Describing a tax cut as being funded by borrowings is incorrect. I would have expected Bernard Hickey to understand the distinction, but obviously not! Just goes to show that people publishing things online aren't necessarily fact-based
Tax is the Crown's revenue. It's why the IRD is the Inland Revenue Department. When a government makes a "tax cut", they change the rules and reduce the Crown's revenue.
It's like operating a shop and making fewer sales. A shopowner doesn't then borrow to make up for lower sales. They borrow to pay expenses (if they keep spending at the same level).
It's impossible to borrow to fund reduced revenue. You only borrow if you need to pay for something. Like the Crown borrowing to enable it to spend.
Characterising "funding a tax cut with borrowings" is impossible and incorrect. Citizens earn their income. If the Crown decides to allow them to retain more of it (i.e. a tax cut), it is a loss of revenue. If the Crown wishes to then keep spending, then it borrows to keep spending levels the same
