Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: On benefit fraud, in reply to weka,
The Big Kahuna UBI was a real UBI (i.e., universal) - the TOP one is not (i.e., it's targeted as you say) and all other welfare benefits (outside that targeted group) remain unchanged, as I understand it (aside from super, as that would be means tested).
In other words, it's a seriously cut down version of the Big Kahuna - reason being that they couldn't introduce a universal one until they understood better what the tax switch to their capital tax (with a corresponding lowering of the income tax rate) would raise.
Put simply - they didn't go for the Big Kahuna - instead it's a kind of hybrid from what the book proposed.
-
Hard News: On benefit fraud, in reply to James Littlewood*,
If you had an unemployment benefit, and decided to apply zero abatements for additional income, would that not be like a baby step towards UBI?
Yes, but the beauty of a UBI is that it is universal - just like super - no means testing whatsoever, hence no abatement regime. Here's TOP's take on the Green's proposal;
http://www.top.org.nz/greens_benefit_policy_the_good_the_bad_and_the_ugly
-
Hard News: On benefit fraud, in reply to Emma Hart,
How do they not know? How do they not already know?
I didn't know until I read the Big Kahuna by Guthrie and Morgan. I was appalled.
-
I don’t have any sweeping moral proclaimation to make about fiddling the system. In principle, I don’t like it.
Someone said on another blog that fiddling the tax/welfare system is a national pastime. The way I look at it – they are one and the same system – and everyone is up to it, and the wealthier you are the more you fiddle.
Which is why I favour a land value tax, GST and a UBI as the basis of a tax/welfare system – such a package would allow us to all stop fiddling.
And what a better society we would be for it.
-
Hard News: Barclay and arrogance, in reply to Alfie,
How could anyone vote for these scum? Here's hoping the party faithful in the electorate give them the same treatment they did in Northland.
-
And then there's the Mike Sabin resignation... and interestingly, the plumb job he landed shortly thereafter - well, he ain't there no more:
Former Northland MP Mike Sabin was appointed chief executive of Carrington Estate in April last year. He is no longer at the resort.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northland-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503402&objectid=11792585
-
Hard News: Barclay and arrogance, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
So how did Bill English know the investigation had been closed I wonder – was it just from the media reporting that it had – or did Todd Barclay or the then PM or the Party hierarchy inform him, I wonder?
-
Hard News: Barclay and arrogance, in reply to Sacha,
He keeps saying that the police investigated it and chose not to prosecute - therefore he was satisfied the matter had been dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Conveniently leaving out the fact that Todd refused to front up to them.
One would assume that someone within the police would have informed someone who was seen to be Todd's superior (within either the party or the Parliament), that Todd was refusing to give a statement?
And even if they did not do that, surely they would have informed someone (other than Todd's lawyer) that the case had been closed.
Someone should ask Bill English how he came to understand the case had been closed and what reason was given to him for that action.
-
Hard News: Barclay and arrogance, in reply to nzlemming,
All indications are that the PM ordered the cover up and supplementary payment for Joyce Dickson’s silence.
Yes, it has John Key's way of operating all over it. The fact that he had no respect for our institutions of governance or for our constitutional laws, instruments and conventions was one of the most revolting things about him to my mind.
He was a cowboy PM, but that's probably unfair to cowboys.
-
Hard News: Barclay and arrogance, in reply to Dennis Frank,
My understanding is that Parliamentary Services are there to service the Parliamentary branch of government (the legislature), not the Executive branch of government (the Ministers and Cabinet). Public servants who work within Departments serve the Executive branch of government (in other words, the CEOs and staff are responsible to a Minister of the Crown). In that respect, their work programme is determined by the Executive and the Executive can require certain things of them, but they are supposed to provide ‘free and frank’ advice. A part of that is critical analysis of the Executive’s direction. The idea of them servicing the public/being ‘public servants’ doesn’t have much meaning in law to my knowledge.