Electorate in two camps

The "hip-pocket" election has divided New Zealanders into two camps: Deserving families (60,000) who stand to benefit from Labour's tax-relief package, and single or better-off people who will gain from National's plan to cut personal taxes (85 per cent will pay only 19c in the dollar). There are winners and losers in both camps.

Those on $40,000 will get an extra $28 a week under National. That drops to $11 for someone on $35,000.

But business is not worried about the niceties of such equations. When it comes to the policies on offer from the major parties it wants a mix that will spur economic growth.

About 90 per cent of chief executives surveyed by the Herald believe National has the best policy mix on offer at this election. Just 5 per cent plumped for Labour's policy mix. Act and the Greens drew marginal support for their policies.

The same support levels are replicated for National's tax cuts compared to Labour's family-oriented tax relief, which drew support from just 7.6 per cent of respondents.

"National's is less inflationary as cutting taxes incentivises productivity and is not necessarily going to increase labour costs," said a forestry chief executive. "Labour's targeted relief is highly inflationary as unearned income will likely be spent. All you need to do is breed - that will make demand for a few products skyrocket for the next 14 to 16 years."

National and Labour have each accused the other of "vote-buying" and "out-right bribery" during the election campaign. Nearly 60 per cent of CEOs surveyed are concerned that Labour's package may be fiscally unsustainable. But National is not off the hook- 12 per cent find its tax package unsustainable. A further 30 per cent say both parties' policies are fiscally unsustainable.

"In the short term both are sustainable, but the welfare orientation of Labour's approach risks under-mining long-term economic performance and stability," was the refrain.