Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And I think from my quick read through this page someone's made this point, but the idea that National's election mandate is reason to rush all this stuff through is fatuous. Based on that reasoning, every party that wins an election has a right to push through all their policies under urgency.
-
__I always think of lesbians.__
We have a pill for that.
That's alright. I'm okay with it.
-
am I the only person who, whenever he hears of reads the word "sophistry", conjures up the image of an upholstery shop?
I always think of lesbians.
Then I realise that would be something like "sapphistry". -
With about 53% of the vote, heh. And look how well that ended ....
I think Nat's point, Craig, is that people who get elected by a relatively small margin may want to be careful about acting arrogantly, as if they have a whole lot of "political capital". I haven't noticed Obama acting particularly obnoxiously so far (and there's a comfortable majority of his fellow Dems in congress, too).
The National coalition is a real government. And they're making real mistakes, and acting really arrogant. At least Labour developed its arrogance over a long period in charge.
-
I heard some of the debate on the 90-day bill, and recall the point was strongly made that the 13-week stand-down won't apply if you are terminated within the trial period. "To enourage beneficiaries to take the risk", or some-such phrasing.
Yes, that point is made in this Herald article too. It's one of the changes they made to make the legislation "gentler".
-
Okay, according to this article, I'll be getting nearly $47 if National stick to their policy.
"* Workers on $44,000 will receive $46.54 with the independent earner rebate - but only $31.54 if they already receive government assistance."
But notice how that varies from the impression created by the intro:
"National will deliver tax cuts worth $47 a week to workers on the average wage of $45,000 - most delivered in April 2009."...which I bet is how a lot of those who voted for National remember it.
And notice how much of a difference it makes if you earn just $4k less:
"* People earning up to $40,000 will have an extra $10 a week provided they don't receive any extra income from the government, such as Working for Families." -
I believe its traditional to set fire to things as well. Maybe a protest BBQ?
I'll bring some beer.
-
I saw on the news last night (TV3 6pm) that the tax changes will not help people at all who are earning below $45K, but already receiving WFF.
Yep. And if I recall correctly, for people earning around that mark, and who don't have children (ie aren't getting WFF), you get a whole $10!
Am I missing something? I thought we were promised $47?
-
If that's true (what the CTU said) then that is a bad start by National on the trust front.
I do think the amendments have made the bill somewhat less objectionable. I'm especially happy to see:
* removing the benefit stand down period for those "let go" after the 90-day period;
(Though I assume they mean during the 90 day period?...)
But regardless, this type of legislation should not be put under urgency. That's just silly.
-
__So you're Golden, Giovanni.__
I've been waiting so long to hear you say that...
Maybe I'm channelling the Shins:
Totally unsolicited, the National Bank sent us a pre-approved form for a shiny new pair of Visa Platinum cards (motto: "the world is your concierge"). The copy, the font screaming "prestige!" and the accompanying pictures are all to die for. A gloved hand holds a door open for us:
" They'll want you to decide. Eventually it happens. Some gather on one side, with all their pearly's snapping. ...** 'Cause you're finally golden, boy.** It's like I'm perched on the handlebars of a blind man's bike. No straws to grab, just the rushing wind..."
I dunno. It's late.