Letters, January 10: GST on food, freedom campers and the TECT proposal

The arguments for keeping GST on food are overwhelming and are fourfold, writes Don Brash.

GST on food

Your correspondent Rosemary Richie (News, February 1) argues that the new Government should be planning to remove GST from food for the sake of those on low incomes. I strongly disagree.

The arguments for keeping GST on food are overwhelming and are fourfold.

First, while low-income people do indeed spend a relatively high proportion of their income on food (suggesting that GST on food adversely affects low-income people more than it affects high-income people), most money spent on food is spent by those who have plenty of income. So exempting food from GST involves foregoing a lot of tax revenue (which has to be found by increasing taxes on other things) relative to the benefit to low-income people.

Second, exempting food creates considerable difficulties in defining what should be exempt, as Australians and others have found. It may be easy to say exempt chicken, but what about Kentucky Fried Chicken?

Third, while consumers might regard GST as just like a retail sales tax, from the point of view of the retailer, it is much more complicated than that. The retailer has to work out how much of the GST she has paid when buying the items she sells can be "claimed back".

For some items that may be easy, but what about the rent paid, the electricity bill paid, the accountancy charge, etc? When everything sold carries GST, compliance costs are minimal; when some items are taxable and some exempt, compliance costs sky-rocket.

Finally, if food should be exempt, why not doctor's bills, books, children's clothing, shoes? In no time, GST changes from a very simple tax with low compliance costs to a highly complicated tax, almost certainly at a much higher rate than currently.

Don Brash
Auckland

Freedom campers

It would seem reasonable to make it a bylaw that campers using our country as a toilet be directed to pick up their waste and deposit it in a suitable container much the same as dog owners use for their pets.

Councils could provide these containers in strategic areas clearly marked. This may help to get the message across. Also, all hirers of campervans without toilets should clearly show notices in their vehicles regarding the disposal of human waste.

Our dog owners seem well versed in picking up after their pets. Surely our welcome visitors should be able to pick up for themselves.

Tony Powell
Hairini

Maori wards

Wards have a very practical purpose.

What's often forgotten is that a community is made up of groups with special needs. Pensioners. Disabled. Workers. Children. And many others.

Councillors don't instinctively know what those needs are and don't have the time to find out from more than a few of the people concerned, so they have to infer from their own experience. For instance, if you have children, you know the city needs safe playgrounds, but you'll overlook anything you don't know about.

Wards for minority groups (not just Maori) solve that problem very nicely. There's always someone at the table who knows what that group actually need, and people in the group know each other so make a better choice of who represents them.

Here's a self-test for non-Maori readers to illustrate the point. What should be provided at every cemetery entrance and usually isn't? Every Maori knows the answer and if you don't, then you shouldn't be representing Maori.

It's about having good community services, not politics.

Alan Armstrong
Rotorua

TECT proposal

Do the sums – about 56,000 eligible Trustpower customers multiplied by $500 TECT cheque multiplied by 55 years TECT life equals $1.5 billion.

One can understand why Tauranga City Council and certain councillors are silent on this issue. As a major beneficiary of TECT, the council will be eyeing up a new palace, a museum etc. - not financed by all ratepayers, only by those who support Trustpower. Baywave TECT Aquatic and Leisure Centre, TECT All Terrain Park, Tauranga Action Centres, are earlier examples.

The history-based funding inequality to community groups will also grow, from $1m to $30m yearly, all courtesy of Trustpower customers.

Nor do I understand why a major shareholder (TECT has 26.8% shareholding in Trustpower) would seek to undermine the company in which it has shares. If the TECT proposal proceeds, customers switching from Trustpower will skyrocket (2415 in 2017).

Supposedly, this proposal will "balance the interests of current and future beneficiaries", and "future-proof TECT". As a current beneficiary, how are my interests balanced by reducing my yearly TECT cheque from $500 to zero? Perhaps Trustpower intends to match Mercury?

Consider exit fees if switching between power companies, extra if switching midway through a contract period, that will reduce the $4,300 TECT bribe.

DL Gibbs
Tauranga

Treaty of Waitangi

Please tell Peter Dey (Letters, February 8) that retrospective legislation does not alter the truth. There is not a skerrick of evidence in the wording of the Treaty of Waitangi to support the oft-repeated but deluded notion of any "partnership" between the government and any Maori, but that, according to Dey, is "irrelevant". Maybe he could petition Parliament to legislate that lead is gold and see if that works.

Bruce Moon
Nelson