@Dave@lemmy.nz has already addressed much of your concerns, so I will only add the following: A lot of this discussion is about possible problems, without seeing the legislation fully written out. You, and others, are assuming that there are guaranteed to be all kinds of problems, without the actual text to point to and say "what about this?". The point that other countries have enacted this policy without any, or too much, trouble should give you pause for thought that it is possible.

The point about being unable to remove it is a valid one, and one I share. However, as I (so far) feel this policy is overall positive, I am fine with it. As I said earlier, I think this policy addresses more than just adding a bit of money to your wallet each week. See this Auckland University Law Review article from 2019, which discusses the implementation in other jurisdictions and comes to the conclusion that zero-rating food is a net-positive policy. They also, rightly so in my opinion, point out:

New Zealand has the advantage of being able to improve on the models of other jurisdictions. This article proposed certain exclusions from New Zealand’s GST base by zero-rating and how these provisions can be structured so as to avoid the problems faced in other jurisdictions. As with the original GST regime introduced in 1986, New Zealand can design zero-rating provisions to lead the world by example. The current New Zealand GST system is widely regarded as a highly effective VAT around the world. This reputation can be maintained if food and menstrual products become zero-rated by ensuring that legislation is carefully implemented.

Just to make it clear, my issue is not with valid criticism, but with a general dismissal due to perceived potential problems that might arise. For example, if someone can show that this policy would not be net-positive for income and health, or that it would harm vulnerable people, then I would naturally change my view.

Finally, I don't buy the slippery slope argument at all. I think this policy should be judged on its own merits, and not with the background of "oooh they might make it EVEN MORE COMPLICATED!".

[–] eagleeyedtiger 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just to make it clear, my issue is not with valid criticism, but with a general dismissal due to perceived potential problems that might arise.

Finally, I don’t buy the slippery slope argument at all. I think this policy should be judged on its own merits, and not with the background of “oooh they might make it EVEN MORE COMPLICATED!”.

God this is so common with any online political discourse, especially in here in NZ. Everyone starts thinking up all these potential issues and nothing ever changes. It also tends to reveal a lot of their biases. It's fine to be concerned about the potential impacts of policy, and even better to plan for it. But doing nothing because almost everything has potential for some negative situations is ridiculous. Nothing any government will ever do will be perfect off the bat and have no edge cases. "Perfect is the enemy of good" and all that.

So many just jump straight to thinking up negative scenarios rather than trying to imagine what potential positive outcomes there could be, which we could then improve upon.