As well as an annual tax-free income of NZ$19,400 there would be add-ons for disability ($6000), housing (average $6500 for singles, $10,500 families), sole parents ($9500), over-65s ($10,000 for singles, $5250 for a couple) and children ($6750 to $18,250 each, depending on age).<\/p>\n
The package would replace all existing main benefits, NZ Super, the accommodation supplement, Working for Families tax credits, Best Start and paid parental leave.<\/p>\n
The proposal gets around the second problem of higher income taxes by funding the UBI and add-ons with a tax on the unimproved value of land: 1.75% annually on urban land, and 0.5% on rural land.<\/p>\n
This means only relatively minor tweaks to the income tax schedule would be needed. The top marginal tax rate of 39% would stay.<\/p>\n
But there are drawbacks to both these solutions.<\/p>\n
![\"Opportunity](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/opportunity-party-leader-qiulae-wong-speaks-in-april-2026-UMDZ2IGWY5DH3POJ3WRG6PJFKE.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Opportunity Party leader Qiulae Wong. (Source: 1News)<\/p>\n
Little help for the poorest<\/p>\n
Although Opportunity downplays it, much of the existing welfare apparatus would still be necessary.<\/p>\n
True, there would be no work testing. But a range of other eligibility tests would continue: health status for the disability supplement; relationship status for the sole-parent add-on; cost verification for the housing allowance; and shared-care rules for the child allowances.<\/p>\n
Moreover, all these add-ons are targeted, so would require income testing. Individually, the supplements may be justified. But collectively they raise an obvious question: if all this is needed, why bother with the UBI?<\/p>\n
A second and more serious problem is that the proposal helps the worst off the least, namely beneficiaries on below-poverty-level incomes. To propose such a major change to the tax\/benefit system and yet do so little to address welfare poverty suggests a blind spot around the biggest problems facing the current system.<\/p>\n
This is highlighted in the graph below which compares Opportunity\u2019s proposals with current policy for two family types: a single person alone, and a sole parent with one young (two-year-old) child.<\/p>\n
![\"This](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/this-graph-shows-net-income-under-opportunitys-proposal-comp-BMN5WNDT4BA2JAPREND5EFXWEQ.png\")
<\/p>\n
This graph shows net income under Opportunity\u2019s proposal compared to the status quo, before taking account of the land value tax (OPP = Opportunity Party). (Source: Supplied)<\/p>\n
The horizontal axis shows different levels of earnings from nil to $200,000. The vertical axis shows the household\u2019s in-the-hand income after taking account of income taxes, benefits, the citizen\u2019s income and add-ons.<\/p>\n
For simplicity, the current accommodation supplement and Opportunity\u2019s housing add-on are excluded. While the absolute values are different, the broad picture is the same for other household types.<\/p>\n
For all annual gross incomes above about $20,000, both households are clearly better off under Opportunity\u2019s proposal (before considering the land value tax).<\/p>\n
The exact amount varies depending on income. But for earnings over about $30,000, these single-adult households would typically gain $11,000 or more \u2013 enough for a homeowner to pay land value tax on land worth up to around $650,000. The amount is considerably higher for couples because each person receives the citizen\u2019s income.<\/p>\n
However, gains from Opportunity\u2019s plan are much smaller (and in some cases negative) for people with little or no market income \u2013 that is, all beneficiaries and many superannuitants. A single adult with no income gains just $27 a year \u2013 52 cents a week.<\/p>\n
If they supplemented their citizen\u2019s income with a few hours’ work, they would actually be worse off than under current rules.<\/p>\n
The situation is slightly better for the sole parent household in this example. If they had no other income, they would be $2869 better off under the tax reset (less if they work a few hours on top of the UBI).<\/p>\n
Again assuming no effect from the land value tax, a person on a disability benefit with no other income is between $3324 better off and $984 worse off, depending on how much disability allowance they currently receive. A single superannuitant with no other income gains just $532 a year.<\/p>\n
These effects seem intentional. Rather than prioritising poverty reduction, Opportunity\u2019s citizen income package has been designed to more or less match current welfare payments, with the bigger gains higher up the income distribution.<\/p>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/opportunity-party-tax-calculator-YHGSW5V5MRGJPAVQ5EBVDJZFVY.png\")
<\/p>\n
The Opportunity Party has a tax calculator on its website. (Source: 1News)<\/p>\n
Problems with a land value tax<\/p>\n
The land value tax does have some positives. Land taxes are economically efficient and relatively hard to avoid, and a land value tax would be an incentive for more intensive land use.<\/p>\n
Arguably, reducing New Zealand\u2019s heavy reliance on income taxes and GST by switching some revenue gathering from income to wealth could also be seen as an advantage.<\/p>\n
But there would be some serious losers.<\/p>\n
Introducing the tax would almost certainly be associated with a large fall in land values. A significant number of homeowners could suddenly face the risk of negative equity.<\/p>\n
Paying a tax bill that would likely be more than $10,000 annually on an average home would be near impossible for many superannuitants, beneficiaries and others.<\/p>\n
There are ways to mitigate some of these problems. But even leaving the politics of taxation aside, implementing a new land tax would be fraught.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the fundamental problem with Opportunity\u2019s proposal is that it attempts to construct a UBI-based welfare system broadly within the current level of total tax revenue.<\/p>\n
The result is a structure that does little for those at the bottom of the income distribution and yet retains many of the current targeting complexities.<\/p>\n
An alternative UBI package could produce better outcomes for those relying on benefits. But that would require higher total tax revenue, making its political feasibility even less likely.<\/p>\n
Michael Fletcher is a adjunct research fellow for the School of Government at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington.<\/p>\n