I think this is an excellent policy, and a long time coming. This is done overseas with good effect. While I don’t think it’s a magic bullet, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
I think this is an excellent policy, and a long time coming. This is done overseas with good effect. While I don’t think it’s a magic bullet, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
It is a small change, but a positive change nonetheless. GST/VAT free produce has been trialed and found effective in many overseas countries, so it seems plain to me that it would be a good thing here.
Complex social issues are rarely fixable with a single policy, so at least Labour is trying to do something.
GST / VAT has been a beaurecratic nightmare in a number of countries as well.
I’ve been to many countries where this policy exists, and there has never been an issue that I’ve seen. But perhaps your experiences trump mine, so let’s try something else.
If there are countries where this policy causes no problems, and also ones where there are issues, perhaps the difference comes down to implementation? If so, why are you so quick to dismiss this policy as ‘too difficult’ and ‘fraught with problems’ when it does not need to be either of these things? Could it be that you just love to hate on anything Labour does? Or perhaps it is, as I said before, that you (like so many here) will dismiss any change if it does not appear a perfect solution.
Where are these countries where it has been implemented with no issues?
Canada is but one example.
You mean apart from the multiple court cases over GST classifications I linked you to in another thread?
None of which were related to food. No-one is arguing that we want to completely copy the tax code of other countries, or that we want to use implementations that have proven difficult. All they want to do is zero-rate produce. Just that, nothing else. The only example you can find is the one from the UK. I know of one other case in Australia btw. But just because it has happened in a couple of other countries doesn’t mean it needs to here. Giving up on positive change because of the slight risk of potential litigation down the road is stupid.
You do understand that this is just one example of the side effects of this, and even in a best case scenario, this will result in more admin costs.
You do understand that, right?
Of course I do. I just disagree with the conclusion to draw from this.
Thank you for implying in stupid because I disagree with you though.