this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
15 points (94.1% liked)

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
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Government either need to privatize or bring a government shopping way into the fray. Consumers are getting fleeced on every shop. No point allowing supermarkets the ability to bully the farmers. No one can fight the supermarkets and they make mega profits.

Food shops are second biggest expediture after rent. There are better ways than taking her off. Really need to break up the monopoly and stop the supermarkets price fixing. There's no reason to bring prices down as there isn't competition.

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

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.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (15 children)

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.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

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

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.

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

Yeah, and they have court cases over whether a Jaffa cake is a cake or a biscuit.

[–] Rangelus 1 points 1 year ago (16 children)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] evanuggetpi 1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

They did the same in the UK many years ago. What's your point?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a cake. Goes hard when stale. Unlike biscuits that go soft

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

That was the outcome of the case, yes.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well no. That's just the situation. That's what makes a cake and a biscuit different.

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

Supermarkets don't buy from the farmers directly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This has been discussed and debated for years, and the point we keep coming back to is that our GST scheme is so cost effective to administer precisely because it doesn't have many exemptions.

There are far better, more cost effective ways to help people than this, adjusting tax brackets for inflation would be an ideal start. Funding food banks and lunches in schools would be another.

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Introduce another tax bracket already!

Admittedly that's tricky with most excess money not actually being earned but reinvested, maybe I'm advocating for a CGT (thanks for wholeheartedly trashing that idea, Jacinda!)

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

Doing the easy stuff so they can avoid the hard stuff really sums up Labour, doesn't it?

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kinda, but I get why she avoided the issue entirely...

It sounds really be left to us so that we can argue it out amongst ourselves though (rather than being tied to a party). I'm being naiive here, but a bit like the medical marijuana (hopefully without the disinformation!).

Because she categorically said "never, not on my watch" it means it's never going to come up (unless national has a stroke)

[–] Ilovethebomb 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, I would too, but then again I'm probably not prime minister material.

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

Commentators often make it sound as if it would be soooo overwhelmingly complicated

[–] felixfurtak 2 points 1 year ago

I agree. It's really not that complicated. The whole edge case argument is totally exaggerated. Yes, let's no do something that benefits people's health because we might get sued is such a weak argument.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›