Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Latest poll from TV3 Newshub;
-
Hard News: Campaign 2017: Buy a…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yes, that dismissal was costly and the "not viable" status quo was indeed worsened with respect to the tax switch that they did implement. PAYE receipts down (i.e., more progressive taxation) as a percentage of the mix and GST (i.e., more regressive taxation) up.
Hence the need for the quite large extensions just made to WFF and Accommodation Supplement programmes, as the more regressive shape of the overall tax system sets in and bites.
The level of these tax transfers becomes more and more unsustainable - and to my mind, taxing wealth in a manner that is affordable to those being taxed is desperately needed.
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to mark taslov,
Labour’s more socialist platform is relatively foreign compared to National’s/CCP’s low tax, survival of the fittest philosophy – to first generation mainland Chinese.
That poll surprised me. My first thought was it's a real estate investment thing.
This election seems to me to be ending up to be a referendum on 'property speculation is okay' versus 'property speculation is not okay'.
Housing seems to be the defining issue.
-
Hard News: Campaign 2017: Buy a…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
When you're seeing someone who might actually be leading a government in two week getting away with vague waffle about major policy being determined by working groups long after the election? That matters.
If referring to tax policy, the good news is that media are by no means letting up on that question - it's been a front and center issue. Hence, if folks vote Labour, either tax policy from their own perspective doesn't worry them, or they think looking at the means to treat income from asset gains equally to income from other investments is a good idea.
As I look at it - due to the persistent media coverage on the tax working group issue - everyone knows that they don't have certainty on that issue - and either they are happy with that situation or they are not.
-
Hard News: Drugs and human rights, in reply to Sacha,
The decision would have been Joyce’s, as was the dogwhistle/unwhistle two-step.
Yes. I don't think Steven much cares for Paula. She's expendable.
-
Simply shocking language from Paula Bennett and the PM. The PM's actual words as reported in the news went something like 'it's a good thing we don't have a written constitution because we can deal with things more effectively'. Meaning we can run roughshod over anything we like because our citizens have no inalienable rights.
Charming. I will be seriously embarrassed if these folks get voted back in.
-
Hard News: About last night's medical…, in reply to ,
you got to get serious about ratcheting back that liberalisation of the marketing of alcohol.
Yep, as part of that liberalisation, this is of interest;
-
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Moz,
What’s missing is political will, and usually a tiny bit of common sense.
Yes, lucky for our exploited migrants, certain international markets have the will and the ability to force change;
-
However it’s worked out, this needs to be taken seriously. It’s time.
Total relief to hear Ardern's unequivocal "yes". And if she gets in - I'll be right in there ensuring it happens sooner rather than later. Glad to hear from you that Kelvin's on board as well.
I see such a more positive future for Maori youth in this legislative reform alongside the Labour intention to pay for both learners and restricted licence qualifications as part of secondary learning. How many young people's first spat with the law has to do with unpaid fines as a result of non-compliance with the driver's licence regime? Fines they can't pay and default on.
-
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Neil,
Having just watched the leaders debate Ardern wants to cut immigration because she’s concerned about immigrants.
Agree with linger, you've confused our high volume immigration policy with our dismal refugee quota. And I don't think Jacinda was referring to refugees in the debate. I think instead she was alluding to the exploitation of many of our recent immigrants, both migrant workers and migrant students - e.g., the article I posted earlier;
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/337158/the-outcome-of-these-10-years-is-not-even-zero
and this;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11766210
The difficulty she has in being really forceful and pointed in explaining herself is that many of the employers and institutions that have been doing and benefiting from the exploitation vote too. It is a disgusting underbelly that has grown beyond belief under this National government and many NZers know that their livelihoods depend on this sad state of affairs. At the same time they also know that the current practices (often unlawful) are both unethical and unsustainable. So, they are the somewhat conflicted fence-sitters - embarrassed that they have taken part in the exploitation but unable to imagine an alternative.
If we have a change in government it will take years to reverse this 'race to the bottom' damage that National has wrought and to wean ourselves back into a productive economy.