Nadine Higgins: National wins favour as Budget gives a little bit to everyone

Such a tidal wave of information is released on budget day it's difficult to work out what it all adds up to.

As has now become customary, the politicians attempt to summarise it pithily it for us and hope their clever label will become a headline. You might remember the "block of cheese" budget, the "chewing gum" budget, the mother of all budgets.

So, what of Steven Joyce's first Budget?

Labour called it a "rinky-dink, short-changing, one-dollar bill Budget". I dunno if that one's going to catch on - for a start they have to explain their calculation for how they get to the $1 figure, which undermines it headline worthiness.

You can't really blame them for failing to sock it to the Government though, right? National strayed right into Labour territory.

Act called it "Communism by stealth" - but David Seymour actually stole that line: it's the same line John Key used when Labour introduced Working for Families in 2004. That does give the line some punch given National is now doubling down on its support for a policy it used to oppose.

Winston Peters called it a wilful wanton weak woeful Budget. Points for alliteration I guess
Winston, but I'm not sure that cuts to the heart of it either.

The Greens call the tax package a "tax cut for the rich in disguise". A bribe. Perhaps it is, but that's a bit cliched. That's always the tired old charge when there are tax cuts in an election year and, come on - higher income earners always benefit more from a tax cut because they earn more and they pay more tax.

So the $20 weekly tax cut for those who earn more than $52,000 is about enough for - dare I say it - a smashed avocado breakfast. Think about it - it gives you a little bit of something nice now, but undoubtedly comes at the expense of helping you out in the long run. That's about the size of it. But let's not call it that, I think we've reached peak smashed avocado.

But it's quite simple, really. It's an electioneering Budget. Appropriately, it was drawn up by a campaign manager turned Finance Minister. It employs a scattergun approach that puts a sticking plaster over as many of the Government's vulnerable points as possible.

They're vulnerable when it comes to inequality and the working poor - so tax cuts and working for families increases.

They're vulnerable when it comes to housing - so the accommodation supplement increases.

They're vulnerable when it comes to health and particularly mental health - so dollars in that direction, too.

It doesn't do anything bold or visionary that's designed to fix the flaws in our economy.
But then they never promised that. It's aimed at placating those who feel like they haven't shared in the growth of the economy.

So ... are you placated?

- Nadine Higgins is a host at Newstalk ZB