Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm sorry, Russell. I wasn't trying to get at you I know how very hard it is to proof your own work. I really did think it was deliberate, a nice way of showing that a good sub is gold.
-
Hard News: Sub Mission, in reply to Russell Brown,
That's just too honest of you, Russell!
-
And should it be, “subs bench” or “subs’ bench”?
ETA: There's quite a few more, but it does seem unsporting to grab all the hidden treasure for oneself.
-
So... ummm... there are quite a few typos in this, which I'm guessing is deliberate?
-
Very good, Craig! I can picture all of that, and it both makes me want to be there, and makes me want to run away from anything like the scene you paint.
ETA: Also, thank you for the postcard from Liverpool! It reminded me of a particular cultural experience there that is still blowing my mind a little. Not in a good way. -
Hard News: Press Play > Budget, in reply to Hilary Stace,
I just got interviewed by Radio Live about that, Hilary.
-
Hard News: Press Play > Budget, in reply to Andrew C,
If you are going to have a CGT on family homes, you need to provide rollover relief each time people sell and buy, otherwise you impede labour market mobility. That gets…. complicated, especially if you are trying to work out when people are making their final sell and buy moves, perhaps as they move into a retirement home. You also get all sorts of issues around matrimonial property. Plus you get older people rattling around in huge houses because they don’t want to sell and cop the CGT. So usually, it’s easier from a design perspective to just ringfence family homes.
Plus it would be a bit of a political nightmare. And a worry with respect to comparisons worldwide. I can’t think of any jurisdiction that has a CGT on family homes, so if we had one, but other countries didn’t, then we might decrease the attractiveness of NZ as a place to live and work.
If we were very purist, we would of course, have a CGT on family homes. But the practicalities rule it out, I think.
-
They're repealing the housekeeper and childcare tax credit. Sure, it's only worth $310 a year, but even so.... it was the only acknowledgement anywhere in the tax system that there are significant costs for working parents.
-
Seeing as people are talking about the contraceptives issue, here's a link to a post I wrote adressing some of the points people are making: (1) it's not actually "free"; (2) it doesn't actually improve choice; and (3) it does have racist overtones.
"Free" contraception: disingenuous, or just plain nasty
Plus I had a opinion piece published in the Dom Post on Tuesday, which draws on the study that Emma has referenced above, plus some other evidence to argue that it's a matter of giving women and girls better options, not just a matter of giving the access to (some) contraceptives.
Give teens better options than pregnancy
The subbing isn't mine. For working purposes, I titled it: "Doing the hard yards on teen pregnancy"
-
Hard News: Press Play > Budget, in reply to Luke Williamson,
The top tax rate in Muldoon's last years reached 66%. TBH I'd be happy enough paying a higher top rate, but we would probably need to fiddle around with company and trust rates too. Keeping our company rate competitive can be an issue. Balancing tax rates is a little trickier than it appears at first glance.