NZ Politics

562 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke

Labour's promise of GST off fruit and veg - what would be covered, what would not (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 1 year ago by Rangelus to c/politics

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] felixfurtak 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With a duopoly of supermarkets, I can't see why after a few months fruit and veggies won't be back at normal prices, with the saving taken by the supermarket as profit.

Fresh fruit and veges is one area where there is real competition in the marketplace. Plenty of independent vege shops around (in the centres of population at least).

I can't remember the last time I bought veges from a duopoly supermarket. Fresh and Save, Fruit World, Tai Ping, etc are all good options.

[–] Dave 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also don't normally but fruit and veggies from supermarkets. But the vast majority of people do, and that's what makes the duopoly.

And remember that every dollar exempted from GST is a dollar of tax that needs to be raised another way (or a dollar of government service that needs to be cut).

I guess I don't understand the intent. Are they trying to provide cost relief? Wouldn't removing tax on income under X amount be easier to administer?

Are they trying to encourage healthier choices? Maybe a sugar tax could help (a supermarket is unlikely to absorb a tax, but they will absorb a profit).

Although if this is a way to justify creating a commission to monitor supermarket profits (which they said they will do), then I could get behind that.

[–] Rangelus 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think we, as "lay-persons", tend to only approach such issues from a single standpoint. I know I do, but I try to keep in mind that we do not see everything that goes into these decisions.

If I had to guess, I suspect these are the reasons behind this policy:

Wanting to provide some cost relief, targeting food costs, but being unable to afford/unwilling politically to remove GST from all food.
Wanting to encourage improved diets, which will save money in the long run on healthcare.
Unwilling politically to ever raise tax, so adding a tax on sugary drinks is a non-starter.
Having to pick a policy which isn't just a handout, as it can give a win to the right.
Having internal polls/data that this policy is popular amongst voters.
Adjusting tax brackets could be spun by opposition as "raising taxes".

I think Labour should be braver, but I understand they feel they are losing their chances of winning the election and thus are playing it safe.

[–] Dave 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You make a lot of good points.

I think Labour should be braver, but I understand they feel they are losing their chances of winning the election and thus are playing it safe.

This is likely a big part. If they were clearly losing we would probably see more impactful policies. Since they have had two terms and know that's about when parties get voted out, yet they are still neck and neck with a right wing coalition, their best chance of winning is likely to make small adjustments that should be universally popular to gain a small amount in the polls, rather than going all out and risking a big drop in popularity.

[–] Rangelus 3 points 1 year ago

I agree completely with your assessment.

My biggest complaint with NZ Politics is it seems people vote in the opposition just cause, rather than because they have good policies.