Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Some people really are better off having more of their money now, and under the Cullen scheme it's their choice. It's carrot rather than stick
Absolutely - it's a savings incentive not compulsory savings. If you don't take up Kiwisaver you'll lose out on the incentives, but your employer will like you (though not measurably, I suspect) for saving them 1-4%. Aussies have no choice but to have put away 9% of salary - which doesn't really buy them more than the Cullen fund does here.
Most people with mortgages probably should pay them down faster rather than put much into Kiwisaver.
-
_All Things Must Pass_
Was that a concept album about poos and wees?
-
Two years after the RWC
Why is the RWC the only reason to build a decent transport system in Auckland. It only goes on for a month - Aucklanders have to get around the rest of the time.
It's a sporting event - why can't the fat gits going to the game get some exercise and *walk* to Eden Park - it's only 45 minutes from the city centre!
-
What right in a democracy have the rest of us to tell them to stuff off unless they earn enough votes for 6 MPs?
Because one MP in their own party has a whole lot more influence than one MP in a party of six. This depends on luck and political alignment of course, but basically they can wind up being part of the balance of power. Do you really think Jim Anderton would be a minister if he was in the Labour caucus?
-
I'd guess that a lot of employees won't take up their Kiwisaver entitlement, so that reduces the overall cost of employer matching - maybe 1.5%. Which is a lot less than NSW payroll tax (6%) or British NI (10%) (neither of which build a fund that's as accessible as Kiwisaver).
Obviously cutting business income tax and introducing compulsory matching will hit companies that lose money and have high payroll costs. Conversely companies with a high profit/wage ratio will gain - usually those that have a large capital investment.
It's doubtful whether a small cut in business income tax will help the economy much. To do that we would really need to go to Irish style rates of 10% (tax haven levels). The trouble with that is that people would take any loophole to turn personal into business income - which in turn would require increasingly convoluted anti-avoidance measures (like IR35 in Britain).
-
But on those figures, isn't the Euro non-DRM price slightly cheaper than NZ?
Oops, the percentages on the non-DRM were wrong:
DRM, Local DRM, NZD Cheaper? Non-DRM, local Non-DRM, NZD Cheaper? Rate (16-05)
US 0.99 1.35 24% 1.29 1.76 29% 0.7317
EU 0.99 1.85 -3% 1.29 2.41 3% 0.5356
UK 0.79 2.15 -20% 0.99 2.69 -8% 0.3679
NZ 1.79 2.49
non-DRM is a bit cheaper than NZ. US is quite a lot cheaper. -
Here are the converted prices, based on todays NBNZ tourist rates:
Click here to see the spreadsheetDRM, Local DRM, NZD Cheaper? Non-DRM, local Non-DRM, NZD Cheaper? Rate (16-05)
US 0.99 1.35 24% 1.29 1.76 2% 0.7317
EU 0.99 1.85 -3% 1.29 2.41 -35% 0.5356
UK 0.79 2.15 -20% 0.99 2.69 -50% 0.3679
NZ 1.79 2.49
Basically, the US is cheaper on DRM, same as NZ on non-DRM.
Everywhere else is more expensive.BTW, how does iTunes work out domicile?
- IP address?
- Credit card currency?
- Billing address?
- Where you bought the iPod?
- All of above? -
Bryan Gould was memorably described, by John O'Farrell I think:
"he didn't take the result of the Labour leadership election [losing to TB] personally. Apart, that is, from resigning his [parliamentary] seat and moving to New Zealand".I'm not sure if he could be considered to have had any more success at Waikato Uni. All universities basically seem to be such dysfunctional places, with senior management held in such contempt, that if he'd managed to exit with a 50% approval rating he'd be in the running for Pope. And Dalai Lama.
-
Now, Brown has a leadership challenger, which is well and good for internal party democracy (if not outside the party - the voters elected Labour, not a president).
Not sure on your point here. Do you think that (UK) parties should *not* be able to change leader in mid-term? They always have been able to (e.g. with Wilson & Thatcher).
As you say, they elected Labour - surely that means that the PM (who is basically a party leader able to command a majority in the house) can be whoever Labour elect.
There are many problems with the UKs style of "pendulum democracy" but I don't think that letting parties switch leader mid-term is one of them.
-
Most gullwing/roof door designs have run into safety approval problems - you can't get out when the car rolls. Getting round this requires complex (and heavy) escape mechanisms.
Personally, I'd be happy to trade the deaths of those dumb enough to roll the car for the survival of Bangladeshi peasants not drowned by global warming. But the LTSA don't think like that.