Getting much better bang for taxes, rates

Roger Handford

Opinion

Tax and rates (another form of tax) are not necessarily the problem . . . they are a certainty of society, as is the eventual arrival of the Grim Reaper.

What IS the problem is whether people are left with enough money in their pockets to be able to live at an acceptable level — and whether the taxes or rates are spent wisely and not wasted.

In essence, it is a supply and demand issue — how hard do you work land before the soil fails, or costs become greater than earnings?

Then there is the question of earnings/income. How much should people be allowed to keep for themselves?

How much are they able to save for a rainy day? Or, for those with more income at their disposal, how much should they be able to put into property or other ways of saving, but with the addition of providing investment income?

At this point we encounter moral principles about what is the difference between “saving”, and what some see as a way of making money without doing any productive work — or another way of looking at it, using their money to be their proxy while others do the work.

Depending on their social position and way of looking at life, there are widely varying beliefs on what a person should contribute as a fair “fee” for everything that a society provides.

Some say society (government, council etc) does not provide enough and there is a constant call from many quarters, each pushing a barrow that requires money to be spent.

There are also those who have enough income, savings or investments, that they are able to provide for themselves, but baulk at any suggestion they should contribute a little more to help the less fortunate, or society as a whole.

I have commented before that it is a sad part of human nature to want to hang on to what we already have — we are a possessive, selfish species. We do not share like the ants or bees.

So while any mention of new or extra taxes or rates inevitably raises a howl of objection, I suggest the better way to tackle this thorny issue is to look more closely at how and on what we spend.

If we took the sensible step of realising we can’t have everything, and have it now — we might make progress on priorities.

These would seem to me to be housing, health and education, as well as basic infrastructure to support our economic activities.

A bit less on things we don’t really need, or don’t need in a hurry, and a bit more on the most important priorities, would go a long way to a better life for all.

I can’t think of anything sadder than $50 million for a new swimming pool for a district that is struggling to stay afloat after several devastating water events in less than a year.

Getting much better bang for buck could actually see taxes and rates reduce and relieve the burden many now battle with on a weekly basis.

As one who has been unemployed twice, dealt with a major pay cut twice, and now manages on super, I know the resistance governments and councils put up whenever citizens call for them to put their own house in order before inflicting more pain on we, the people.