tax

The majority of NZs want to pay more for their food? Really?

The NZ Herald has a poll result today where the headline claims that Kiwi want a ‘fat tax’.

fattax

Except that was not was originally asked in the poll.

dpoll

The question is rather clumsy. Imagine the result if they had asked “Do you think it is a good idea to tax ALL Kiwis with a sugar tax, increasing food and drink prices across the board, when it is only fat bastards who should be taxed?”.  Read more »

Labour already tried that Winston, wasn’t a winner

Winston Peters is channelling Labour with his silly GST suggestions.

Removing GST from food never worked for Labour, despite them claiming that was a game changer policy.

NZ First has announced a plan to remove GST from food, as part of several policies announced at its party conference.

Leader Winston Peters also said the party wanted GST removed from rates on residential property calling it a “tax on tax deceit”.

“This bold policy aims at the heart of the inequality undermining our society,” Peters said.

Labour had a policy of removing GST from fresh fruit and vegetables going into the 2011 election but it has since been dropped by the party. Last week Peters accused the Conservative Party of plagiarism because it believed the party was lifting its policies.

Peters said the policy was estimated to cost $3 billion a year, and would be funded by a clamp down on “tax evasion and the black economy”, which it estimated to cost $7 billion a year, and what Peters said was “drawing on the projected surplus of billions in the years ahead that result from running a sound economy”.

Read more »

The insanity of sugar and fat taxes

Katherine Rich pushes back against the health nazis who want to put a tax on sugar and fat.

Sugar taxes will extract more money from citizens’ wallets for governments but do nothing to curb obesity.

While sugar is seen by some as the current food demon, it’s important to dial back the hysteria for a fact-based discussion.

Sugars are an important part of people’s diets, providing energy for the body and brain. Over the past decade, sucrose consumption in New Zealand has declined, and reports suggest most people consume at moderate levels.

All this while obesity has been rising. The remaining part of the energy-in, energy-out equation is physical activity, but anti-sugar activists prefer to blame food companies.

The food companies just sit there like stunned mullets as their customers and products are demonised. They thought that it would never happen to them if only they just kept quiet while tobacco companies were bashed.

They were wrong.

The inconvenient truth for those wanting to scapegoat full-sugar carbonated drinks – fizzy – is that there has been a dramatic drop in sales in the past 15 years as consumers turn to the growing array of zero calorie and diet fizz options now available.

With Kiwis eating less sugar and drinking less sugary fizz at a time of rising obesity levels, it’s nonsense to pretend fizz taxes are going to magic away the obesity problem.

So long as the health nazis promote the food pyramid that is heavy on carbohydrates and low on proteins then we will continue to get fatter, especially if we don;t exercise to burn those calorie loadings. Taxing sugars and fats won’t work.    Read more »

An economic lesson for Labour they seem to have forgotten

The Labour party wants to raise taxes, add in the Greens tax increases and their fondness for keynesian stimulus spending, you really wonder if they understand basic economics.

You simply cannot tax a nation to prosperity.

Who better to explain the Laffer Curve than the guy who it named after, Arthur Laffer:

The IEA was delighted to host renowned economist Dr Arthur Laffer on 27th June. He was in the UK advocating lower and flatter taxes as the key to economic growth. He suggests high tax rates alter people’s behaviour and act as a disincentive to work.

Laffer Curve from Institute of Economic Affairs on Vimeo.

Read more »

Tweets of the Day

Megan Campbell shows up teh stupidity of Su’a William Sio:

Cactus Kate points out the glaring deficiency of Labour’s tax plans. labour-tax Read more »

How many Tax Commissars and Stasi operatives will Labour need?

Labour's new tax commissars line up outside IRD's Stasi HQ

Labour’s new tax commissars line up outside IRD’s Stasi HQ

Labour’s newest great idea is to establish a Tax Stasi, filled with Tax Commissars who will be “embedded” in businesses that Labour thinks are bastards.

They will be observing what is going on and reporting back to the Tax Stasi Gruppenfuhrer

This is an outrage…you can’t tell me that once the Tax Stasi have finished doing over multi-nationals that Labour won’t suddenly decide to implement more snitches and stasi agents and lower the threshold and rules down to businesses with say $30 million turnover.

What is more of an outrage is labour have exempted banks from the snoopy activities of having Tax Stasi agents roaming the corridors looking for evasion.

If National had done something like that Labour would be accusing them of cosying up to bankers, and corporate cronyism…like they do now over insurance companies?

You do have to wonder though if one of labour’s aor David Cunliffe’s major secret donors is bank or someone associated with banks.

There are serious questions though…surely if they are targeting tax dodgers and rorters then the unions should have Tax Commissars assigned to them, in particular Unite Union, with their history of non-compliance. Or will Labour except unions from having Tax Stasi Agents sitting in their offices.

In other matters you can tell they don’t know what to do about almost everything because they have retained their promise for us to trust them, they know what they are doing, look we will appoint an Expert Panel.

Expert Panel : An Expert Panel will be established to deal with issues that are technical in nature and involve areas where a high degree of specialised knowledge is required before a final decision can be reached.

This policy will raise an additional $25 million in its first year, growing in outyears to reach $1 billion a year by 2020/21.

Read more »

Sin taxes and stealth taxes affect the poor more

All sorts of people are proposing taxes on sugar, fat and other supposedly bad things.

They are modelling their taxes on tobacco taxes without thinking through that in the case of tobacco it is the smoker who pays With sugar taxes it will be everyone who pays and the burden for these stealth taxes falls disproportionately on the poor.

Chris Snowden explains this very well in this video:

[T]he IEA’s Director of Lifestyle Economics Chris Snowdon examines the extent of the burden of indirect taxes and government sin taxes on the poorest groups in society and how these have changed over time. This film is an excerpt from a recent IEA panel debate event on the ‘Cost of Living’ crisis, in which Chris was outlining the findings of his recent paper ‘Aggressively Regressive’.

Read more »

Rodney Hide demolishes Russel Norman and his Carbon Tax

Rodney Hide tears apart Russel Norman and his unwanted Carbon Tax.

Financial whiz Dr Russel Norman is promising a new tax, one that will make us rich. His CO2 emissions tax will make “New Zealand households … several hundred dollars better off every year.”

Cool. A tax to make us rich. I don’t know why other political parties haven’t thought of it. Their old-fashioned taxes only make us poor. They, too, should be doing a Russel-Norman.

I also don’t know why Dr Norman isn’t doubling his tax. Why be stingy? Doubling it would make us thousands of dollars better-off. If he quadrupled it, we could all retire.

But maybe that’s his plan. He says his tax will “initially” be set at $25 a tonne.

Politicians normally deliver a new tax promising it won’t go up. But not Dr Norman. His only promise is for the initial rate. He clearly has a higher rate in mind.

Good. The higher he cranks it, the richer we get.

Fascinating isn’t it. In the old days people who made promises like Russel Norman were called snake oil salesmen.

I don’t profess to understand how his tax works. Somehow he taxes us on our CO2 emissions but then gives us back the money through tax cuts. I sort of get that bit.

But I am struggling to see how he gives back more than he takes. That’s what he promises. There’s something about the Russel-Norman that multiplies the money as it passes through government.

It could be that taxing CO2 is special or that Russel Norman himself is special. Certainly, no other tax returns more than it taxes. But the Russel-Norman does.

All other taxes also distort prices leaving us making poorer decisions than otherwise.

Income taxes discourage investment and employment. Capital gains taxes discourage trade, investment and entrepreneurship. And so on.

The resulting cost is what is known as the deadweight cost.

But it seems there’s no deadweight with a Russel-Norman. Sure, it changes our behaviour. That’s its point. It’s to make us give up the V8 in favour of the bike. And to plant trees where we once grazed cows. Read more »

A massive tax on NZ and the Greens reckon each household will save a measly $319p.a.

new zealand green taliban logo

The Green party is going into this election proposing a carbon tax…the exact same thing that cost Julia Gillard her job.

They even burned up quite a few carbon miles shipping in Lucy Lawless to say inane stuff like this:

Lawless flew down from her home in Auckland this morning to hear the speech.

She was given details of the policy days ago, but admitted she doesn’t understand the details.

“But I think it’s very energising. It’s a great relief to me that someone is taking some leadership towards mitigating the effects of climate change,” she said.

“I think fair has got to be fair.”

She admitted she flew down at the last minute but doesn’t fly “frivolously.”

She came as “a mother” but is not a party member. Lawless wouldn’t say if she will play a role in the election campaign.

“Somebody has got to say these hard truths and the Green Party is doing it.”

Read more »

Plain packaging call for Coca-Cola now in NZ

ColaBeer

I have spoken many times about this, directly to producers and suppliers as well. I have told them that even though they hate tobacco and tobacco companies, they need to join in the fight against plain packaging because if they don’t they will be next.

Things are moving pretty fast on them now…and there are calls for plain packaging on products containing sugar now. This shows how emboldened the health jihadists have become and they believe that despite the legislation still before the house they can and will start lobbying against “Big Sugar”.

An unflattering report into the soaring rate of obesity around the world has sparked debate over whether sugary foods should have plain packaging in New Zealand.

The report, which analysed data from 188 countries, revealed that the proportion of men classified as obese in this country has increased more than anywhere else – rising from 13% to 28% between 1980 and 2013.

The overall proportion of New Zealand adults considered overweight or obese rose from 50% to 66% – an estimated 2.2 million people, including 960,000 who were obese.

The statistics have sparked debate on whether plain packaging for sugary food products should be introduced, like that being argued for tobacco products.

Speaking to TVNZ’s Breakfast, Auckland University marketing expert Dr Mike Lee says plain packaging for sugary drinks could come into play over the next ten years.

The proposal for plain packaging for tobacco products has caused an uproar with concerns it could spill over into fast food and alcohol products, says Mr Lee.

“There is the worry from companies that we are going to become more and more of a nanny state,” he told the programme.

Read more »