I have been following the supposed cost blow-out of our hospital.

With building costs inflating 10.4% last year and the cost of living inflated by 7.2%, it was obvious that the hospital build cost would also increase.

But in actual fact in real terms the cost of our hospital didn’t increase. Due to inflation the purchasing power of our dollar decreased.

What hasn’t been taken into account is that while inflation hurts those of us with money in the bank or those trying to buy their first home, it does not hurt the government. In fact governments rely on inflation — the Reserve Bank’s target is never -3% to +3%, it is always a positive amount because with negative inflation it would hurt those in power.

Last year, in line with cost of living inflating, wages also increased by 7.4%, the average wage earner paid tax at an average of 22.63% but because of tax bands the extra earnings were taxed at 30%, increasing the average tax payment as a total percentage and total amount. This is a huge boost in government earnings.

Another source of income for the government is GST at 15%.

Every time your groceries, fuel or other costs of living increased, so did the amount of income that the government received.

To sum this up, costs increase with inflation and government’s income also increases with the same inflation.

Taking money from or reducing the scope of our hospital for cost increases is ingenious of the minister and is basic theft from the people of southern New Zealand.

If we let this happen this year then what happens next year when inflation figures (expected to be in the mid 7% range) come out?

Will we lose the helipad, or maybe lose something else?

Gavin Turner

Maori Hill

 

 

Trotter, again

I cannot help but take issue — yet again — with Chris Trotter’s

column (ODT, 9.2.23).

Likening New Zealand efforts to eliminate racism with alleged efforts in China to eliminate the Muslim faith of the Uygur people is based on a false premise, namely that elimination equals authoritarianism.

Mr Trotter continues to compare an apple with the poisonous beach apple. The result is disingenuous and spreads disinformation.

Dr Leoni Schmidt

Helensburgh

 

 

Mining

Deborah Robb (Letters, 11.2.23) takes the Greymouth mayor to task for suggesting that the proposed ban of new mines on conservation land is an ‘‘ideological decision. We will be buying in cheap, slave-labour minerals.’’

She suggests that the definition of conservation — ‘‘the preservation of Earth’s natural resources for current and future generations’’— is the opposite of mining.

This appears to be an anomalous definition. What are future generations going to do with Earth’s natural resources — maybe start using them?

The current headlong swing towards electric vehicles is highly dependent on mining Earth’s natural resources. Furthermore the overarching principle of the RMA is ‘‘the sustainable management of natural and physical resources for present and future generations having due regard for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of individuals and communities’’.

The clue here is economic wellbeing, which suggests that the mayor of Greymouth is very much on the right track.

John Milburn

Wanaka

 

Reverse gear

The Dowling St car park replaced by a building. Maybe the beginning of a reversal of a trend?

D.S. Boyes

Liberton