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
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.
Again, it is a incremental change to add to other changes. It is not a magic bullet solution, and anyone who claims to have such a thing is lying. There is no reason to reject positive change just because it doesn't do everything all at once.
I'm not lying. You are.
Solution is right there. Already laid out. Gst is not the solution. It's really a nothing.
It doesn't do anything at all. It's a nothing. 20 bucks saving maybe if supermarkets don't just raise price.
Government needs to actually do something. Something supermarkets can't then directly charge consumers more for.
So no I wholeheartedly disagree entirely with you
You disagree that something is better than nothing? Because if you look carefully you will see that's what I said. It's not perfect, but it's something. Small steps is how progress happens.
What am I lying about? I never claimed to have a magic bullet solution. I never claimed this would solve all problems.
I disagree that this is anything. No I think it's barely fluff. It's not even meh. Very far from Perfect. I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find anyone expecting the govt to do anything perfect. But this is just nuts.
No but you claimed nobody can come up with it. Plenty ideas out there. This isn't it
It is a small change, but a positive change nonetheless. GST/VAT free produce has been trialed and found effective in many overseas countries, so it seems plain to me that it would be a good thing here.
Complex social issues are rarely fixable with a single policy, so at least Labour is trying to do something.
GST / VAT has been a beaurecratic nightmare in a number of countries as well.
I've been to many countries where this policy exists, and there has never been an issue that I've seen. But perhaps your experiences trump mine, so let's try something else.
If there are countries where this policy causes no problems, and also ones where there are issues, perhaps the difference comes down to implementation? If so, why are you so quick to dismiss this policy as 'too difficult' and 'fraught with problems' when it does not need to be either of these things? Could it be that you just love to hate on anything Labour does? Or perhaps it is, as I said before, that you (like so many here) will dismiss any change if it does not appear a perfect solution.
Where are these countries where it has been implemented with no issues?
Canada is but one example.
You mean apart from the multiple court cases over GST classifications I linked you to in another thread?
None of which were related to food. No-one is arguing that we want to completely copy the tax code of other countries, or that we want to use implementations that have proven difficult. All they want to do is zero-rate produce. Just that, nothing else. The only example you can find is the one from the UK. I know of one other case in Australia btw. But just because it has happened in a couple of other countries doesn't mean it needs to here. Giving up on positive change because of the slight risk of potential litigation down the road is stupid.
You do understand that this is just one example of the side effects of this, and even in a best case scenario, this will result in more admin costs.
You do understand that, right?
Of course I do. I just disagree with the conclusion to draw from this.
Thank you for implying in stupid because I disagree with you though.
Disagreeing with me is fine, people do it all the time.
Being unable to comprehend the very point I'm making, on the other hand...
I comprehend it just fine. I just think you're wrong.
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.
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?
There is an absolute certainty this will result in extra admin costs as well.
And I disagree with the certainty. Oh look, we are at an impasse.
Do you genuinely believe this is will result in no additional costs to the administration of the GST scheme?
I think that it doesn't need to, and that the benefits outweigh the downsides even if it does. I also think zero-rating certain foods has other benefits beyond money, and this should be taken into account.
How? How could you possibly make these changes without adding cost to the administration of the GST scheme?
I firmly believe this is a simple task with modern computer systems. Given that accounting software like Xero already has different categories for different products, it's a simple matter of adding a "fresh produce zero-rated" category.
That being said, even if there is a cost I believe it is still overall net positive.
Honestly mate, at this point, there is no reason to continue discussing the point. I think any potential problems or costs are worth it, and you don't. Lets leave it there, eh?
If only life was as simple as you.
Thank you for your valuable contribution to the conversation.
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.
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.