Letters: Remove GST from groceries to reduce hardship

Photo/File

While Treasury and the Government are no doubt delighted that rising food prices increase their revenue from 15 per cent GST on every purchase made, sadly for low-income families these prices and the GST will add to their hardships. A disproportionate part of low-income families' income is paid on tax on food purchases compared to the proportion of income paid by high-income families. Food is not an optional purchase. We all have to eat.

Australia, Canada, UK and others do not have GST on their groceries. Their more compassionate governments recognise that food is a necessity and is needed to keep everyone and especially children in good health, so saving on health costs.

It is amazing that so many economic commentators continue with the myth that 15 per cent GST on groceries is a fair and simple tax. It is not when imposed on essential purchases such as food. It is grossly unjust. When will our policy-makers follow the example of sensible governments and remove GST from groceries and ensure that all our children have enough to eat?

ROSEMARY MICHIE
Rotorua

It was encouraging to read on Wednesday that after nine years of watching home ownership rates fall to a 66-year low while property prices skyrocketed over 25 per cent in the past year, local MP Todd McClay has decided to take a breather from being minister for the so-called "zombie" trade deal, TPPA-1, to make a proposal which could, if implemented well, bring stability and affordability to Rotorua property prices by increasing housing supply.

Unfortunately McClay's National party has a bad track record of actually delivering affordable homes. For the proposed Special Housing Accord (SHA) to be truly successful, it must clearly define its purpose using numbers, not relative terms. As an example, the Auckland SHA states that it must "give consideration to the provision of affordable housing". To illustrate how this relative term stunts the ability of the SHA to deliver on its intent, McClay's colleague, Minister Nick Smith, said on Tuesday that affordability is "in the eye of the beholder". He then went on to say that a $650,000 home is "affordable".

The accepted definition of housing affordability is an income-to-property-price multiple. A multiple of under three is considered affordable. By this standard, Rotorua became unaffordable around four years ago and has only deteriorated since. In my view, the SHA must clearly define the number of houses which are to be built with a multiple of under three, because if it doesn't, the market will continue to deliver expensive homes for the few, instead of ensuring housing is accessible for the many.

RYAN GRAY
Rotorua

The design of the proposed skatepark did indeed look great but the cost estimate of $2.1 million plus the additional cost of parking facilities certainly didn't. Rather, it tainted the project!

This is even more alarming now that we are told that the council's expected budget over-run for 2016-17 is estimated at $2.3m and that despite the annual plan stating no increased borrowing, that 'no increased borrowing' has morphed into an expected $5.5m by the end of June.

I do so wish that council could adopt a more prudent spending ideology. Maybe try to operate as a business (council is a very big business) required to make a profit for its shareholders or one required to reduce its overdraft to remain solvent and avoid going into liquidation. This involves cost-cutting and putting some projects on hold. It doesn't mean canning them, just waiting till circumstances improve. It means a business cutting its coat to fit the cloth.

Agreed, council income has dropped significantly but I and most other people faced with a drop of income immediately analyse outgoings and potential spending and reduce them accordingly. That overseas trip gets put on hold, the house alterations get put on hold, upgrading the car has to wait etc. Why hasn't this common-sense approach to business infiltrated council?

PADDI HODGKISS
Rotorua

I have to agree with Paul Brooks (Opinion, July 7), we should all be very concerned about North Korea, but I would go further. I lived through the Blitz, at the start of World War II we were living in Wembley, just outside London, and as a journalist, I have experienced a hell of a lot more; I have seen first-hand the plight of millions around the world, there has not been a single week in my lifetime (84 years) when war has not raged somewhere on this planet, and terrorists have wrought havoc in places many have never heard about. But the thing that worries - no, terrifies me - more is the almost total lack of concern here in New Zealand!

On the TV news programmes, less than two minutes is given to the conflict between Korea and the rest of the world - which includes us! Yes, like it or not we are as involved as the US, Europe and anywhere else you may think of. No man is an island (Donne) and putting our heads in the sand and pretending that as long as we win just about every sporting event in the world all will be ok is not the way to go!

Cemeteries around the world contain the remains of Kiwi men and women who gave their lives in the mistaken belief that it would bring peace.

Another very frightening aspect is the fact that the only politician anywhere in the world who is currently making any sense is the one we were mistakenly taught was the demon - Putin! And if that doesn't wake us up nothing will.

JIM ADAMS
Rotorua