Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
People still read the Listener?
Even if I liked its change in editorial direction, its not online, and so dead to me.
-
The question is: given the opportunity, would you have been?
Nope. I won't travel to a dictatorship. And I especially won't travel to a dictatorship which uses tourism to prop itself up, both economically and politically.
-
I feel bound to note that while so many journalists were troughing out on the expenses story that got dropped in their laps, a few of them have been chasing something that involves a lot more money.
Radio New Zealand have been doing a good job on it.
-
But only for stuff in the last two years.
If you get in quick, you might just be able to get Jones. Otherwise it'll have to be Groser or Heatley.
-
What actions would you suggest be taken to ensure as much as possible the wise, reasonable, proper, and importantly moderate use of public money?
Private prosecution, pour encourager les autres.
-
And we're not allowed per-diems (of course, that is the real answer - just a flat rate per day, spend it how you want, no receipts. But way too sensible... I've completely lost faith in the Wellington half-wits who administer this crap)
Per-diems are not the answer; they're legitimising the rort in the same way that national's tax cuts legitimised tax cheating.
OTOH, its basically what they've done for housing ("here, have $40K, we don't need to see any receipts, and if you spend less, you can keep the difference!"), so I guess we can expect to see them any day now.
I'm happy to pay actual, reasonable and necessary expenses for my politicians. Handing them a daily personal slush fund? No thanks.
-
It seems that the whole underlying premise of this budget (and many others before it) is: 'What tax cuts can we give to make us more popular?'
Not quite. If popularity was what they were interested in, then they would simply have cut the lower and middle rates and shifted the top threshold, delivering the same gains to 90 - 98% of the population while not delivering an enormous windfall to the rich.
The fact they didn't do that suggests that delivering that enormous windfall was a core goal. This was about delivering to their donors.
-
And does anyone know the source for Cunliffe's 5.9% inflation claim? It seems beyond belief. Usually RBNZ would be all over it, but since I'm overseas I might have missed something.
The BEFU. These are treasury's numbers, not Cunliffe's.
-
Historically, the working wage was sufficient to support a stay-at-home parent, almost always the mother. New Zealand had full employment. The DPB was introduced to support those few mothers who did not have a man supporting them.
And basically, we've been scammed out of a person's worth of time.
I too will be interested to see the employment effect of this little disaster. Because if wages < childcare, then the economic incentive is to exit the labour force, or reduce hours - the very opposite of what National claims it is trying to incentivise with its tax cuts.
(Not that people on a salary of $150,000 give a shit about "working an extra hour". That only motivates little people, who actually need money...)
-
I thought that part of National's cunning plan was to equalise the top personal rate and the company rate, it has been reduced from 8% to 5%, but that is still quite a gap.
So, the rich get to cheat on their lower taxes. Wonderful.