All the toil and effort and waking up early and beavering away, then deposited into your bank account is half as much
as you damn well earned.
No matter the job or how much it pays, I’ve always felt the same visceral indignation knowing some other mug is spending what I earned fair and square. It’s theft.
But, they say, it’s simply the price we must pay for good schools, decent roads, a functioning health system and reduced poverty. Um, okay.
They are also now saying we need more of them. Taxes. Every man and his dog reckons the country will continue down its debt spiral if we don’t find alternative revenue streams for the ever-hungry monster that lives under the Beehive gobbling up the fruits of our collective labour.
Will it be wealth? Will it be capital? Will it be both? Can we not simply starve that Beehive monster a bit more and hack away at spending to balance ourselves out of a structural deficit?
That’s what the outgoing Treasury boss called it in an interview published in the Herald. Dr Caralee McLiesh explained what we all know happened to the Government’s books during and post Covid. The monster grew insatiably hungry and debt ballooned from below 20% of GDP to above 40%.
It’s tipped to stay above 40% for at least the next few years, by which time we can potentially start paying it off rather than ticking it over.
I say potentially, because we have elections and elections are expensive things. Some parties like to spend more than others. Others have to match them, least they be labelled stingy or tight or out of touch.
Yes we can grow our way out of debt but again, some parties are better at that than others. There’s also the inconvenient fact that occasionally, the sky likes to rain a lot or Earth shakes and these things also cost a lot. Gobble gobble. Munch munch.
We basically need to earn more and/or spend less.
McLiesh recommends a bit of both — trimming superannuation and taxing capital.
But why tax something people have worked hard to build and save for?
Wouldn’t we instead be better off taxing — and remember it pains me to suggest such a dastardly thing as a tax — something that costs us money and drains our resources? A tax that could save us money and earn it all at the same cunning time?
If we’re going to start somewhere, then why not start with a sugar tax? A fat tax. An obesity tax. Whatever you want to call it.
Direct healthcare costs from overweight and obese Kiwis have been estimated to be $2 billion a year and growing. That’s a whopping 7% of our health budget.
More and more Kiwis are eating their way into an early grave, with a lack of exercise the nail in the coffin.
We tax cigarettes because they’re bad for our health. Same with booze.
We tax petrol through an Emissions Trading Scheme levy because it’s bad for the planet.
If Sally wants to stuff her face with empty carbs and soft drink at the drive-through until she’s diabetic and winds up on an operating table, why should Sandra have to pay for it?
Should the cost not be at least in part priced into the root cause of the problem? It’s obviously not going to solve the structural deficit in one fell swoop, but there are worse places to start.
Also worth pointing out is diet and exercise (or lack thereof) are not the only contributors to obesity. A myriad health issues, medications and other factors can contribute and in some cases, trying to control weight is simply not possible. In those cases, the tax would not be a significant burden.
But for most of us Sallys, the issues are quite simple to identify and a tax may help to not only replenish the anorexic state of the Government’s coffers, but improve the quality of life for thousands of Kiwis.
Anchor released research this week and it reckons some supermarkets are selling more fizzy drinks than milk — far from alarming, it didn’t sound too far off the mark.
Taxing sugar to reduce rates of obesity and associated life-threatening illnesses is complicated, but taxing lots of stuff is complicated. Hasn’t stopped ‘em trying.
Australia has looked at a sugary drinks tax and estimates it could generate $1.4 billion in the first two years.
Mexico, Fiji and the Philippines are among countries that have introduced one with varying results. India has a form of GST on all packaged and processed foods.
Our Ministry of Health investigated the idea a few years ago and found the evidence of success for introducing such a move was inconclusive.
But that’s not a reason not to try, and if the structural deficit everybody’s talking about will one day force that Beehive monster to reach into our pockets for more revenue, a tax on products that harm our collective health and weigh on our finite resources may well be the first most palatable option.
