Paul Little: Profits ahead of people

The Government has rejected the idea of a sugar tax.Photo / Getty Images

Remember the halcyon days of the nanny state - universal free health care and education, a fair go for all, semi-decent public broadcasting? I was reminded of them again this week when the Government forwent yet another opportunity to improve the lives of thousands by a relatively simple measure.

It has chosen not to impose extra taxes on sugar-saturated products and take advantage of the public health benefits that would follow.

This measure has found favour not just with the purveyors of soft drinks and confectionery but also with commentators who have leaped to justify it on the most specious of grounds. For instance, one pointed out that "vice taxes will reduce the Government's revenue to the extent that they are successful".

In other words, we should let people continue to get fat and sick because we need the money.

Another reason not to change things is that our tax system is widely acclaimed for the "simplicity and integrity" of its structure.

It's hard to argue with that. Imagine how mortified we'd feel if the world started sneering at our tax system which, you know, used to be really cool but now is all complicated and yuck.

Finally, a targeted sugar tax "would require an army of bureaucrats and inspectors" to administer. There, to be honest, I can't really see the problem, because we already have such an army.

But no one should have expected anything different. Although it may have been inconsistent in other areas, when it comes to issues of work safety, drug use or labour rights, this Government has been resolute in putting profits before people.

The super rich, the 1 per cent, an army of soulless ratbags - call them what you will, the world's wealthiest citizens came in for a right old ribbing this week when us down here learned that many of them are having counselling for the serious psychological issues they have to face as a result of having too much money.

I was not among the mockers. I cannot think of anything worse than being super rich.

You spend your whole time obsessing about whether your super rich neighbour is super richer than you.

You spend a large part of your riches in efforts to look like a poor person: thin, gaunt and over-exposed to the sun.

You lie awake at night worrying that your super riches may evaporate thanks to a sudden reversal of fortune.

You have ongoing issues with the difficulty of getting decent help. You wake up one day and realise you really can't take your super riches with you.

You simply can't find enough things to spend your money on. You lose track of simple values of friendship and family. Your ability to empathise with the non-super rich is severely diminished. And to top it all off, we now learn, you spend a lot of time feeling sorry for yourself. There are many things money can't buy - but problems such as these aren't among them.

By the time you read this, Auckland Council will surely have reversed its decision to charge anyone wanting to improve the environment by planting a few flowers and veges on their berm a fee of $150 for the privilege.

Not content with the windfall increase in rates revenue that's coming its way from the real estate bubble, it chose to chisel a few more shekels from the city's hapless residents with its petty tax.

But as small-minded, petty and inconsequential as this city's bureaucrats are, they won't have persisted in a policy that asinine once its absurdity has been pointed out to them. I'm sure.

Debate on this article is now closed.