If you exempt GST from food it will create an endless argument about what constitutes "food", a reader suggests. Photo / File
GST v income tax
There is a lot of hoo-ha going on about exempting food from GST. You can’t. You can’t exempt anything.
It creates an endless argument about what constitutes “food” and is therefore exempt. What we can do is reduce GST back to its original 10% (or even less). GST affects the poorer sections of society more.
If we, as a society, are genuine about reducing poverty and the plethora of other social problems that the National Party plans to solve by building bigger prisons, then we need to reduce the financial burden being borne by the poor and middle class.
We don’t have to borrow more money. The rich have plenty of opportunity to avoid GST and need to pay their fair share of income tax. There is no “trickle down” of wealth. There is only a “trickle up”.
The problem when the wealth doesn’t get shared around is the economy stagnates, which is what we are seeing now. Only a change in mindset can fix this – kind of like climate change.
Bill Gates made billions from Microsoft, then created a foundation to find ways to give it all away. I wonder what the world would look like today if he and others like him had charged a little less for their product and paid the people who worked for them a little more.
Paul Cheshire, Maraetai.
Don’t forget October 7
In view of all the fiery rhetoric surrounding this conflict we seem to have lost sight of some facts.
Let us remember that it was Hamas who sent armed men to kill and kidnap participants in a family day out music festival.
It is Hamas who is still holding 50 hostages in underground tunnels and subjecting them to mental and physical deprivation. It is Hamas who announced that they do not care how many of their people die so long as Israel is made to look guilty of genocide.
It is Hamas who has continually refused to come to any agreement with Israel. I am neither Jewish nor Islamic but I do read the Herald and watch the news.
Jill Kouremetis, Waitākere.
Covid-19 inquiry
Thomas Coughlan does us a favour in astutely weighing the pros and cons of requiring Ardern and members of her cabinet to attend an open session of the second stage of the Covid-19 inquiry.
But he ends his piece on a pessimistic note – namely, that both parties are guilty of setting up inquiries to find fault with their political opponents’ time in office.
If this is so, then this practice can only undermine the integrity and trust for one of the few ways we have of looking seriously at issues of governance and how to improve performance in public policy.
The UK’s Institute of Government issued a report on public inquiries and found that the most respected are headed by a non-partisan chair and often have terms of reference set by a select committee.
In recent times, a supposedly “independent” inquiry was quickly conducted on the performance of Kainga Ora (state housing) and, predictably, found fault, with the disbandment of much of the public housing programme, and quite possibly consequences for our current levels of homelessness. There were undoubtedly issues of performance, but it would have been publicly more palatable and informative for such findings to be more nuanced and established by a truly independent source.
If we fail to retain the integrity and public trust for public inquiries, then we will have lost one of the best options we have for ensuring good government.
Emeritus Professor Peter Davis, Auckland.
Politicising Royal Commissions
A timely warning by Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan about the dangers of politicising Royal Commissions.
The terms of reference of the current Covid-19 inquiry, keeping the timeline from February 2021 to October 2022 to spare Winston Peters being called, is a case in point.
So is all the controversy over Jacinda Ardern and her fellow ex-ministers for not appearing in person and answering questions privately instead.
If one government can use such an inquiry as a way of effectively putting former government ministers on public trial, then so can another. Labour administrations have not been shy about this either in the past.
With each new government becoming more strident in blaming their predecessors for the country’s woes, Royal Commissions are in danger of being weaponised.
As Coughlan ponders, perhaps we should leave the judgement of a government’s performance to voters and the ballot box.
Jeff Hayward, Central Auckland.
Road user charges
“Fairness” talk justifying RUCs is utter crap and farmers make and talk a lot of it. The new so-called independent science adviser emits so much methane vapour on his breath you can smell him before he even talks.
Users are asked to pay forward for road maintenance with RUCs but “agricultural” carbon emitters are excused their costs.
The shift to RUCs disincentivises buying a light fuel-efficient hybrid vehicle and incentivises heavy gas guzzlers. Is this an Act voting base – “big bold beautiful gas guzzler libertarians”?
Simon Watts removing farmers from the ETS isn’t fair and Chris Bishop’s RUCs aren’t that fair on low-damage-causing low-emitting vehicles. It’s a flat tax, virtually indiscriminate by weight, an obvious example of ignoring the axle-weight damage evidence, let alone exonerating big carbon emitters.
A Blue-Green party is not viable at present. Blue-Green voters have little viable alternative in this climate-change denial dominant coalition. Green policies: wealth taxes, a cleaner a more equitable society put them off. Why?
Wealthy people need to exercise their spinal tendons. We only need one in 10 to stiffen their resolve. A sustainable future is actually worth paying forward. I’m thinking this will be given the “gumboot kick” as provocative and offensive but at least could make a few think.
Steve Russell, Hillcrest.
Wildfires
The NZ Herald does a great job placing photos of blazing countries on fire for all the world to see. It’s within the World section noting many of those countries, America, Spain, Portugal, France, Greece, Italy and now Canada as they try to dampen down extraordinary fires raging uncontrolled from temperatures way above normal.
Other countries suffer from the loss of fertile land, too dry for anything to grow, causing starvation. A few of these articles mention climate change and some even stress our need to stop burning fossil fuels.
In winter, the news covers storms, floods and sea rises threatening life as we know it.
The biggest threat of all to our world are the oil-producing companies. They are in control, refusing to face up to this horrendous disaster they are subjecting our planet to. Along with plastic, made also from oil, they dig on down, heads in the sand, ignoring statistics, ignoring the disasters, so their flow of money into already overloaded bank accounts can continue. But what do they gain on a planet that is dying?
Emma Mackintosh, Birkenhead.
The same degree of compulsion that locked down the team of five million from the “podium of truth” should be applied to the squad of four – Ardern, Robertson, Hipkins and Verrall – to front up at the podium of accountability in person.
Mike Wagg, Freemans Bay.
Talk about third world, how absurd to read that a prison is to be air conditioned while a hospital nearby is not. Surely one would think that the likes of schools and hospitals would be at the top of the list for that? Prisons are getting better by the day it seems and soon won’t be too far below a hotel standard if that continues.
Paul Beck, West Harbour.
All those that have not responded to an invitation to submit to Royal Commission on Covid. Why have a commission? You and I survived and we can thank the government for our closure. It is always good to look back in hindsight but at the time we were in the dark as was the rest of the world. How many invitations have you responded, “sorry but no”?
Dennis Manson, Unsworth Heights.
Given the reputation many police forces across the globe for violence and corruption, I was rather hoping that, following the tragic death of an alleged offender in Christchurch, Mark Mitchell would rate our own as being somewhat above “world class”.
The phrase “world class” itself in today’s ever-changing world doesn’t really fill one with a great deal of confidence. Our country should strive to be better than “world class”, because we can be when we want to be.
Jeremy Coleman, Hillpark.
This week there was another media report of angry adults making their way onto the grounds of a high school, causing a lockdown. Such incursions seem to be increasing, often sparked by feuding comments on social media. These actions are frightening for students and staff who are the focus of these people, and those who witness them.
Schools are supposed to be safe places for children, and classrooms are the domain of teachers. Trespass notices can be meaningless if the person does not normally have any association with the school issuing it. As a deterrent, surely it is time such unlawful entry to a school is categorised as a crime with more serious consequences for the perpetrators.
Matt Elliott, Birkdale.