Posts by Heather W.
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Lowe/Cooder in November, possibly the Civic and Jarvis Cocker in December at Powerstation.
-
I assume it is listed under motor vehicle expenses. The VW Tourareg (for Invitation Only Events) is listed on carjam.co.nz as 2004 model with a Turners valuation of $32805 (slightly less than cost of the total term of lease). The Ford Territory is a 2005 (KidsCan).
Description under lease and capital commitments
-
Elizabeth,
I didn't mean to imply any fraud in earlier post.
The Charities register listing for the DHFC charity has the website as doughowlett.com. This along with doughowlett.co.nz do exist but just have a text message displayed. This means that someone has to be paying the hosting charges even though nothing to see yet. The people involved have been busy (email is to Carl) so costs could include for website development.
Financials can be misleading because of timeframes and how things are recorded.
-
KidsCan on paper financials looks better than Doug Howlett Foundation Charitable Trust. DHFCT in 2008 had donations of $28250 but payroll expenses of just under $40000 (two part-time). Plus the $2800 spent for websites to say
This is the default page for doughowlett.com
So my question for Mr Shera - you said were aiming at 80 percent donation within 2-3 years. How realistic is that given that biggest expenses relate to Events and Wages/Staff/Office costs?
-
It's okay, John Key looked behind the couch and found another $320,000 for the Kids Can Stand Tall Trust and MP's are redistributing a little less of our 'wealth' by flying cattle class to Australia.
-
Personally I think TV3 can go stick their "Big Night In", now that they've pulled series two of "Dexter" (one of the few things I can be bothered watching on their channel) after two episodes.
I know you already know this Octopusgrrl, but for any Dexter fan that hasn't heard, here is the TV3 tweet:
In response to feedback from fans of Dexter, all new episodes of Dexter will commence Monday Oct 12, @ 8.30pm on C4
7:15 PM Aug 6th from webSad to say Lucy,
After the opening few minutes, I've decided the obvious culmination of the whole thing would be for John Campbell to pash Richie McCaw. I'd donate for that.
The early promos said they were not doing the pledge requests this time - people didn't always pay up.
-
From a recent column of Jim Hopkins
So three cheers for First Class Chris - the smarter Carter. Good on ya, Phil Heatley - more plumb landlord than slum landlord. And hats off to Blinglish, the Dipton dipper. You've shown us the way. You're putting us on the realpolitik map.
You're proving again what years of Treaty settlements and last month's DPB row should have already made abundantly clear. Given the chance to pocket some dosh, everyone responds in an entirely rational manner. They find a way to trouser it.
Think that he has missed the element that MP's define to some extent their own rules and can increase the opportunities of adding to their allowances, not many other groups can.
A review of MP allowances will probably result in them saying its all okay, plus review due anyway - the salary and allowances determination expired on 30 June 2009.
Perhaps they could follow the principles in the current rules (from link posted by DPF in another thread). The Speaker defines which address is the primary residence and whips can say to the MP that claims are getting excessive.
-
From the Herald:
The fact is that no amount of detail will change the perception that in some way I am gaining a bigger allowance than other members of Parliament.
But the DomPost words it slightly differently:
But he said today he accepted there was a perception that he was claiming more than ordinary MPs who live in homes they have an interest in, and though he had done nothing wrong, there was only one way to change that perception.
Am assuming that "have an interest in" refers to those MP's receiving market rentals for houses in Wellington rented out to other people rather than those getting housing allowances.
-
Kyle - in essence what your family is doing is trying to avoid death duties - which is OK so long as it's legal
Paul,
Not an expert but death duties not payable in NZ anymore - zero rated in 1992 and abolished in 1999. There have been attempts since to change tax rates on Trusts or suchlike to effectively introduce something like the tax/duty and any capital gains tax may also tax estates.
-
And dumb home-boy common sense is no qualification to judge
intelligence reports (or cerate sentencing rules for that matter).Perhaps if would be better if they were to create or delete rather than cerate