Posts by Sacha
-
Well there goes my kitty-litter theory
-
Almost worth doing a show about them not fronting. Could probably get that RNZ contributor from the weekend at pretty short notice - he wouldn't be afraid to speak out.
-
apparently that's not possible any more
Quite - was thinking salvage. As you were.
-
Gluckman left out an established suspected contributor to earlier sexual maturity in favour of a benign-sounding explanation. The impact is coverage like this:
Yesterday, the Prime Minister's Chief Science Adviser issued a warning that adolescents' bodies were maturing faster than their brains; good health meant 11-year-olds reached sexually maturity while their judgment still had 10 years to develop.
Good science?
-
Can you get Rod Oram instead - as a journo who has shown he can get his head around this topic?
-
If the government were really serious about this country's economic performance, why not cut company tax rates, hugely increase investment funds and business and export support programmes? And enforce existing regulations to make rich individuals pay all their due tax (rather than reducing and aligning the tax rates to 'incentivise' them to do so, like few other countries have felt compelled to do).
Shift the balance towards productive investment rather than personal consumption. Trickle down is so discredited it's hard to see why "cut rich company owners' personal taxes" as the big answer is not being laughed at loudly by journalists.
-
Our personal understanding of words like "more" and "fair" are influenced by underlying beliefs about success and why some people have more wealth and income and opportunities than others.
As some observers have been saying for many moons, tomorrow's tax changes are likely to disproportionately benefit the top 8% of personal taxpayers. Because that is associated with govt service increases below the rate of inflation and population growth, cuts of $3.8bn to existing programmes, 1500 fewer public servants already and a change in GST (whose regressiveness I am not going to argue with anyone), it seems obvious that less wealthy New Zealanders will not do so well out of this. Property tax changes may complicate the picture, especially for those on middle rather than really high incomes.
It seems perfectly consistent with the overall belief that rich people deserve more money to reward them and to motivate them to be more successful and that this is the best way to make the nation "successful". We had that neo-liberal mantra played out here during the 15 years from 1984 to 1999 - so we can each see whether that worked in the way we personally and collectively understand "success".
Politically, tax changes to advantage the rich will come as no surprise to anyone who has previously watched the Nats in action. Their first round of tax changes after election was quietly biased towards top personal tax-payers, which was drowned out by the global meltdown storm.
However the focus of these next changes has only been admitted explicitly by this govt in the last few days after months of denial - and in the form of Key's rather defensive statement akin to "don't hate me because I'm beautiful" along with all the associated braying from the sewer about the "politics of envy".
It's an enduring theme at Budget time as the story is re-woven to justify the cuts to public services that are on the way so that the richest New Zealanders get to keep more of their money. The Hotchin family's cake-eating lifestyle even gets some attention today from Fran O'Sullivan. And the tall poppy defense is rolled out by well-known business analyst and deep thinker Mike Hosking.
This late burst of honesty may affect the way the governing party's trustworthiness is perceived by voters (although frankly they're politicians so what did we expect).
Comes down to two questions for me. Are they doing what we expected of them? Is that the right thing?
Must say I had no idea there was such a word as "pelf" - from the Old French word for "booty". Thanks, Craig.
-
Sic the Falun Gong on em
-
Just once, I'd like to see him called on that bullshit; personally, I mean.
Oh look, Brian Edwards lays into Key for preaching at the poor not to envy rich folk like the trader-in-chief himself, as they pocket their tax cuts this week
-
It's not possible to be physically healthy while being exposed to new chemicals?
Most people would not see persistent exposure to toxic environmental substances as compatible with good health, no. And it's not exactly hidden science for someone of Gluckman's resources.
A more neutral expression could have been used, rather than cheerleading the progress of our industrialised agrichemical society.