Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I just find it ironic that the democratic party in America is an aristocracy. But then, the US is really a monarchy, so its not that surprising.
-
Kyle: You can imagine whatever you like. I prefer to use Treasury's figures on Who pays tax... and how much?, and a calculator.
A tax cut which delivered a flat $200 a month to the 30% (yes, only 30%) of taxpayers earning over $40K would cost $2.3 billion a year. Which is the cost of our entire justice system (police, courts, corrections). Quite a hole, and remember that's a minimum, given that tax cuts tend to alter rates as well as thresholds.
Given that the annual discretionary spending in the budget is about $1.2 billion, even the charitable interpretation is still in the "unaffordable crazy talk" range, requiring serious cuts to government services on a scale which would be unacceptable to the New Zealand public.
-
I/S's estimate isn't necessarily wrong, but obviously it's the highest possible interpretation
It's the interpretation I got by taking his promise of a tax cut of "2 - 3 hundred dollars a month" for most New Zealanders at face value. $300 a month x 12 months x 3.2 million odd taxpayers (if you go with the bottom end, its "only" $7.8 billion a year - still crazy talk).
Now, as I explicitly said, I don't for a moment think that that is what Key will actually deliver (he'll target his tax cuts at the rich, just like National always does), and like you I think he'll deliver something broadly similar to the last effort. But at the end of the day, that's what he said, so that's what gets costed. I'm not a theologian, so I'm not going to piss about trying to work out what he "might" have meant, or what words he "missed out". His statements have a plain and clear meaning, and so that's what I go for. And if anyone things that taking politicians' statements at face value is somehow "unfair" (as many seem to be arguing over the "we would like to see wages drop" quote), then I think they are setting the standards of political honesty far too low.
-
what a truly appalling way to select the leaders of the country. "Damn the actual legislative program they'll put in place or their policy intent - let's just let them cage-fight it over pointless and irrelevant soundbites"
To point out the obvious, the selection criteria for the leaders of the country are in our hands. Sure, the media may focus on the horse race, and ignore substantive issues - but that doesn't mean we have to.
-
Most people don't want to be CEO. They want job security, enough money to get married and to have some kids in a house they will eventually own - and to squirrel away a bit for a rainy day/reward for their labours.
Precisely. But classical and neo-classical economics has a serious problem coping with the concept of "enough", or that desires may in fact be limited.
I know off employees who have foregone promotions because the wage increase is outweighed by the loss of WFF benefit. That is not good for anyone.
Clearly, they felt it was good for them. Or does revealed preference only count one way?
-
Just how much trade do we have with Monaco (other than swapping postage stamps)?
We export millionaires and tax dollars to them.
-
Reducing wages, lowers the cost of labour relative to capital investment. That can actually reduce productivity by disincentivising investment in productivity increasing capital, and increasing the incentive to hire another cheap warm body.
And for those wanting an example, just look at the 90's. The ECA and high unemployment kept wages low, which reduced investment in productivity. Why bother when you can just hire another warm body?
This is not a policy which in the long-term will make New Zealand richer; long-term sustainable economic growth depends on productivity gains. But it will make business-owners richer. In other words, it is primarily about redistributing wealth from the many to the few.
-
Aah ok Graeme - thanks for clarifying that. That raises an interesting question for me though about a sitting member of the opposition representing the interests of a foreign country, which at least on its face is much more bizarre than a NZer who lives in a country being the NZ representative there? Why is that not a conflict of interest?
Honorary consuls don't actually do a lot of representing. But you're right, it is a prima facie conflict of interest, and if Parliament ever debates anything to do with Monaco (fat chance), then I'd expect him to declare it and withdraw.
Provided he doesn't swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign power while an MP, it's not a problem.
-
Or is this your subtle lawyerly way of exacting revenge for his Werewolf algorithm?
Bloody LARPers :)
-
Snap! Lesley Boniface in the Dominion-Post on Monday:
It is this completely natural state of affairs [the old hating the young - I/S] that is, I believe, behind the Government's current war on graffiti (in addition to it being a nice cheap way to gain a few extra votes). Graffiti is a young person's hobby that offends grown-ups' ideas of neatness, tidiness and social order, and therefore it must be crushed.
For confirmation of this view, check out the name of the anti- graffiti initiative: Stop Tagging Our Place. "Our place", understand? Not your place.
It is our place, you spotty, hoodie-wearing hooligans, and we want to keep it clean and pristine.