
    19. Nezih Guner & Remzi Kaygusuz & Gustavo Ventura, 2008. "Taxation, aggregates and the household," Working Papers 660, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    20. Heer, Burkhard & Polito, Vito & Wickens, Michael R., 2023. "Pension Systems (Un)sustainability and Fiscal Constraints: A Comparative Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 18181, Centre for Economic Policy Research.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nzt:nztans:an26/03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CSS I&T Web & Publishing, The Treasury (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tregvnz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.