Dear Mr English, I don't want a tax cut

[Clockwork]

LOL must spread rep....etc



You've got to be joking mate!! What business friendly media? They are virtually non-existent. Ok, Brian Fellow knows his stuff but most journalists are the fruit of arts degrees and have firmly-established leftish politics in their blood. In fact one of the common complaints regarding all branches of the media is how shallow and biased they are when it comes to economics.

I'm afraid I can't agree. Case in point, the media's discussion of the impact of the GST hike, post budget. Every story they did was accompanied by images of and referances to consumer electronics and other similar household "discretionary" spending. I found myself thinking "It's not so bad, I can buy early, adhead of the raise, or just put off buying shit until I can better afford the new price" but then I realised that the true impact of the GST rise will be in all those expenses that I can't avoid. The power bill, the food bill, clothing, petrol, rates, vehicle maintainence, insurance etc... These are the expenses that you can't aviod and put off. All conveniantly ignored by the media.

[Brian d marge]

I'm afraid I can't agree. Case in point, the media's discussion of the impact of the GST hike, post budget. Every story they did was accompanied by images of and referances to consumer electronics and other similar household "discretionary" spending. I found myself thinking "It's not so bad, I can buy early, adhead of the raise, or just put off buying shit until I can better afford the new price" but then I realised that the true impact of the GST rise will be in all those expenses that I can't avoid. The power bill, the food bill, clothing, petrol, rates, vehicle maintainence, insurance etc... These are the expenses that you can't aviod and put off. All conveniantly ignored by the media.

good point , which evil basket puts a tax on basic food ( oh it would be too hard to administer ,???? one uncooked potatoe , no gst, just get a copy of Englands wartime ration book )


oh The sheriff of Nottingham ( and NZ governments )

Stephen

[MisterD]

good point , which evil basket puts a tax on basic food

One that understands that as soon as you create exceptions you're creating a channel for money into lawyers' pockets...

[MikeL]

Sighs again.

No GST on basic foods.
See other threads on this issue. I can't be bothered repeating the arguments, but it comes down to this:
Other countries do it. We don't.
We would prefer to make things easier for business than to help the poor.
We invent excuses such as arguments over whether a product is a cake or a biscuit. For the vast majority of products a simple definition would work easily.
If we had the political will to do it, we could.

As usual ask the question Cui bono? (Who benefits?) and you will start to understand how things get done (or not done) in this country.

[Brian d marge]

Sighs again.

No GST on basic foods.
See other threads on this issue. I can't be bothered repeating the arguments, but it comes down to this:
Other countries do it. We don't.
We would prefer to make things easier for business than to help the poor.
We invent excuses such as arguments over whether a product is a cake or a biscuit. For the vast majority of products a simple definition would work easily.
If we had the political will to do it, we could.

As usual ask the question Cui bono? (Who benefits?) and you will start to understand how things get done (or not done) in this country.

Must spread rep before blah blah ..

You know sometime I wonder just how hard IS it to run a country

Stephen

[Oscar]

the reason we keep owing more and more is because the mp's keep giving themselves such fucking massive pay increases.
Bill to make the workplace a smokefree environment= 15 years to pass thru parliament.
Bill to give themselves a payrise of 15%= 2 hours to pass thru parliament.

That's helpful.
We'll stop paying decent salaries to the guys charged with running the country and getting us out of this mess. That way we'll end up with worse than we've got now (worse than nandor or Dianne Yates - is that possible???)

The crappy pay for MP's is why we get so many seat warmers in the first place.

[Oscar]

Sighs again.

No GST on basic foods.
See other threads on this issue. I can't be bothered repeating the arguments, but it comes down to this:
Other countries do it. We don't.
We would prefer to make things easier for business than to help the poor.
We invent excuses such as arguments over whether a product is a cake or a biscuit. For the vast majority of products a simple definition would work easily.
If we had the political will to do it, we could.

As usual ask the question Cui bono? (Who benefits?) and you will start to understand how things get done (or not done) in this country.

So when we make the system even more complicated, who pays the addition compliance costs?

And as for the "invented argument" you refer to - how would you solve it?
Maybe you should show the Aussie and Brit Govt's your "simple definitions", because they can't solve the problem.

[Jonno.]

Sighs again.

No GST on basic foods.
See other threads on this issue. I can't be bothered repeating the arguments, but it comes down to this:
Other countries do it. We don't.
We would prefer to make things easier for business than to help the poor.
We invent excuses such as arguments over whether a product is a cake or a biscuit. For the vast majority of products a simple definition would work easily.
If we had the political will to do it, we could.

As usual ask the question Cui bono? (Who benefits?) and you will start to understand how things get done (or not done) in this country.

If we take away GST from food do you think the price will just drop 12.5%?
I've never seen a good arguement for taking the GST off food. All I see is

"Other countries do it"
"poor people are poor"
"waaah".

Do you realise that poor people use a lot of services which are tax funded?
Where do you think the loss of revenue will come or go from?

[MikeL]

So when we make the system even more complicated, who pays the addition compliance costs?

And as for the "invented argument" you refer to - how would you solve it?
Maybe you should show the Aussie and Brit Govt's your "simple definitions", because they can't solve the problem.

Yet another sigh. See what I mean?

Can you assure me that the additional compliance costs will outweigh the advantages? How do you know? You can quantify the compliance costs (and I will be very surprised if whatever figures business bandies about haven't been carefully selected) but that's not the issue. The fact is that the compliance costs apply to business and the benefits apply to people. It's not an accounting equation, it's a social policy decision. The countries you mention (and there are more) have clearly decided that there are benefits to their more complicated schemes. Are you saying that the U.K., Australia, France and a lot more civilised and progressive societies have got it wrong? Do you imagine that if their schemes were so terrible they wouldn't be changing them? Tell me which countries are actively debating changing from multiple rates to a single-rated GST/VAT?
You want me to suggest a solution that will introduce differential rates without making the system more complicated. You miss the point entirely. There's only a problem if you believe that lowering compliance costs is more valuable to society than a fairer tax system.

[davereid]

If we take away GST from food do you think the price will just drop 12.5%?
I've never seen a good arguement for taking the GST off food. All I see is

"Other countries do it"
"poor people are poor"
"waaah".

Do you realise that poor people use a lot of services which are tax funded?
Where do you think the loss of revenue will come or go from?

If you don't charge GST on food, do you allow the man who grew the food to claim GST ? He will pay GST on his fertiliser, his seeds, his rates, his insurance, his fuel, indeed everthing he inputs. If he can't charge GST why could he claim it ?

If he can claim it, how far does that go ? You may not charge GST on food. What about on transporting the food to market, or supermarket ? Who decides what is "basic" food and who pays for that ? If you don't charge it on fresh meat, vegetables and bread, how do you justify charging it on McDonalds ? Is it because its cooked ? So a roast chicken sandwich would have GST on as its cooked. But a smoked salmon one might not, as its smoked not cooked. Or maybe sushi would not be charged GST as its raw and cold.

[Oscar]

Yet another sigh. See what I mean?

Can you assure me that the additional compliance costs will outweigh the advantages? How do you know? You can quantify the compliance costs (and I will be very surprised if whatever figures business bandies about haven't been carefully selected) but that's not the issue. The fact is that the compliance costs apply to business and the benefits apply to people. It's not an accounting equation, it's a social policy decision. The countries you mention (and there are more) have clearly decided that there are benefits to their more complicated schemes. Are you saying that the U.K., Australia, France and a lot more civilised and progressive societies have got it wrong? Do you imagine that if their schemes were so terrible they wouldn't be changing them? Tell me which countries are actively debating changing from multiple rates to a single-rated GST/VAT?
You want me to suggest a solution that will introduce differential rates without making the system more complicated. You miss the point entirely. There's only a problem if you believe that lowering compliance costs is more valuable to society than a fairer tax system.

(sigh, another narrow focused lefty)

If you want to talk social equity, fine, but the type and application of consumption tax is only a small part of the equation. Bleating about how consumption tax is levied on essentials is a narrow and populist approach to the debate. You need to add in Income Tax, excise, duty and the type of services provided to the taxpayer by the Govt.

[Brian d marge]

any reduction in the basic food costs ( and basic utilities ) will be very welcome by a whole bunch of people

Doesn't matter how you justify it or not

Stephen

[MikeL]

(sigh, another narrow focused lefty)

If you want to talk social equity, fine, but the type and application of consumption tax is only a small part of the equation. Bleating about how consumption tax is levied on essentials is a narrow and populist approach to the debate. You need to add in Income Tax, excise, duty and the type of services provided to the taxpayer by the Govt.

Yes I do want to talk social equity because that's what the debate should be about. Have I said that removing GST from food is the only measure to take? Have I suggested that other forms of taxation should be left out of the debate? Do I have to lay out a complete, coherent programme of economic reform before you consider my opinion on GST worth taking seriously? (Better answer no to that last question because I might just do that and you'll have to read it all before you can dismiss it with a sneer and a "bleating lefty" label). Who's being narrow-minded?

BTW bleating is what sheep do. They're stupid creatures who can only follow what all the others are doing. They can't think for themselves. Their brains can only form simple ideas, like labels.

[MikeL]

If you don't charge GST on food, do you allow the man who grew the food to claim GST ? He will pay GST on his fertiliser, his seeds, his rates, his insurance, his fuel, indeed everthing he inputs. If he can't charge GST why could he claim it ?

If he can claim it, how far does that go ? You may not charge GST on food. What about on transporting the food to market, or supermarket ? Who decides what is "basic" food and who pays for that ? If you don't charge it on fresh meat, vegetables and bread, how do you justify charging it on McDonalds ? Is it because its cooked ? So a roast chicken sandwich would have GST on as its cooked. But a smoked salmon one might not, as its smoked not cooked. Or maybe sushi would not be charged GST as its raw and cold.

Have you actually read what I said? Do you understand it? Can you dispute what I wrote about other countries accepting greater complexity for the social equity benefits? Can you actually refute any of this, instead of simply following the party line on compliance costs?

[davereid]

Have you actually read what I said? Do you understand it? Can you dispute what I wrote about other countries accepting greater complexity for the social equity benefits? Can you actually refute any of this, instead of simply following the party line on compliance costs?

Should we charge carbon tax on food ? Rates on land used for food production ? Should producers of "basic food items" pay ACC or income tax ? should the state mandate maximum profit margins on food ?