Opinions / The Conservatory
recent Opinions/The Conservatory
by Edward Greig | 2:47 am, 20/09/2010
Michael Laws leapt in to control the possible story over his apparently scandalous relationship and resulting text messages. His claims of there being political motivation behind the story seem a little odd, though. As Laws is not running for Mayor of Whanganui again, the only person with political motivation I can see is from Laws himself. Seeking to gain maximum exposure, and possibly gain some sympathy, Laws may have reached the point of no return in the belief no publicity is bad publicity.
by Edward Greig | 2:15 am, 23/08/2010
An increase in regulations promoting warmer houses may be populist, but it isn’t necessarily good for everyone, nor is government support actually needed for good housing.
by Edward Greig | 11:28 pm, 22/08/2010
Weeks like this don’t come often enough between elections. By now, Chris Carter will probably be gone from the Labour Party, and it’s certain that he signed the death warrant in his own handwriting.
by Edward Greig | 2:05 am, 09/08/2010
Writing from the past, I can’t determine the full fall-out and final result, but for now I am celebrating the recent OUSA referendum result.
by Edward Greig | 1:21 am, 26/07/2010
Following their investment of settlement funds and businesses, iwi are becoming economic powerhouses. It is time that the government recognised this and took advantage of this large pool of capital.
The Conservatory - 13
by Edward Greig | 8:32 pm 11/07/2010
The rise in tobacco excise tax will help to offset other tax cuts recently announced in the Budget. Simple enough, but is that really fair? Taxing one group of people, based on their personal choice to give themselves cancer, to enable the Government to take less from others?
It seems a little discriminatory, but of course smokers have more health problems, and should probably pay for these themselves (private health insurance?).
The problem arises from the fact that smokers are now paying around $900 million in tax every year, and the Government spends about $250 million on smoking-related health costs. Of course there are other costs that could be linked, but at just under $1 billion in revenue, smokers are more than subsidising their costs.
Additionally, the last Government sadly got it the wrong way round with its smoke-free legislation applying to workplaces. Far more important would have been banning smoking in public. Much like alcohol bans, smoking bans would prevent passive smoking and impact on non-smokers. Every person who smokes around me in a public place is taking away my right to breathe fresh air. That isn’t right; the Government has a limited level of control over public places, which should be used to prevent people infringing on others rights. Banning smoking is public is far more legitimate than banning it in a privately-owned location.
If you don’t want to work somewhere, don’t work there, whether it’s because of the pay, the smokers, or any reason. If you don’t want to go to a bar, don’t go there, whether it’s because of the price of drinks, the crap toilets, or the smokers. The flipside is, many people have little choice but to go out in public – and be subjected to second-hand smoke.
Now that everyone has cellphones, all the redundant telephone booths could be turned into smoking booths for those caught short on the street. Keep the smoke contained and away from the public.
Increasing tax is not the right way to tell someone what they can and cannot do. As long as the harms to others are minimised and smokers are c overing their added expenses by paying higher insurance premiums or a fair rate of tax, which is directed at the health system, that is enough. Higher taxes are fining people for their personal choices.
