OnPoint: Let it die. Please.
56 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
He says that those on $30k get $620/week, those on $50k get $860/week, and those on $100k get $1460/week.
I'm pretty sure it's not "/week".
-
the relationship between Farrar and the National Party comms machine
It's entirely his choice whether he declares it or not, but I think people might be interested to know all the same: How much of Curia's revenue comes from National Party work?
-
I haven’t given nearly enough thought to the relationship between Farrar and the National Party comms machine, nor to the role that he plays in testing, seeding and propagating National Party messages.
I'm confused now. So you're saying that Kiwiblog might not be the official National Party website?
-
Keith your post says:
He says that those on $30k get $620/week
But your charts' y-axis says "tax cut per year ($)"
I'm confused
UPDATE: stupid slow fingers!
-
Oh wait ... I see what you're saying now.
-
Nope ... back to thinking you're wrong.
Damnit! Must check numbers...
-
Hmmm. Perhaps Keith was in a hurry...
The discrepancy I noticed was that the "When it's actually ..." figures for Labour, double in the next graph "Total impact of packages 2008-2011", even though the axes appear to have the same measures. I'm not sure of the significance of the x-axis change of "Income per year" to "Individual annual income" - perhaps the second graph is for a couple earning the same amount each ?
Possibly the problem is the y-axis, which should have "per year" removed from the second graph (since the title says it is the Total impact ... 2008-2011).
There is definitely something wrong with it, because it is not clear what it is actually saying.
Cheers,
Brent. -
Apropos of nothing, I suspect that Peter Dunn has just been served a lesson in getting what he asks for.
-
DPF,
Keith - I would like you to apologise for your assertion that someone else authored/wrote/had input or even suggested my blog post.
Quite frankly I am sick of the blatant lies. Again quite happy to be hooked up to a polygraph or injected with truth serum. Also to swear an affadavit that it was all my own idea and work.
In fact to show how wrong you are I will reveal that after I did the initial calculations of fiscal cost of tax cuts (using the NZIER calculator) I did e-mail my spreadsheet to a couple of staffers in English's office. I asked if they could just confirm the accuracy of the fiscal costs of each element of tax cuts.
And you know what? They didn't even respond. Nope the bastards didn't even acknowledge my email. So I waited a few days and went ahead anyway.
So not only is your fantasy of others having thought of or written the material totally false. I couldn't even get anyone in Govt to do a simple fact check (something that they would do to a journalist). I actually had less assistance from the Govt than Keith got when he was a blogger (I recall Keith getting access to National's Treasury secondee).
So please stop inventing lies about me. No problems with you responding to the actual analysis, but don't just invent shit up.
Incidentially I choose the three salary points of $30K, $50k and $100k before I knew what they would show.
And also Keith you really should not lecture on transparency of relationships when you failed to even publicly announce you were leaving blogging to go work for Helen Clark. Fortunately I did it for you.
And yes I am pissed off. I expect The Standard to do the normal "someone write that for Farrar" routine. From you I expect the courtesy of an email or text asking me if anyone helped or even suggested my post. Especially after the conversation at the YL conference when I said how much it annoyed me that people assume I steal National's talking points and you agreed that in fact they often steal my talking points :-)
Incidentally the main reasons I did the post was to explore how much people had already got in tax cuts, and how much would they miss out with the impending cancellation of future ones. I was surprised as I went into it, how little difference there was between someone on $30K (if not on WFF) and $50K under Labour and National's packages, so happily pointed that out as I went.
-
David - I think you kind of missed a large part of Phil's point - choosing sample points misrepresents the data - it doesn't matter which sample points you choose just choosing a few of them them rather than graphing all the data misrepresents reality.
I'm glad for you that you have access to staffers in English's office - perhaps you could share their emails so we can all use them - after all we do pay for them ....
-
Gee thanks Keith. I mean I knew I was getting screwed, but it's depressing to have it confirmed by numbers. I'm going to go drink some beer for lunch now.
The top 10% sees most of their tax cuts wiped out by wage growth and fiscal drag – but remember, the 2008 tax cut had already wiped it out, so National's tax cut comes on top of that.
Can you redo that National party graph to incorporate the 2008 (Labour) tax cuts so that the two can be compared? It looks like National aren't helping out the top 10% at all, but from this sentence it seems they are, but seeing it in pretty colours would help me confirm.
-
DPF,
Paul - you miss the point - they did not even reply to me. No use was gained from them, and my access to them would be the same as any media type person - asking for some facts to be verified. Do you think it is bad that someone tries to verify some facts with a Minister's Office?
Also who is Phil?
And the more I look back at my post, the more astonished I am that Keith sees it as some sort of cunning PR plan. The very fact there were no graphs, and simple to digest images tends to undermine that. It was a text heavy highly wonky look (never done before incidentally which is why I did it) at the fiscal cost and impact on three different income levels of not just each tax package, but the ten or so elements making up each package. It was my inner policy wonk showing off as I took people through pages and pages of calculations - trust me not a short sharp selling document. Sure some political jabs in there but Keith is really off base by thinking that post is some sort of political sell job. Keith's own posts is far more in that mold - he has the pretty graphs showing evin National giving money to rich people.
And the three sample points is entirely valid depending on what the point of the post is. It was to illustrate the effects of different tax changes (around 15 or so in total) on different income levels, and what the fiscal cost of each was.
I can equally fisk Keith's graphs, such as using all income earners (includes 16 year olds who work five hours a week) instead of all FT wage earners. Which is more correct depends on what you are trying to do. If you are consumed with envy about how Paul Reynolds will get a bigger tax cut than a 16 year old part-time Subway worker, then you go for all income earners. If you are wanting to talk about people who are net taxpayers (excluding students, retired people etc) then FT workers is far better.
-
So this line here...
But it’s impossible to look at this indecent assault on numeracy and not think that it’s a lightly paraphrased briefing paper written by a policy-cum-comms hack (Research Unit?) outlining the key messages that National wants to get out ahead of the Budget.
gets around 400 words of indignation from Farrar...
And Keith only says thats what goes through his mind, no statment of face here..
Oh and what about the actual post?
that gets
No problems with you responding to the actual analysis
see that's what pisses me off, your posistion has been shown to be shaky so instead of just accepting that you latch on to a throw away line and spend your time attacking that.
It's winter, try building snowmen instead of strawmen...
-
Duoh I meant "Keith" (I always get his name confused with someone I knew years ago who looks almost the same) - this original point was that by just using 3 points you imply a continuing increasing value while Keith's graphing of both sets of data shows that the Labour tax cut was capped at $1460 while the National one just keeps on giving and giving to the rich (of whom I happen to be one, on this graph at least) - of course I knew this because I run a small business and do my monthly payroll and had to come up with something for my spreadsheets to represent the change but it's probably not obvious to everyone
I think that not including everyone is cherry picking - where does my wife (who earns next to nothing) fit in there? - she still pays taxes on half our theoretical overseas investment income, such as it is - probably our joint income should be merged and averaged.
I do think it's about time we automatically inflation adjusted income tax and nominally reduced fiscal drag to 0 - I doubt any Minister of Finance will ever go for that though.
-
Guys if you want to play with maths please get it right.
DPF it is not statistically acceptable to present 3 income points, it does not represent the data properly and you know that.
Keith please get the numbers right (per year not per week).
Take home messages for me are
National's tax cuts won't happen.
The tax cuts we did get were those promised by labour and subsequently tweeked by National to give (slightly) bigger cuts to the higher income earners.
Promised tax cuts are promises made by politicians, doing maths on those promises is pointless.
Both Keith and DPF have strong political views, which they have both allow to colour their blogs. Note I don't object to that.
Oh and as an aside accepted economic theory says tax cuts can help break a recession but they need to happen early. promising a tax cut just after the next election is a political solution not an economic solution.
-
It's entirely his choice whether he declares it or not, but I think people might be interested to know all the same: How much of Curia's revenue comes from National Party work?
Well, David, if you really want to go there who's paying your bills nowadays?
-
The message I got was that, even for DPF, the National staffers can be summed up as:
No use was gained from them
:-)
-
The tax cuts we did get were those promised by labour and subsequently tweeked by National to give (slightly) bigger cuts to the higher income earners.
And personally, I'm still waiting for a personal apology from English and Cullen because (sorry for the broken record-ness) anyone who tells be you can cut government income AND increase government spending BUT don't really have to borrow (kinda) is a copper bottomed lying shit.
-
well you can if you have an eeeevul surplus - even apparently if it's structural and Mr Cullen claims it's not really there
-
Me thinks that whenever anyone examines his links to the National Party, David Farrar doth protest too much.
-
And personally, I'm still waiting for a personal apology from English and Cullen because (sorry for the broken record-ness) anyone who tells be you can cut government income AND increase government spending BUT don't really have to borrow (kinda) is a copper bottomed lying shit.
Sounds like United Future economic policy to me. Slashing taxes, increasing spending, but not having to borrow.
-
Me thinks that whenever anyone examines his links to the National Party, David Farrar doth protest too much.
And what does that mean, Tom? Of course, if I called you a lying Labour party plant I'd expect you to just man up and take it like the good little hack you are. Or not.
-
for a personal apology from English and Cullen ...
And who said Craig wasn't a patient man :).
... is a copper bottomed lying shit.
Now that's a nice image. However, really they are both politicians and good ones so what else did you expect :).
-
You'd think someone getting on their high horse about numeracy would know the difference between a percentile and a decile, wouldn't you?
-
Well, David, if you really want to go there who's paying your bills nowadays?
Don't mind in the least.
About 95% from Americans, Australians, Brits and a few from places like Mexico. Approximately 2% from govt departments, state-owned media and NZ on Air, and none from any political party or the Beehive since the mid 1990s.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.