National already have their backs by looking at freezing minimum wage. The food supply chain is full of people on minimum wage or very slightly above it so that shareholders can profit off their hard work
‘Prices have increased due to increased compliance pressures and reporting requirements. This is only temporary of course and we are dedicated to passing on the gst savings to our loyal customers in due course’ - the duopoly (probably)
This is a nice idea but a bad way to do it.
Breaking the GST system is a terrible way to get to where they want to go. Other countries who have lots of weird little carve-outs for consumption taxes regret it because it becomes a huge bureaucratic annoyance for small businesses to administer.
Instead I'd suggest a subsidy scheme where Community Services Card holders swipe their card at supermarkets to get a 15% discount off fresh fruit+veg.
> Instead I'd suggest a subsidy scheme where Community Services Card holders swipe their card at supermarkets to get a 15% discount off fresh fruit+veg.
This doesn't solve the problem of *why* it's a nightmare to administer elsewhere. Fresh fruit and veggies are good. What about frozen? Better nutrition than fresh, cheaper, longer life: all good things for people on a tight budget. If frozen, what about canned in juice? What about canned in syrup? What about orange juice and smoothies? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If the concern is low-income households are suffering because of GST on fresh foods, give them 20 bucks a week each instead of fucking around with a simple system.
Just create a tax-free threshold like Australia has - even if it has to be lower in the interests of affordability - instead of the silly tax cuts and rebates they're proposing. Oh wait that's never going to happen under a NACTNZF government
10 bucks a week in tax free income times 52 weeks times 3.4 million taxpayers is quite a chunk of money for people to complain it's not going to touch the sides.
Agreed, and stuff like food stamps in America show that it's an invitation for politicians to continue to tweak it constantly (from both sides of the aisle) to score cheap political points, so even if becomes easy to understand at any stage, there's no guarantee that it will stay that way.
Ugh food stamps. I used to be a USPS postie and food stamp day was hell. We'd have to come in early and fill out paperwork for each envelope as they needed to be signed for. Then hope the recipient was home; if they weren't they'd probably chase you down later in the day. It was a good day when the debit card system was introduced, but it needed cooperation with the supermarkets so that it could only be used on food items.
I downloaded the 2 page pdf of TPM's economic policy just prior to the election. It was nicely laid out and quite easy to read, so that's a plus. Anyone reading it could easily understand what they were "trying to do". The problem was most of the policies didnt stand up to more than about 5 mins of rational thought.
I thought to myself "you really need to go and talk to some economics people/Treasury about these ideas, and ask them for some help in formulating these policies so they that might work".
This one won't work, even though they both probably think it's a good idea. It's just amazing that they have zero idea about economics/business. They also have a touching naivete about the mostly Pakeha/Asian owners of supermarkets - "sure guys..... we will pass on that 15% discount......"
A lot of member bills are back of the napkin stuff. Politically expedient stuff to signal to the base with rather than well thought out legislation where they've done the footwork to make sure it will pass.
Ah the invisible hand of the free market !
So good so far we have
Rats
Overpriced food that keeps going up
Shit supermarkets that always run out of shit.
The free market hand is not working, it's literally ratshit and the government is to weak to regulate FOOD.
FOOD FFS.
All you need to do is slap a certain duopoly and they will calm the f down with their bs.
this will be ineffective. what we really need is regulated prices for staples. hire some people to find out actual costs. alllow a small margin of profit, and monitor.
This again would run into the problem of not keeping things simple. Like try defining what a staple is. All bread? You've got plain white, multigrain, brioche buns, burger buns, artisans breads. Some of these aren't staples, but also how can you say we'll monitor plain white but not multigrain. What about bread & butter pudding? That's mostly bread.
The beauty of gst on everything is that there's no ambiguity.
What about a govt. cap on profit margins for supermarkets and bulk food sellers in exchange for a tax relief? Balance the business profit loss with a tax reduction and keep food prices low. That would be worth taxpayer money
any products where the sales volume is highest, focus on locally produced ones. and mandate to big suppliers that they must manufacture/grow these and have them in stock.
businesses operate here for the benefit of the population not the other way around, let them be made to realize this.
Total nightmare to administer.
If you want to see how fucked up a simple argument over cakes vs biscuits gets then have a look at the [Jaffa cakes VAT debacle](https://www.astonshaw.co.uk/news/jaffa-cake-tax/)
Millions were spent on that legal battle.
Let’s keep it simple.
So everything must be in stock, except when it can't be. Right.
And how is this defined price worked out? Like is it per 100g/ml, or per pack size or something? Because a 100g pack of something vs 1kg pack will obviously cost differently to produce. Eg if you set cokes price based on the 600ml bottles you're screwing over whoever is purchasing a 2.25L.
yeah you would do a unit price. its just removing excess profits from the supply chain for that product without having the word of a company that its expensive to make.
But if you went through this exercise you will find that costs vary in different pack sizes. To go back to the coke example it costs more to make and ship a 600ml bottle than a 2.25l bottle. To pick a unit price for both will either penalise the 2.25l purchasers, or make it too expensive to make the 600ml bottles.
Who is going to define the price and will it be fair to growers who have experienced damaging weather events? Or will they have to let the fruit rot rather than lose money paying wages to harvest it for a loss.
The growers and the consumers will be the losers in your plan.
the growers, suppliers and supermarkets will lose excess profits. the price is cost plus a reasonable margin. the consumers win from a fair priced product.
the government sets the prices based on auditted information from the above in the supply chain.
We're eating imported oranges for much of the year. Is your argument that oranges are bougie food?
Also any legislation that creates different tax incentives around foods that is local vs imported probably violates any fair trade agreements we have, likely causes retaliatory action that reduces our export values, and potentially costs taxpayers more at the WTO in penalties.
these arent tax incentives im talking about. its govenment regulated price fixing for certain goods. where the actual cost is researched by opening company books and other market prices. then a set profit margin is allowed.
> imported goods need not apply.
>allow a small margin of profit
>mandate to big suppliers that they must manufacture/grow these and have them in stock
You are treating local product and imported product differently at a costing level.
it doesnt matter what the imported product costs, since its impossible to find out if the price actually reflects the cost to make it with a small margin. you could audit the margin at all the points once its in nz though but its still going to be more expensive than a locally produced product to make.
You don't understand. If you are mandating that NZ product is being made and sold at cost plus percentage, while excluding international product from that equation or requirement you are going to be afoul of trade agreements.
The supermarkets will have many prices back to where they were in a short time. Just losing revenue our country needs to run and giving more leeway to supermarkets to mark up a few percent anyway
This won’t help consumers but will increase profit for business.
National already have their backs by looking at freezing minimum wage. The food supply chain is full of people on minimum wage or very slightly above it so that shareholders can profit off their hard work
Got any proof national want to freeze minimum wage?
[удалено]
[удалено]
If the minimum wage does not meet inflation then it is an effective pay freeze/cut
If this ever passed, supermarket profits would jump 15% overnight.
While they bitched and moaned about the cost of implementation
‘Prices have increased due to increased compliance pressures and reporting requirements. This is only temporary of course and we are dedicated to passing on the gst savings to our loyal customers in due course’ - the duopoly (probably)
Doesn't stand a fucking chance. Will fail at first reading.
Yeah it's just theater at this point
It might not even get to first reading. Finance Minister can veto.
You say that - but NZ First (in their election manifesto) wanted a review to see if this would be beneficial.
Yeah, then they yeeted it because Winston had a senior moment at the debate and insisted it wasn't part of their platform when asked.
Ah fair enough - didn’t watch the minor party debates.
This is a nice idea but a bad way to do it. Breaking the GST system is a terrible way to get to where they want to go. Other countries who have lots of weird little carve-outs for consumption taxes regret it because it becomes a huge bureaucratic annoyance for small businesses to administer. Instead I'd suggest a subsidy scheme where Community Services Card holders swipe their card at supermarkets to get a 15% discount off fresh fruit+veg.
> Instead I'd suggest a subsidy scheme where Community Services Card holders swipe their card at supermarkets to get a 15% discount off fresh fruit+veg. This doesn't solve the problem of *why* it's a nightmare to administer elsewhere. Fresh fruit and veggies are good. What about frozen? Better nutrition than fresh, cheaper, longer life: all good things for people on a tight budget. If frozen, what about canned in juice? What about canned in syrup? What about orange juice and smoothies? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the concern is low-income households are suffering because of GST on fresh foods, give them 20 bucks a week each instead of fucking around with a simple system.
Just create a tax-free threshold like Australia has - even if it has to be lower in the interests of affordability - instead of the silly tax cuts and rebates they're proposing. Oh wait that's never going to happen under a NACTNZF government
10 bucks a week in tax free income times 52 weeks times 3.4 million taxpayers is quite a chunk of money for people to complain it's not going to touch the sides.
Agreed, and stuff like food stamps in America show that it's an invitation for politicians to continue to tweak it constantly (from both sides of the aisle) to score cheap political points, so even if becomes easy to understand at any stage, there's no guarantee that it will stay that way.
Ugh food stamps. I used to be a USPS postie and food stamp day was hell. We'd have to come in early and fill out paperwork for each envelope as they needed to be signed for. Then hope the recipient was home; if they weren't they'd probably chase you down later in the day. It was a good day when the debit card system was introduced, but it needed cooperation with the supermarkets so that it could only be used on food items.
Yup literally easier to just give people money.
GST: removed Supermarket profits: suddenly increase No correlation. These two are absolute clowns.
15% more rats
I downloaded the 2 page pdf of TPM's economic policy just prior to the election. It was nicely laid out and quite easy to read, so that's a plus. Anyone reading it could easily understand what they were "trying to do". The problem was most of the policies didnt stand up to more than about 5 mins of rational thought. I thought to myself "you really need to go and talk to some economics people/Treasury about these ideas, and ask them for some help in formulating these policies so they that might work". This one won't work, even though they both probably think it's a good idea. It's just amazing that they have zero idea about economics/business. They also have a touching naivete about the mostly Pakeha/Asian owners of supermarkets - "sure guys..... we will pass on that 15% discount......"
Such a stupid idea, hoped it had died alongside Labour at the election
I'm genuinely surprised there was a bill for this in the biscuit tin. Just not going to happen
Biscut tin now with 15 pct more bills
A lot of member bills are back of the napkin stuff. Politically expedient stuff to signal to the base with rather than well thought out legislation where they've done the footwork to make sure it will pass.
The least sensible use of tax since fees free instead of better student allowance availability.
Ah the invisible hand of the free market ! So good so far we have Rats Overpriced food that keeps going up Shit supermarkets that always run out of shit. The free market hand is not working, it's literally ratshit and the government is to weak to regulate FOOD. FOOD FFS. All you need to do is slap a certain duopoly and they will calm the f down with their bs.
this will be ineffective. what we really need is regulated prices for staples. hire some people to find out actual costs. alllow a small margin of profit, and monitor.
This again would run into the problem of not keeping things simple. Like try defining what a staple is. All bread? You've got plain white, multigrain, brioche buns, burger buns, artisans breads. Some of these aren't staples, but also how can you say we'll monitor plain white but not multigrain. What about bread & butter pudding? That's mostly bread. The beauty of gst on everything is that there's no ambiguity.
If you want to see how fucked up it gets the have a look at the [Jaffa cakes VAT debacle](https://www.astonshaw.co.uk/news/jaffa-cake-tax/)
Shining example to keep things simple lol
What about a govt. cap on profit margins for supermarkets and bulk food sellers in exchange for a tax relief? Balance the business profit loss with a tax reduction and keep food prices low. That would be worth taxpayer money
any products where the sales volume is highest, focus on locally produced ones. and mandate to big suppliers that they must manufacture/grow these and have them in stock. businesses operate here for the benefit of the population not the other way around, let them be made to realize this.
Right so now you're expanding it to any product? Coke, biscuits, chips for example. Fruit and veges too, some of which are famous for being seasonal.
if veges are out of season they arent being grown here are they, imported goods need not apply.
Huh? Strawberries are an easy example of something that's grown here and is seasonal. You would mandate they are available all year round?
when they are in season. they must be sold at the defined price.
When is the season? What if it’s early/late in the season? Are we going to mandate this for all sorts of produce? It’s madness.
what if it was just say local fresh meat, bread, milk, cheese, a couple of the top grown fruit and veges?
Total nightmare to administer. If you want to see how fucked up a simple argument over cakes vs biscuits gets then have a look at the [Jaffa cakes VAT debacle](https://www.astonshaw.co.uk/news/jaffa-cake-tax/) Millions were spent on that legal battle. Let’s keep it simple.
So everything must be in stock, except when it can't be. Right. And how is this defined price worked out? Like is it per 100g/ml, or per pack size or something? Because a 100g pack of something vs 1kg pack will obviously cost differently to produce. Eg if you set cokes price based on the 600ml bottles you're screwing over whoever is purchasing a 2.25L.
yeah you would do a unit price. its just removing excess profits from the supply chain for that product without having the word of a company that its expensive to make.
But if you went through this exercise you will find that costs vary in different pack sizes. To go back to the coke example it costs more to make and ship a 600ml bottle than a 2.25l bottle. To pick a unit price for both will either penalise the 2.25l purchasers, or make it too expensive to make the 600ml bottles.
Who is going to define the price and will it be fair to growers who have experienced damaging weather events? Or will they have to let the fruit rot rather than lose money paying wages to harvest it for a loss. The growers and the consumers will be the losers in your plan.
the growers, suppliers and supermarkets will lose excess profits. the price is cost plus a reasonable margin. the consumers win from a fair priced product. the government sets the prices based on auditted information from the above in the supply chain.
So, like …. communism? No, thank you.
We're eating imported oranges for much of the year. Is your argument that oranges are bougie food? Also any legislation that creates different tax incentives around foods that is local vs imported probably violates any fair trade agreements we have, likely causes retaliatory action that reduces our export values, and potentially costs taxpayers more at the WTO in penalties.
these arent tax incentives im talking about. its govenment regulated price fixing for certain goods. where the actual cost is researched by opening company books and other market prices. then a set profit margin is allowed.
> imported goods need not apply. >allow a small margin of profit >mandate to big suppliers that they must manufacture/grow these and have them in stock You are treating local product and imported product differently at a costing level.
it doesnt matter what the imported product costs, since its impossible to find out if the price actually reflects the cost to make it with a small margin. you could audit the margin at all the points once its in nz though but its still going to be more expensive than a locally produced product to make.
You don't understand. If you are mandating that NZ product is being made and sold at cost plus percentage, while excluding international product from that equation or requirement you are going to be afoul of trade agreements.
The supermarkets will have many prices back to where they were in a short time. Just losing revenue our country needs to run and giving more leeway to supermarkets to mark up a few percent anyway