OVER TO YOU

War Less Likely?

It appears from your report (Trump, Kim keen to meet by May, 10 March) that the hard line taken by President Donald Trump has succeeded in persuading his archrival, North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Un, that he has no choice but to negotiate.

It appears that the rogue state has come to recognise that it must either abandon or modify its threatening nuclear policy, which has troubled the whole world.

At this stage we do not know what concession America can offer its opponent in exchange for North Korea’s seemingly very clear offer to stop missile testing and to start abandoning its nuclear arsenal, but at this stage all the compromises are, surprisingly, by North Korea - the USA and South Korea will doggedly continue with their own planned joint military exercises.

President Trump, however, is first-and-foremost a businessman who is known as a ‘‘deal-maker’’; and there is hope at last that he will do his part in pulling back from the threat of war.

All of this started because South Korea agreed last year to let North Korea participate in the Winter Olympic Games.

It is evident from your report that sport can build bridges and reshape international relations.

Even better, last month’s winter sports may have saved the world from the grave present-day threat of nuclear war.

Robert Sorley

New Plymouth

Water response

Jim Tucker is right to cast doubts on NPDC’s response to the recent water crisis.

The incident put people’s health at risk and cost businesses millions of dollars.

NPDC’s continued silence on this matter is undermining to public trust.

Councillors rushing to the defence of the organisation by labelling the incident as an ‘‘Act of God’’ also don’t seem to realise that it isn’t their job to defend the bureaucrats, but to test and challenge the organisation and to hold the CEO to account for organisational failure.

Is it reasonable to assume that a tree falling over on an exposed pipe is something that a competent infrastructure owner should have identified and done something about?

Having seen how other infrastructure owners manage their assets, and how they identify and manage asset integrity risks, I think there is a case for a deeper inquiry into what this incident might reveal about NPDC’s infrastructure management practices.

Any weaknesses in culture and systems are likely to spill over into their other infrastructure functions, including waste water, storm water, roading, and buildings.

NPDC might very well have a world class asset and risk management program, and there might be a very good reason why that tree wasn’t considered an important risk to public safety and business interruption.

But wouldn’t it be good to know that, rather than be met by a wall of silence and evasion?

And wouldn’t it be even better for public confidence if we could see elected representatives front foot this on our behalf?

Len Houwers

New Plymouth

Hands off!

Because of an aging work force it has been suggested that government be more reliant on taxing capital gains and less reliant on taxing wages. In this 21st century it has become more critical to stop government borrowing and to modernise taxation to minimise credit creation.

Government bonds can never be assets if the debt is never repaid. It does not matter whether credit (money) is created as debt or debt-free as both cause inflation (invisible taxation) and reduce the purchasing power of our currency. But debt-free money has three immediate benefits. It stops the payment of interest to banks, allows the modernisation of taxation and controls inflation by being spent into the economy, not lent. Stopping the diversion of tax revenue away from consumption and tangible capital investment allows personal income tax to be abolished and goods and services tax to be upgraded (20-25 per cent) to tax the economy fairly as it was designed to do (no loopholes). There would be no need to consider inheritance tax, capital gains tax or wealth tax.

It is logical to say the more you earn the more you spend, so only the wealthy would say the poor are disadvantaged by such a proposal, but the poor have only so much to spend.

The ‘‘experts’’ must stop thinking of themselves.

Steve Laurence

Egmont Village