Posts by Amy Gale
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Semantics 'R' Us Literary Consulting & Strict Lexicographical Correction For The Discerning Gentleperson
Words cannot express how disappointed I was to determine that this did not resolve to a smutty acronym.
-
The Exponents: Airways Pies
Why should railway pies get all the press?
-
I have yet to hear anyone put a good case for sugar, or transfats, for instance.
Which sounds nice and easy when you're assessing the baking aisle, but what about some of the others?
Canned green beans have excellent nutrient retention and are available year-round, clearly healthful. Except, there could be salt and/or sugar in the brine. Does this make them instantly unhealthful? If not, is there a cutoff? If there is a cutoff, where is it? Where does each brand of green beans fall with respect to the cutoff? What if we want to adjust the cutoff later? Is every manufacturer going to just push their salt/sugar levels right up against the cutoff for optimal taste/tax tradeoff? (Clue: yes). Is it going to cost money to deal with protests about the cutoff level? (Clue: yes)
Multiply by every food product in the country, and every food product that will come online in the future. I'll pass.
-
People in general want to buy nutritious food for themselves and their families. Access and affordability are the most significant impediments.
- Removing tax on "healthful food" - even assuming there was a way to define it that wouldn't be a perpetual nightmare - might improve affordability. However, there is an upper bound on the amount of improvement we can get, and there is the distinct possibility that prices won't budge by that much.
- Transparently computing a lump sum and giving it to people means that the cash is actually in their hands and not being eaten by compliance costs. It also means there is no need to make a healthful/not determination for every single product in the country. There is still an upper bound on the improvement in buying power, and now there is no push toward using the money for healthful food (except people's own inclinations).
- Additionally taxing UN-healthful food would allow for unbounded manipulation - the price difference could be as big as we wanted. However, we're back to having to decide what is and is not healthful.
None of these do anything to improve access, which recent studies (linky) seem to indicate is the bigger problem anyway.
I certainly don't think a lump sum rebate is a perfect solution; I don't even necessarily think it's the best solution. I do, however, think it's better than adding exceptional cases to the tax structure. These don't seem to end up benefitting anyone but the food industry behemoths with the pickiest lawyers. (Don't worry if NZ doesn't have its own behemoths - the US will be sure to share if the tax advantages are right.)
-
If most folks are like me they'll see that check and think ooo I can buy that nice bottle of Pinot Noir or new shoes.
But that's fair enough, isn't it?
If you genuinely eat zero fruit and veg, then the rebate didn't do anything to make you eat them (would a GST reduction have been different?). Anyone who feels they need shoes more badly than they need fruit could well be right, and yay that they will have the opportunity. Anyone who feels they need a nice bottle of Pinot Noir more than they need fruit is probably comfortable enough that they aren't going to be dissuaded from healthful food on financial grounds anyway.
If you do eat fruit and veg, but see the rebate lump sum as an opportunity for other spending, that's just bookkeeping.
-
Amy, and that'll be done six times a year? Our fruit and vege prices fluctuate dramatically, so it's not a once-a-year exercise to carry out that kind of calculation.
Prices and availability obviously fluctuate. This is why I referred to an "annual" cart in the first place: you can't buy strawberries in April - or if you can, you shouldn't expect them to be very nice - and lettuces in September are going to cost more than in November. Nonetheless, humans have for thousands of years had the ability to record numbers and then sum them. I'm pretty confident that there are still people capable of this.
So there's no reason it can't be once a year. In the run-up to tax time would be nice, then it could be packaged into people's rebates or used to offset tax owed.
Plus, what if you're a large family? Or a small one? Or single and living alone? What's the pro-rata on the cheque?
"Everyone in the country" means that if you exist, you get a check. There's no reason to complicate it with pro-rating. Except, perhaps, for people who are born or die during the year.
-
How about this?
1) Design a "standard" annual fruit+veg shopping cart in line with 5+ A Day recommendations and so forth.
2) Compute price of cart, and thus GST.
3) Send everyone in the country a check for the GST amount.
4) Er...
5) That's it.
-
Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)I <3 Russ Feingold. That is all.
-
(Related sub-peeve: the companies who will ship overseas, but charge mind-numbingly high prices for it. No, actually, I know how long it takes to fill out a customs label AND I know how much it costs to send something from there to here using normal post, so, in essence: bite me.)
QFT.
I think that customs labels must seem very, very arduous to some people. I observe, for example, that companies that refuse to ship internationally tend to also refuse to ship to AFO/FPO addresses (which only require domestic postage but do need customs declarations).
I don't mind on-shipping stuff for the people in my life, but it's annoying that it's necessary.
-
I remember how furious I was that I couldn't give blood for a year because I'd slept with a boy who'd slept with a boy.
I was pretty irate when the Red Cross guy at a school blood drive wouldn't let me give blood because "people from Europe aren't eligible because of Mad Cow".
Would not believe that New Zealand isn't in Europe. Would not call the office for verification. My O- blood and I went back to the office undepleted.
A stern letter was written. Oh, yes, a very stern letter indeed.