Posts by Pete George
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
...but it probably is true that a large-ish group of non-tribal voters sees a multi-party centre-left coalition possibly relying on New Zealand First and Kim Dotcom as less secure than what they currently have with National. They don’t even have to greatly like National to feel that way.
I think that sums up common sentiment at the moment.
-
Some capital gains are taxed in New Zealand, if you are deemed a speculator or a dealer. See http://www.ird.govt.nz/property/property-common-mistakes/mistake-dealing-with-investment/
Does the visualisation use individual incomes? Key's claim is about household incomes.
Key's office has responded to a query about his claim.
The Prime Minister was referring to the following piece of analysis from the Treasury:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/tax-support-systems-redistribute-incomes
This is deliberately a very simple measure of tax redistribution so it can be simply understood. The description of what is and isn’t included in the calculation is included in the press release.
Mr Salmond is correct that the calculation doesn’t include GST. But it also doesn’t include, for example, company tax paid on behalf of NZ shareholders. It doesn’t include receipt of NZ Superannuation which would make redistribution far more pronounced. It doesn’t include households’ use of free education or health services. The households are not adjusted to account for differences in size and composition. The point is that many different types of calculation – from the most simple to the most complex – can be described as “net tax” and that is fine as long as people are clear about what is or isn’t included in their calculation.
The Government stands by the figures it has used.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to William Leander,
Yes, of course I realise that they would be lies, as could many other hypothetical conversations. I've also said that it's likely Key did lie to some degree, I think that's fairly well established as probable but unproven.
I'm not sure what your point is.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
How is Dotcom’s “goodness” or “badness” relevant to the present discussion? Let’s say, purely for the purposes of argument, that Dotcom is a crooked copyright thief who made his fortune out of illegal activities. So what?
Because Dotcom is the person disputing Key's story. He has an open interest in damaging Key and ousting him as Prime Minister. I'm as skeptical about his claims as I am of Key's. I think Dotcom's character is a pertinent issue.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Russell Brown,
I think it’s entirely possible that Key lied about it at the time and is simply stuck with the lie.
That's one of the most likely explanations, to some degree. He may have fibbed thinking he could get away with it and under scrutiny it has grown into a lie. Key appeared to be trying to soften his staunch denials recently.
It seems that unless Dotcom provides proof, or Banks reveals something in court, Key will try to keep weathering the storm.
I just don't think it's as simple as Key bad and guilty, Dotcom good and innocent.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Russell Brown,
The closer you look, the more implausible Key’s claim to have not heard of Dotcom until the day before the raid looks.
I agree. It's possible Key wasn't aware of Dotcom until the raid as he claims, but evidence proving otherwise hasn't been produced - and I'm sure a number of people have tried hard to find it as evidence of this is regarded as more than a smoking gun, it would potentially be a bullet for Key's Prime Ministership.
As Paul Buchanan has suggested it seems likely US intelligence agencies may have had an interest in Dotcom before he came to New Zealand, and it would surprise me if the GCSB didn't have a pre-extradition interest in him too. They should have had an interest.
But we don't know what if anything of this might have been shared directly with our Prime Minister.
I think it's plausible Key had no involvement at all in the events leading up to the Dotcom raid. It could have been because it was seen by others as an operational matter that shouldn't concern Government, even possibly mustn't involve Government.
Or there could have been a deliberate distance.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sacha,
Court testimony and a follow-up interview, reported by professional journalists. What are you basing yours on?
I'm not claiming anything apart from uncertainty. You seem to be assuming one person's claim's are accurate:
Mr Dotcom claimed in court Mr Key had heard about him because Mr Banks told him he had told the Prime Minister about a New Year’s fireworks display being put on by Mr Dotcom.
- their claimed recollection of a conversation two and a half years ago that was a second hand account of another conversation they didn't hear themselves.
I'm not aware of Banks giving his version yet - courts give the accused an opportunity to give their testimony too. And Key's version as reported:
Mr Key said he had "no idea what John Banks said to Kim Dotcom but all I know is he has never spoken to me about going to fireworks."
He would never go to such fireworks anyway because he always spent Christmas and New Year in Hawaii.You're choosing to take the word of one person who didn't hear the conversation over another person who did. Perhaps Banks will give his version of the two conversations, but presuming there's no recording we will never know the actual facts. Long term human memory of trivial conversations and Chinese whispers can't be guaranteed to be accurate.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sacha,
Sacha - what is your comprehension of what Banks said to Key, if anything, about fireworks. You seem to be basing your assumptions just on something Dotcom has said.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sacha,
What a lovely example of slipperiness. Telling someone about an event is not the same as talking about “going to” it.
I think you're trying to make a lot more out of this than the known evidence supports.
It could have been:
Banks: Do you want to come to Dotcom's fireworks display?"
Key: "Nah, I'll be in Hawaii".
Banks to Dotcom: "Our friend John can't make it".It could have been:
Banks: "Would your family be interested in fireworks at New Year?"
Key: "Nah, we'll be in Hawaii".
Banks to Dotcom: "I mentioned fireworks but he'll be out of the country".Or it could have been many other variations. Including nothing being said to Key at all about fireworks.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Sacha,
I'm not saying that Government and power shouldn't be scrutinised or held to account at all, I think they should. There's been significant stuff-ups and serious concerns. But the scrutiny seems to be at times overdone and quite one sided.
There's nothing radical or novel about trying to hold everyone to account, is there?