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

[MikeL]

If we take away GST from food do you think the price will just drop 12.5%? I don't know. You tell me how much it will drop. But it will drop, and if GST is 15% not 12.5% the drop will be worthwhile.
I've never seen a good arguement for taking the GST off food. That's because you refuse to look, or rather to think deeply about it.
All I see is

"Other countries do it" Of course countries like the UK and Australia and France are so far behind good ol' NZ (leading the world in economic reform) that their experience can be safely dismissed
"poor people are poor" Perhaps poverty is a bad thing and should be reduced. Unless of course you think it' all their own fault
"waaah". Sounds like a bleat to me. You've been talking to too many sheep.

Do you realise that poor people use a lot of services which are tax funded? Yes, surprisingly, I was aware of that. And that you resent any of your hard-earned cash being spent on people less deserving than yourself
Where do you think the loss of revenue will come or go from? You tell me what you would do. Some suggestions: capital gains tax, fairer income tax rates, higher inheritance taxes, savings from eliminating tax loop-holes... Or if you can't stomach the thought of any higher taxes, you could cut expenditure. I'm sure private health insurance and private school fees and bigger student loans and all the other private costs won't matter to you, because you can afford them and you'll probably still be better off than paying all those taxes for benefits and services squandered on the poor.

Sooner or later people are going to have to stop deluding themselves that the current economic orthodoxy is the only possible one and that it only needs some fine-tuning...

[MikeL]

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 ?

Yes, yes, I'm sure you can go on ad infinitum (or ad nauseam) thinking up reasons why it's too hard. Let me think of some other things that should have been left in the too-hard basket:

* rules and regulations and exceptions and exemptions for immigration. Just let anybody in who wants to come. Or let nobody in.
* different punishments for different crimes. Either chop everyone's head off, or fine them 10 bucks, no matter what.
* IRD regulations. Remove all provisions for credits, rebates, expenses, etc. Just charge a flat rate (say 15% of turnover). Or abolish the IRD rules altogether. Let businesses decide how much tax they want to pay.

Perhaps at some point you could consider addressing the points I originally raised??

[Jonno.]

"Other countries do it" Of course countries like the UK and Australia and France are so far behind good ol' NZ (leading the world in economic reform) that their experience can be safely dismissed

"poor people are poor" Perhaps poverty is a bad thing and should be reduced. Unless of course you think it' all their own fault

"waaah". Sounds like a bleat to me. You've been talking to too many sheep.

None of that is a reason to drop gst on food. Look up how a subsidy works.

[Jonno.]

You seem to think removing GST on food is a silver bullet to end poverty, help middle class families and stick it to the rich man but what you fail to realise is that supermarkets have little or no incentive to reduce the price of food and even if they did initially they did initially it would be short lived.
You think food prices would drop 15%? Anything even close to that?
What would keeping the price of food 15% below what the food would be without the gst drop?

[Oscar]

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.

(sigh) It must be real tough, just knowing that you're so much smarter and so much righter than everyone else (sigh)

(sigh) However, I suggest that before you complain about wider debates and being taken seriously you might want to drop the condescending tone of your posts (sigh).

[Oscar]

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?

If you use the phrase "social equity" enough, someone might believe you.
However at the risk of engaging you in a wider debate,, complaining about differential rates of consumption tax without taking into account other taxes is pretty meaningless.

For example, Australia may not levy GST on food staples, but does it have anything like Working for Families?
Does the UK subsidise any foods?

[mashman]

Sooner or later people are going to have to stop deluding themselves that the current economic orthodoxy is the only possible one and that it only needs some fine-tuning...

surely not... people gotta make a profit ya know... gotta look after their own... fuck everyone else... why should i pay for someone that isn't up to the highest levels of intelligence... they're simply not trying hard enough... there's plenty of jobs... that's just a fuckin excuse... why don't they just get off their arses and improve themselves... go get an education like the rest of us... the government know what they're doing... the left is right and the right is correct... gotta fiddle with the finances to make it all work... imagine the utter chaos if there was no order... ad nauseam

[mashman]

(sigh) It must be real tough, just knowing that you're so much smarter and so much righter than everyone else (sigh)

(sigh) However, I suggest that before you complain about wider debates and being taken seriously you might want to drop the condescending tone of your posts (sigh).

He's certainly wiser than the majority (baa), most likely smarter too... given that he can actually conceptualise where this country is heading given the current way NZ carries out its business ...

Ditch GST and add more income tax bands directly proportionate to the amount of money that you earn (or declare)... leave the loopholes where they are and jail anyone that uses them... after all someone up there knows what they are... capital gains tax, was it $3 billion of revenue that was reported or $9 billion? could be raised... but it didn't happen. Why? vote loser... no more no less... pathetic

[MikeL]

(sigh) It must be real tough, just knowing that you're so much smarter and so much righter than everyone else (sigh)

(sigh)

Well at least you've got one thing right. It is tough being smarter (I don't claim to be "righter"), when you try to get people to debate specific questions and challenge them to think about things in a new or different way, and they simply refuse to engage in that debate, but continue to repeat a tired old mantra. Case in point: I have repeatedly said that the decision to stick with a single-rate GST is a policy decision that puts the convenience of business ahead of the needs of the people. Has anyone debated/refuted that proposition? All I get is endless examples of why it would make our GST scheme more complicated to have exemptions or differential rates (I've never denied that). My suggestion that the more complicated schemes adopted by other countries such as France serve a useful purpose despite their higher compliance costs is ignored.
As for being condescending - yes, I admit I don't suffer fools gladly. Nor do I subscribe to the current view that all opinions are valid. If you can't or won't think logically, analytically and deeply about something you shouldn't expect to be treated as an equal by those who do.

[MisterD]

Case in point: I have repeatedly said that the decision to stick with a single-rate GST is a policy decision that puts the convenience of business ahead of the needs of the people.

Comprehension fail. The point about the tax system is that it costs money to run it. Creating exceptions to GST will significantly increase those costs because you'll create a whole bunch of enforcement activity. It's much more sensible just to leave money in lower income earners pockets in the first place.

[Oscar]

Well at least you've got one thing right. It is tough being smarter (I don't claim to be "righter"), when you try to get people to debate specific questions and challenge them to think about things in a new or different way, and they simply refuse to engage in that debate, but continue to repeat a tired old mantra. Case in point: I have repeatedly said that the decision to stick with a single-rate GST is a policy decision that puts the convenience of business ahead of the needs of the people. Has anyone debated/refuted that proposition? All I get is endless examples of why it would make our GST scheme more complicated to have exemptions or differential rates (I've never denied that). My suggestion that the more complicated schemes adopted by other countries such as France serve a useful purpose despite their higher compliance costs is ignored.
As for being condescending - yes, I admit I don't suffer fools gladly. Nor do I subscribe to the current view that all opinions are valid. If you can't or won't think logically, analytically and deeply about something you shouldn't expect to be treated as an equal by those who do.

Constantly repeating the same thing does not make you logical or analytical.

For example why is the scheme in France superior?
Have you any evidence that the French are better off?
What is their definition of a basic food item? IIRC this is the problem in both Australia and the UK - defining what is zero rated in the first place.

As for debate, I've already asked you several questions about countries with differential consumption taxes, but you've ignored them.

Making basic foodstuffs exempt from GST is a bit hollow if the local tax rates mean that you can't afford them in the first place.
If you exempt food, what about other essentials?
In Britain and France how is heating oil rated? Cheaper food don't help if you're dead from lack of heating (a real problem in both countries).
In Britain, petrol/oil is taxed even higher than in NZ. Isn't this part of the overall picture? What's the point of exempt foodstuffs if you're paying heaps extra in transport costs?

[Oscar]

Comprehension fail. The point about the tax system is that it costs money to run it. Creating exceptions to GST will significantly increase those costs because you'll create a whole bunch of enforcement activity. It's much more sensible just to leave money in lower income earners pockets in the first place.

I think it was Rodney Hide that made a comment about why we should be grateful that the Govt. is giving us back our own money...

[davereid]

What is their definition of a basic food item? IIRC this is the problem in both Australia and the UK - defining what is zero rated in the first place.
Making basic foodstuffs exempt from GST is a bit hollow if the local tax rates mean that you can't afford them in the first place. If you exempt food, what about other essentials?
In Britain and France how is heating oil rated? Cheaper food don't help if you're dead from lack of heating (a real problem in both countries).
In Britain, petrol/oil is taxed even higher than in NZ. Isn't this part of the overall picture? What's the point of exempt foodstuffs if you're paying heaps extra in transport costs?

All good points. Any scheme that needs managing, will require a clever bastard to manage it. He will want paying well, as he is a clever bastard. He will need staff, an office, a car, and that will all have to paid for somehow, by the community. And assuming that the government spends the same, the tax will still need collecting, possibly from a GST increase.

Your points are all valid about other essentials. A fridge full of food is of little value if the power is off.

Its hard to buy GST free electricity, LPG, or heating oil, but a trip to any farmers market will provide plentiful GST free produce. I'd also suggest that "basic foods" comprise only a small part of the poor mans supermarket trolley. Plenty of poor people in Levin, but they all seem to eat chippies, Dolmio, and beer. Its the well dressed woman with the new car I see at the vege stall.

[Winston001]

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.

Haven't had time to read the replies above so just a quick note.

The treasurers of other countries quietly envy NZ because of its very clean and simple value added tax scheme. No exemptions.

See here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8060204.stm for a report on a lengthy and expensive example of how a large company attempted to rort VAT. If one big company is doing it, how many thousands of small businesses are also trying to create exemptions so they have an advantage over rivals.

I guess you have to be in business to understand the practical day-to-day recording of GST. It's been on food since 1987 - 23 years and we do not have people dying from starvation in the street.

I certainly understand the call for food etc exemptions but if you examine the results, it is not a rational or effective step. Plus we have 23 years of experience to look at and the current all-in GST regime works.

[Swoop]

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

??
Surely the above average wages are the drawcard? Who else would employ Nandor or Sue Badford, especially on an MP's wage?