Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
I think you need to stop considering one policy in a vacuum
Deborah offered to answer a question, so I had to come up with a reasonably straight forward one to get things rolling. My initial point that Deborah was responding to was related to Cunliffe lacking the skills to sell it, as was particularly evident in the Stuff.co.nz debate, and the days following when he dropped the ball with that policy. If the Labour party members can’t satisfactorily answer the inquiries of a lone internet wildcard then how can they reasonably expect to satisfy the New Zealand constituency when these policies are placed in a vacuum by John Key in front of a large audience as we saw in the Christchurch debate?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sue,
In a fair and equal society everyone pays taxes on the money they gain, through work or through luck – lotto winnings, those are taxed. In our country beneficiaries pay tax on their benefits. So why do one group of people get to play the no tax here card?
I don’t know, does anyone? New Zealand isn’t a fair and equal society, the Prime Minister "earns $428,000 from his PM’s salary along with this year’s $5,000,000 increase in his wealth (according to NBR’s rich list) which gives him a total income of $5,428,000. On this total income he pays just $132,160 in income tax and approximately $21,400 in GST giving a total tax of $153,560 or 2.8% of income”
I simply asked Deborah what, if any, change in reasoning/ philosophy has occurred within Labour to introduce a flat tax that has any possibility at all of taking yet more money from the lowest possible denominator? As opposed to them introducing a more refined policy that would under no circumstances take money from the lowest possible denominator. When you have years and years to refine these types of policies to your hearts’ content, why not safeguard the poor?
I understand the purpose of the tax, it’s the leeway for collateral damage that eludes. It’s the emphasis on revenue collection at the possible expense of anyone at all, even just a single individual, for whom that money might make a big difference, that has me lost. When did that person stop mattering?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to WH,
Ultimately there are more similarities between us than differences.
Yes, last night. I was searching for videos of Norman Kirk but stumbled on this The Grim Face of Power doco about Rob Muldoon and I was glued, I was especially interested by his ‘Meet the People’ meetings.
lay the cheap shots you’ve sadly lowered yourself to.
Come on Joe, arguing that someone could at least deign to join the conversation beneath the blog posts they’ve contributed at Publicaddress isn’t a cheap shot. it’s pretty much exactly what happens all the time.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sue,
I have to interrupt this transmission to have a excellent laugh at the idea of Stephen Judd being a puppet Master
Yes, with a bit of read, you may even find that Stephen Judd has not been referred to as a puppet master but as the ‘help’. I did use the term ‘puppet master politics’ in relation to this modern style whereby the talking head may swing about a bit on ropes, but I did take great care to ensure that at no point had I specifically accused Stephen or Keir of having any kind of mastery of this dark art.
However your character reference does put him back in my list of possibles.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to WH,
I really had no desire to discuss the policy at all, I simply pointed out that it would best be explained by the horse’s mouth rather than talking heads. Deborah volunteered to answer the question. Personally I find the option of any new taxes that might affect the lowest income earners unattractive, regardless of whether its designed to catch tuna, dolphins are still going to end up in that net. Dolphins are poor.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sacha,
Sounds like you have already decided the guest poster is deliberately avoiding the ensuing discusson. How do you know he’s not tied up with something else? Or lying in a hospital bed, for that matter.
I don't know Twitter? I realise New Zealand has a culture whereby people won't allow something as trivial as being hospitalised interfere with their Rugby. but come on Sacha.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Deborah,
Again "well enough off" is open to relative interpretation Deborah, if you need an example;
Say someone in their early 50s who worked a good 20 years to buy a $40,000 house in Invercargill, but has been injured and is now on an invalids benefit, say when their last parent dies they inherit the $40,000 family home in Tamaranui. They put this on the market immediately but they cannot sell it, because Tamaranui, Finally ten years later they find a buyer, in that time its value of the house has gone up to $50,000 and when they sell it the Labour Government takes 15% of that gain. why does the Labour Government prefer to take that $1500 rather than allow the beneficiary with an income $257.75 to keep that money in order to help make ends meet?
What's the reasoning, the rationale, the philosophy?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Deborah,
As far as I can tell, Mark, you edited your post after I had replied to it.
That’s correct, seeing that your answer was not addressing my question, I added the second paragraph to make it clear that this answer didn’t address what I was asking. I hoped maybe you would see that quickly enough to edit your answer accordingly.
I wasn’t trying to be tricky, I hoped I could then again delete that second paragraph. However since you offered I am very serious about getting an actual answer to that question Deborah, I’m clear enough about the specifics of the policy now, what I’m interested in is the underlying rationale and possible change in philosophy; for me a flat tax that increases the potential burden on the ‘lowest’ members of society doesn’t align with the values I believed Labour represented. My question has remained unchanged since the getgo. There’s no rush on this, so feel free to answer in your own time. I won’t edit this.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
if someone is convinced you’re a liar with a secret agenda what exactly do you engage with?
This same issue rears its head in almost any televised Parliament debate. The object is not to do the impossible and change the enemy’s mind. it’s about swinging the undecided, strengthening arguments, listening to and addressing possible weaknesses and most importantly gaining experience and developing, I think you rather overstate the hostility with regards to PublicAddress. If James were to front up here, I’d have nothing but respect for the guy. We for the most part are left leaning. Just as yourself, Russell, Deborah, Stephen were there, guns at the ready to jump to James’s aid I would hope and I’m sure that you would offer him the same level of support were the confrontation more direct. I don’t think I’m suggesting anything particularly radical here in that respect. Just perceptions of accessibility that I feel could be improved/ enhanced in this internet age.
-
James if Cunliffe wins again, your choice. If you love Labour, you could still help.
Word Sofie.