this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
15 points (94.1% liked)
NZ Politics
556 readers
30 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Government either need to privatize or bring a government shopping way into the fray. Consumers are getting fleeced on every shop. No point allowing supermarkets the ability to bully the farmers. No one can fight the supermarkets and they make mega profits.
Food shops are second biggest expediture after rent. There are better ways than taking her off. Really need to break up the monopoly and stop the supermarkets price fixing. There's no reason to bring prices down as there isn't competition.
So because it isn't a perfect, one-stop, solution, we shouldn't do anything at all?
Progress is made in small steps, not single giant strides.
It is far from perfect. It's a labour manifesto. If they get in. I've heard plenty from them about fixing housing and yet they refused to change the tax brackets and refused to hold the such accountable.
There was stuff In stuff calculating that you'd save $18 a month. Pretty pathetic. Better than nothing but still very pathetic.
It's a valid point, rather than taking on the supermarket duopoly or other bold measures, Labour is tinkering around the edges with a feel good policy that has been absolutely torn apart by experts.
Yeah, and they have court cases over whether a Jaffa cake is a cake or a biscuit.
It's a cake. Goes hard when stale. Unlike biscuits that go soft
That was the outcome of the case, yes.
Well no. That's just the situation. That's what makes a cake and a biscuit different.
Holy non sequitur batman!
Thank you for your valuable contribution to the conversation.
I felt your unrelated argument deserved an equally flippant reply.
Do you not understand how a lawsuit over classification of food for tax purposes is relevant to a discussion on tax on food?
I understand perfectly what you implied, but since you do not argue in good faith I did not feel the need to reply in kind.
You know full well that the policy as announced by Labour has a simple definition. Processed foods that are changed from their natural form in any way other than freezing are not exempt. Your point about an issue in another country that couldn't happen here is a non sequitur.
Why does that specific example need to be able to happen here in order for it to be relevant though? Do you not understand the concept of an example?
Why does that specific example mean that something equally as 'bad' will happen here. Do you not understand the concept of different implementations of policy?
It doesn't it's an example of what could happen
Genuinely thick, aren't you?
Sure, anything could happen. But that doesn't mean it will. Are we to give up on any progress if there is any risk of slight problems?
Does this seem like a worthwhile use of taxpayer money?
Also, I don't feel that was a particularly difficult point to understand, you end up spending big money on ridiculous edge cases.
So because of one edgecase that we could simply learn from, you want to throw out the whole idea?
This country has a real problem of "if the solution isn't perfect don't do anything at all".
I'm going to be honest with you here, you're coming across as a bit dense with that comment.
Obviously this is just one example, but there will doubtless be others. Is a coleslaw fruit and veg, or a processed food, for example? What if it includes dressing?
I used the Jaffa cakes thing as an example because it's so famous, and also quite funny.
I think it is pretty clear and simple, based on what I've seen so far. Coleslaw is processed and mixed, thus not exempt regardless of dressing. Frozen vegi mix is exempt as simply freezing does not constitute processing according to the policy.
What about ones that contain corn? That has to be mechanically stripped from the cob. Or what about green beans? They need to be trimmed to size.
Does that not count as processing?
Neither of those cases count as processed as per Labour's release to my understanding.
How could a reasonable person not consider that processed? In the corn example, it's completely different from it's original form.
It doesn't matter what you or I consider processed, only how it is defined by the legislation. If it defines it as unprocessed, then it is for the purposes of being zero-rated.
Supermarkets don't buy from the farmers directly.
Who do they buy from ?
Not sure what your point is exactly?