Posts by Sacha
-
Te Standard has a round-up of supportive links and lordy it's broad.
-
Field Theory: 65 bottles of beer on the wall..., in reply to BenWilson,
rugby love
There's a campaign in that. Satirical, naturally.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to BenWilson,
Teachers do important work too, but they aren't holding anywhere near as much responsibility or liability.
Only if you conflate value with money.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Rik,
There was a very similar discussion to this one about 3 months back on PAS where there was debate on the fairness of a small percentage of the population contributing a high percentage of income tax revenue – once again I was derided for having an opposing viewpoint
Sure you weren't derided because it's not true? Previous discussions hereabouts have established to most people's satisfaction that those who pay the greater share of tax also happen to have the greater share of both income and assets.
I'm genuinely interested in discussion
Good. However, if you value ideology over evidence, expect a hard time.
-
Field Theory: 65 bottles of beer on the wall..., in reply to Danielle,
Almost as appealing - and useful - as those "I don't have a television set" conversations. Now where's that spare medal I carry around..
-
Field Theory: 65 bottles of beer on the wall..., in reply to Jackie Clark,
I was hoping to have another shindig up here before she does that
Great idea
-
Field Theory: 65 bottles of beer on the wall..., in reply to Jackie Clark,
having rugby parties where there are people who do not much care for the game
Can't think of anything worse. Have your own non-rugby parties, I say.
-
Field Theory: 65 bottles of beer on the wall..., in reply to Danielle,
heading into Giant Pregnant Lady territory, where I'm not actually that keen on hanging out in big sports crowds
You'll be going to gigs like last time though, eh?
-
Field Theory: 65 bottles of beer on the wall..., in reply to tussock,
Wouldn't it be awesome
no
-
The Herald's other John, Mr Armstrong, is a bit confused about 'Goff's' move.
His decision to campaign on a capital gains tax is probably the biggest "ask" in New Zealand politics since Ruth Richardson and Jim Bolger mistakenly thought middle New Zealand would tolerate such things as means testing state-funded superannuation and user-pays for overnight stays in public hospitals.
It is too soon to gauge whether middle New Zealand will be equally intolerant of a tax on its hard-earned assets.
..
It also disproportionately hits those on higher incomes, one of its other attractions for Labour.
...
The policy will be pitched in terms of offering voters a clear-cut choice. Goff will hammer the line that a vote for Labour will be a vote to retain full public ownership of the state-owned enterprises that National has singled out for partial privatisation - the price being a capital gains tax that most people will never pay.
...
As it is, National has stressed the tax will not raise much money in the short-term, thus undercutting any argument it might mount in terms of the reach of the tax extending beyond the very wealthy.
So reading your first statement, who does it affect again, John?
Labour have to do a damn solid job of explaining that it's only the wealthiest who will have to pay more, not those hard-working middle New Zillunders with one home but who will be offered all manner of scary kool-aid about this between now and November.