He says that those on $30k get $620/week, those on $50k get $860/week, and those on $100k get $1460/week.

I'm pretty sure it's not "/week".

the relationship between Farrar and the National Party comms machine

It's entirely his choice whether he declares it or not, but I think people might be interested to know all the same: How much of Curia's revenue comes from National Party work?

I haven?t given nearly enough thought to the relationship between Farrar and the National Party comms machine, nor to the role that he plays in testing, seeding and propagating National Party messages.

I'm confused now. So you're saying that Kiwiblog might not be the official National Party website?

He says that those on $30k get $620/week

But your charts' y-axis says "tax cut per year ($)"

I'm confused

UPDATE: stupid slow fingers!

Damnit! Must check numbers...

The discrepancy I noticed was that the "When it's actually ..." figures for Labour, double in the next graph "Total impact of packages 2008-2011", even though the axes appear to have the same measures. I'm not sure of the significance of the x-axis?

Quite frankly I am sick of the blatant lies. Again quite happy to be hooked up to a polygraph or injected with truth serum. Also to swear an?

I'm glad for you that?

The top 10% sees most of their tax cuts wiped out by wage growth and fiscal drag ? but remember,?

But it?s impossible to look at this indecent assault on numeracy and not think that it?s a lightly paraphrased briefing paper written by a policy-cum-comms hack (Research Unit?) outlining the key messages that National wants to get out ahead of the Budget.

gets around 400 words?

DPF it is not statistically acceptable to present 3 income points, it does not represent the data properly and you know that.

Keith please get the numbers right (per year not per week).

Take home messages for me?

It's entirely his choice whether he declares it or not, but I think people might be interested to know all the same: How much of Curia's revenue comes from National Party work?

Well, David, if you really want to go there who's paying your bills nowadays?

No use was gained from them

:-)

The tax cuts we did get were those promised by labour and subsequently tweeked by National to give (slightly) bigger cuts to the higher income earners.

And personally, I'm still waiting for a personal apology from English and Cullen because (sorry for the broken record-ness) anyone who tells be you?

And personally, I'm still waiting for a personal apology from English and Cullen because (sorry for the broken record-ness) anyone who tells be you can cut government income AND increase government spending BUT don't really have to borrow (kinda) is a copper bottomed lying shit.

Sounds like United Future economic?

Me thinks that whenever anyone examines his links to the National Party, David Farrar doth protest too much.

And what does that mean, Tom? Of course, if I called you a lying Labour party plant I'd expect you to just man up and take it like the good little hack?

for a personal apology from English and Cullen ...

And who said Craig wasn't a patient man :).

... is a copper bottomed lying shit.

Now that's a nice image. However, really they are both politicians and good ones so what else did you expect :).

Well, David, if you really want to go there who's paying your bills nowadays?

Don't mind in the least.
About 95% from Americans, Australians, Brits and a few from places like Mexico. Approximately 2% from govt departments, state-owned media and NZ on Air, and none from any political party or?

I'm pretty sure it's not "/week".

Yes, my bad. Amended.

But it?s impossible to look at this indecent assault on numeracy and not think that it?s a lightly paraphrased briefing paper written by a policy-cum-comms hack (Research Unit?) outlining the key messages that National wants to get out ahead of the Budget.

is really a throwaway line, then?

You'd think someone getting on their high horse about numeracy would know the difference between a percentile and a decile, wouldn't you?

See Muphry's Law.

I do think it's about time we automatically inflation adjusted income tax and nominally reduced fiscal drag to 0 – I doubt any Minister of Finance will ever go for that though.

Problem is, nobody wants to raise taxes, but everybody needs to raise taxes. Letting growth and inflation do?

Instead of short-term, immediate spending, or even one-off tax refunds, National wants to implement tax cuts that actually become more expensive with time, and they wonder why there's a looming structural surplus?

I suspect you're being overly generous and that they know exactly what they are doing. I'm not going?

You'd think someone getting on their high horse about numeracy would know the difference between a percentile and a decile, wouldn't you?

Touche. I have no defence on that count.

Keith – I would like you to apologise for your assertion that someone else authored/wrote/had input or even suggested my blog post.

I will take your word for it. And not the Parliamentary kind of take-your-word-for-it. I mean I will actually take your word for it. And I apologise for?

I'm not 100% sure I get the percentile graphs – does the final one suggest that come April 2011, under National's planned tax package (I irrationally HATE the term cuts), the top 10 percentile will be paying net total of $450 MORE in tax than they do now?

Nope. $450?

Which brings us back to the point that tax cuts really do help bring a country out of a recession BUT ONLY if they are immediate.?

Whether you're doing it independently or not, you are messaging for the National Party, and this is categorically different to expressing a point of view. You are entitled to do either, of course, but I was just pointing it out.

Oh. "I didn't call you a whore, you suck cock?

Did DPF post misleading numbers, in an attempt to score political points? Yes.

This is turning into a wee bit of a shit fight, yeah, but Keith actually has a point. Which DPF did, and you seem to be, too.

I'm not quite sure what that last sentence is supposed to mean, but my point is that splitting semantic hairs under an electron microscope is seldom dignified. And the difference between a whore and a slut is pretty fine.

And there are times when Keith has been sloppy, but?

Whether you're doing it independently or not, you are messaging for the National Party, and this is categorically different to expressing a point of view. You are entitled to do either, of course, but I was just pointing it out.

I've already pointed out to David, on his blog, that?

Whether you're doing it independently or not, you are messaging for the National Party, and this is categorically different to expressing a point of view. You are entitled to do either, of course, but I was just pointing it out.

I think this is a well made point. David needn't?

And yes, agree that an accusation of sock puppetry is unfair. Not quite sure if Keith in fact did that, although you don't seem to see much difference between "you SOUND like the National?

Oh. "I didn't call you a whore, you suck cock for free and you're still a dirty skank".

It wasn't meant as a backhanded accusation.

For the record, I am very consciously *not* trying to weaselword my way out of the fact that I am accusing DPF of a pretty?

For the record, I am very consciously *not* trying to weaselword my way out of the fact that I am accusing DPF of a pretty serious lack of integrity. But it was appropriate to clarify exactly what I was accusing him of.

And as such it's fair to acknowledge the?

Great post.

My one complaint is that your focus on deciles can be a bit misleading.

I haven't seen any good NZ data for breakdowns of the top 10% of income (if you know of any, do let us know). But Saez's work on income inequality in the USA?