The Putin solution to crime
The current spike in crime is all about putting food on the table and typically is a by-product of recessions, which is recognised throughout history.
The solution comes from, of all people, Vladimir Putin, introducing a flat tax of 13 per cent for all workers in 2021
by which tax evasion and crime were reduced dramatically. Tax revenue increased and the reasons were as plain as the nose on your face. Workers with more money in the hand for a day's work lessened their need for crime, motivated them to work longer and, as it turned out, lessened their desire for tax evasion, which was running riot in Russia at that time.
This flat tax for workers has caught on internationally and is now being trialled in several countries and needs to be seriously considered here in New Zealand. Jacinda Ardern has already recognised that with her cost-of-living payment, which is a step in the right direction, the golden rule being workers with more money in the hand lessens their need for crime and the two are inversely proportional.
Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay.
Democracy denied
Well done Wayne Rayburn (NZ Herald, August 30). The discourse on democracy is overdue; one that recognises that Kiwis, most of us, feel deeply disenfranchised by a Government that does not consult and deems it knows best.
For the record, Māori people certainly were not treated well historically, redress is deserved, no argument. However co- governance as it's styled will not make a bit of difference to the ordinary person. All that it will do is put dollars and power into the hands of an intellectual elite, an elite without the checks and balances the rest of us must work with.
Central control, and bureaucracy in Wellington increasing in numbers exponentially, if that's what our future is about, is truly ironic as David Lange's Labour Party worked to pull all that apart.
John Laurenson, Devonport.
In the numbers
There is understandably great concern at the huge increase in carbon emissions and wild climate changes and the powers that be are proposing drastic measures to combat them. One area they continue to ignore is population growth. The more people, the more carbon emissions — so any savings in carbon emissions are cancelled out by our ever-growing population. Eventually, we'll have to accept that the population explosion is totally unsustainable and any attempts at reducing carbon emissions are a waste of time if we don't reduce population growth.
Jock Mac Vicar, Hauraki.
Pipe dreams
Nobody could disagree with Dr Peter Davis (NZ Herald, August 29) that water infrastructure in NZ has suffered perpetually from gross under-investment, a situation where the tasks overall were too costly for local bodies, and where central government should have also been involved from the beginning.
It is however not correct to say that existing assets are an underfunded liability. They are fully operative, worth many billions, and owned by ratepayers.
The suggestion of transferring them to central government is therefore nothing less than gross theft, and placing them under the control of yet more over-burdening Wellington bureaucracy is totally unacceptable.
Government finance for water infrastructure must however be an important part of the future. This could be accomplished by leaving local body contributions and management intact, with additional government funding then decided by a small independent board with experience in water infrastructure and finance. This group of say three persons, could tour NZ at regular intervals, and with additional knowledge then decide on an appropriate allocation of government funding to each local body.
Hylton Le Grice, Remuera.
Running debate
Steve Liddle's letter (NZ Herald, August 31) critiquing Peter Davis' letter, for some uninformed reason advocates the status quo (with more central government funding).
There are more than 60 local bodies responsible for providing sewerage, stormwater and drinking water services — how are they to equitably compete for government funding?
Most rivers are no longer healthy to swim in. There are regular toxic algae blooms around river discharge to the sea (and the water temperature is rising). I agree most of these local bodies are inadequately funded and struggle with the cost of infrastructure required to fix all the problems.
This is why Watercare is building/funding the interceptor tunnels to prevent sewerage spilling into the Waitematā Harbour — Auckland Council simply could not afford it.
But Liddle's letter at the end states "is not a broken model of care — but lack of central government responsibility for an inadequately funded model".
Oh, the irony. Isn't this precisely the argument for Three Waters?
Paul Cheshire, Maraetai.
