It is no surprise tax arguments are sparking the most vociferous arguments in this election's leaders' debates.
Taxes are fundamental to everybody and to government policy - how much is extracted from whom, how much revenue can the Government accumulate and who receives what from taxes paid.
Prime Minister John Key landed a blow when he caught Labour leader David Cunliffe on details of Labour's planned capital gains tax, while Mr Cunliffe is correct to portray possible National tax cuts as vague and potentially irresponsible.
New Zealand, with skilful financial management and restraint as well as on the backs of dairy cows, rode through the financial crisis in better shape than most.
It did so also in part because the Government inherited relatively low debt.
It had the leeway to borrow heavily during the rainy years.
If reasonable times come to pass in the next few years, as is forecast, then even small tax cuts are a poor idea.
New Zealand needs steadily to reduce debt back from 26% of its gross domestic product to its former level below 20%.
During the past six years debt has risen by $60 billion.
New Zealand must be in a position to cope with another international shock and needs to minimise the drain from paying debt interest.
As it is, with an ageing population, the costs of superannuation are steadily climbing as are health bills.
Increasing numbers of older people living longer inevitably cost taxpayers a lot more.
For these reasons, payments to the ''Cullen'' fund, a nest egg to help ameliorate such pressures, needs to resume as soon as a reasonable surplus can be established.
It can't wait, as National proposes, until debt is again below 20%.
Mr Key justifies the talk of possible small tax cuts to low and middle-income earners by explaining it as a clear indication of the Government's philosophy and its aspirations.
As much money as possible should stay in the wallets of those who earned it.
But the lack of detail, uncertainty and delay until April 2017 at the earliest, mean Mr Key's announcement, in reality, as Mr Cunliffe, said, was a ''fizzer''.
Labour is determined, with David Parker as its prudent spokesman, to prove itself fiscally responsible.
It does not want to be labelled as a tax-and-spend party and be caught again with the effective Key jab from 2011 ''show me the money''.
It is doing this in part by proposing a capital gains tax.
In principle, this tax makes sense because it attempts to prevent distortions caused by different treatment for income earned directly compared to via capital gain.
The devil, however, is in the detail.
While the theory may appear sound, the complications and the proposed exemptions are such that the practice could be fraught.
Hopefully, it would not turn into a make-work scheme for accountants.
And while it might dampen the Auckland or Canterbury housing markets a little, overseas experience shows such effects could be relatively minor.
The tax and its details need to be better explained and sold if people are to be convinced of its merits.
The leader himself needs to be on the front-foot on the issue.
One of the difficulties for the public around all the parties and their costings is justified scepticism about how the figures are calculated.
The Greens, for example, on the surface seem to be exemplary stewards of the public purse.
A problem, however, is so much is so dependent on all sorts of assumptions.
All it takes is sustained growth and surpluses blossom.
All it takes is a downturn and the ink rapidly turns red.
Thus, voters will have to consider wider polices and full party packages because so much impacts on economic success and from there to budgets.
Will, for example, higher minimum wages help or hinder?
Will a less flexible labour market make a significant difference?
Are certain environmental policies essential or an additional impediment that will curtail development?
Who can we trust most - or should that be distrust the least - to perform best for the benefit of New Zealand and New Zealanders.
