Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ben, they don't give it to sceptics. Horrible side-effects. Can make you vote NZ First.
-
Oh- by "we" I meant "my family". Imprecise, unclear, obfuscatory, even- to be sure.
-
Craig, I'm not "outraged". Just would like to know what is proposed. How is that bad? I'd be surprsed if we went from (small-scale) tax-payer to beneficiary under National, but not astonished!
And to be imperfectly blunt- jeebus peanuts, I'm not assuming any such thing about the childless. Any more than I'm assuming any of ours will "pick up the slack." Perhaps you can run some seminars on guilt-tripping for heathens! -
Emma- point taken.
It's a niggle alright. Labour significantly 'benefitted' fiscally from Ms Richardson, and depite all the political capital they also took from it, never quite got around to putting the benefits back up.
The Nat's figures probably look a lot more affordable, if you factor in scrapping WFF. Just wish they'd tell us... -
Fletcher, you've brought up (another!) good question I haven't seen addressed. Those of us with families have already had our tax cuts, effectively. With 5 kids, I already pay very little tax.
Are we to get a tax cut on top of WFF? That would probably mean, for me, paying no tax- AND getting a WFF 'top-up'- as a welfare subsidy, if you like.
I think one thing the Nats are probably factoring in is not giving people back more in a tax cut than they are already paying in tax. That means changes, at the least, to WFF. -
Are you sure, Kyle? How we talk, in particular, seems prima facie to be massively influenced, by, like, our enviroment, like. I can't believe identical twins brought up in Brixton and Beunos Aires would sound alike.
-
Ian, the blog world is full of cliche and bad writing, stereotypes and distortions. But studded here and there are good people writing with insight, passion and verve.
Much like the msm ;-) -
Props, Damian.
It is a horrible. And I think people would like better.
Jonno, there are cases and cases. But no matter the guilt of the subjects, what you were doing was intrusive and should not have been televised.
It's true, though, there are still plenty of "Mike Smith's" left, and "if it bleeds it leads."
I once had an extensive argument with a journo for refusing to shoot scenes of a car smash. I did get some wide shots and general footage, but following the business of taking an injured person from the car just felt wrong.
That journo is now fairly high-up in tvnz news and current affairs.... -
Prime simply take Sky's footage- since Sky bought 'em, and used them to fulfill their "free-to-air" obligation.
For the rugby-heads, there was a fairly good explanation of the new rules on the "Friday footie" thing before the Crusaders/Brumbies game- and a fair wack of talk about it during. Mr Mexted sez he likes the new rules a lot: that must be worrying the powers that be!
By Saturday, I guess it was old news... -
you can sizzle a drummer? (I'd just keep the mic, me. Could come in handy.)