I think this is an excellent policy, and a long time coming. This is done overseas with good effect. While I don’t think it’s a magic bullet, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
I think this is an excellent policy, and a long time coming. This is done overseas with good effect. While I don’t think it’s a magic bullet, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
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.
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.
Absolutely torn apart? GST free fruit and vegetables is the norm overseas. We’re the exception.
Sure there’s more they should have done. But I cannot see National or Act doing more.
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.
They did the same in the UK many years ago. What’s your point?
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.
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.