Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Anyone else thinking IPMana joining a Lab/Green government would make it considerably more difficult for a Labour/Green minister of justice to rule against KCD being extradited, even if they favoured that on its merits?
The claim from Key (parroted widely) that that’s the whole point, Kim Dotcom is buying a shot at foiling his extradition, is just not credible.
Hone and Laila have both said it’s never been raised. They don’t strike me as lying. f
Further, Mana don’t have it to sell. They have zero chance of getting the Justice portfolio. A Lab/Green govt would be wildly stupid to agree to it in coalition talks. What could Mana threaten? Not to go to National. Another election wouldn’t help them either.
If we do get a change of Govt, helped by IPMana, this will be hanging over them like the sword of doom. All up, I reckon it makes extradition more likely.
But maybe Key is a little rattled. Maybe it’s facing an opponent who’s much wealthier? More likely: the IP entering is likely to repeatedly focus attention on his series of statements surrounding what and when he knew about the spying and the raid. TV3’s timelines look quite convincing. This is one of his weakest points. Not something National will want the election to keep in the media. -
Hard News: The Digital Natives, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Laila Harre.
I think that’s a bit of a win.
Bonza if true :) (Not so sure she's a terrific 'political operative' but pretty confident MANA would find plenty in common with her and she'd bring experience and - no better way to put it - mana to the IP.)
-
Hard News: The Digital Natives, in reply to Richard Aston,
Why would Labour fight so hard to take Te Tai Tokerau off Harawira?
Even more so: why would they fight hard in Waiariki to give the seat to Flavell? That so makes no sense.
(I reckon Sykes does have a good shot there- well-organised, a very strong candidate, and strong on-the-ground. But a deal with Labour ought to seal it, and I just don't get why it seems to be off the cards.) -
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to Bart Janssen,
the rather simplistic argument for needing the population to continue to grow.
This. It's a dumb-simple fact that the growth addicted global economy has all-too-often 'grown' just as a consequence of more people. It's not nuts (or racist, thanks) to suggest we look at policy as that promotes growing something other than GDP- the average quality of life, for example.
-
OnPoint: Why does the top 10% paying…, in reply to BenWilson,
They’ve got that already, and will probably struggle to understand what the fuss is all about.
Always worth remembering even the philthy rich can be smart, aware, and have a conscience. Like race or gender, 'class' doesn't limit the ability to think or imagine.
-
OnPoint: Why does the top 10% paying…, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I have to keep reminding people we have comparably low taxes in NZ for the rich,
Spot on.
And historical memory is even worse. Top tax rate in the UK in the 60s was something like 98%. The Beatles complained, but none of them starved :)
In NZ my dad, a university lecturer, paid the top rate of 65% (on a reasonable chunk of his income. ) He retired in ’85 so I don’t think he ever saw the top rate plummet under Douglas. (He didn’t complain- seriously thought it well worth it for social welfare, free health and education.)
<stating the bleeding obvious>
The Milton/Reagan/Thatcher/Roger-nomics of the 80s moved decisively away from high progressive income tax, to far lower rates, accompanied by (regressive) consumption taxes. It’s incredibly simple to correlate that with the end of the post-war period of relative income equality.
Tax wasn’t the only tool, but it’s by far the most obvious and political.
How much political ground has been lost is evident in that Labour in 1999 hiked the top rate back up to a very modest 39% (bracket creep helped increase their tax take considerably over their term.)
A NZ politician calling for a top tax rate of even 50% would get mocked and ridiculed. Never mind it was good enough for Holyoake and Muldoon. -
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Matthew Poole,
There’d be no story if he’d just fronted on his absolute legal right to appoint bloody Blanket Man if he’d so desired.
Yep. Likewise, if Key had simply said re Jan 19th "I'm sure I'd probably heard something about this 'Dotcom' character earlier- he doesn't exactly keep a low profile" we'd be spared the endless weaving and dodging.
Key knows well how vital for National- and him- it is not to get nailed on this. -
- 2003-2012, average after-tax income is up 50% plus or minus a bit across all income cohorts. “Oh, the system’s only helping the rich?”
Spans two govts – hard to tease out effects of policy changes in that timeframe, plus the GFC.
But the data should include WWF(?) Significantly raised after-tax income for many in the lower deciles. Fairness or dead rat, it’s definitely a factor in raising after tax income for some.
Yes, the lowering of income tax across the board under National has increased after-tax income across the board. But it was accompanied by an increase in GST. Every rise in the rate of GST – (completely off these charts, but touted to be the main factor keeping National’s tax cuts ‘fiscally neutral’)- is regressive. It increases the proportion of total tax paid by lower deciles.
So there’s that, sitting underneath the data like a malignant octopus :) -
Complete tangent, sorry, but I thought this little article potentially interesting to other geeky types: 'Royals' has inadvertently hiked Maybach's online advertising rates by over 200%.
Googling 'Maybach' (apparently a luxury car) spiked up so fast after 'Royals' became a hit, the company has been paying more than double the rate for their on-line advertising. The rates are based entirely on clicks, with no way of differentiating potential buyers from curious fans. (The old saw about any publicity being good publicity must surely apply to some degree - Maybach may even be quietly pleased. But it's another indication of how wobbly the on-line ad market is. 'Clicks' may be easily measurable, but it's bloody hard to work out what they measure.) -
(A) No
(B) Yes.
(C) Yes.
(D) Yes, but not close-to-hand.
(E) Yes, but it's currently a small part of my work.
(F) Not formally, but yes informally.