Minor parties and trade unions found nothing to praise in National's tax cuts policy.

* The Greens described it as "a fake free lunch" which would increase debt, widen the gap between rich and poor and suck resources out of research and science.

"Most of the benefit will be felt by those on above average incomes," said co-leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Russel Norman.

"Even a one cent drop in the top rate is a big windfall for those earning half a million a year. Meanwhile families earning less than $14,000 will get nothing."

* New Zealand First urged people to "look behind the glossy headlines" for the real agenda.

"National's attempts to focus all attention on its `mine's bigger than yours' tax package is an exercise in sophistry," said party leader Winston Peters.

"Today's announcement, like some unwanted Christmas present, is just 1990s policies re-wrapped in the shiny, smiley parcel that is John Key."

* Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton said it was anti-family and anti-business.

"You get more if you don't have children and almost nothing if you do," he said.

"In tight financial conditions globally, the priority for tax relief should be for the poorest and for economic development. National has done the opposite."

* United Future leader Peter Dunne, who is minister of revenue, said it was complicated and would be difficult to administer.

"Superannuitants and low income earners are the big losers," he said.

"Introducing more tax thresholds and a top rate of 37 percent is complex, not especially fair and involves cutting tax rebates for research and development and fiddling with the highly successful KiwiSaver scheme."

* ACT said John Key had failed to provide any economic leadership or direction.

"I can see now why John Key doesn't want Sir Roger Douglas in his cabinet," said party leader Rodney Hide.

"The man he sees eye-to-eye with is (finance minister) Michael Cullen.

"What is needed is a recovery package that includes capping government expenditure, slashing red tape, and an immediate abolition of Cullen's 39 cent envy tax."

Other reaction included:

* The Council of Trade Unions said the policy did not address New Zealand's low wage problem and significantly discouraged long term savings.

"The language of their announcement is pitched at those on the average wage, but two-thirds of workers earn less than this," CTU economist Peter Conway said.

"John Key's language around belt tightening in the public service will also send a chill down the spine of every public servant in the country. National gutted public services in the 1990s and they look set to do so again."

* The Public Service Association said there was no way National could cut taxes so deeply without cutting jobs and services as well.

"For families throughout New Zealand, this means fewer public services in their community and fewer jobs in their local economy as public service workers are laid off," said PSA secretary Brenda Pilott.

* The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing union, the biggest in the country, said the package was reckless short term thinking.

"If this package were in place today, the CEO of Telecom would be more than $500 a week better off while a family on a single average wage of $44,000 a year and receiving Working for Families would actually pay more tax and at the same time lose their employer's contribution to their KiwiSaver scheme," said EPMU national secretary Andrew Little.