Posts by Sacha
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Angus Robertson,
the Nats/ACT aren't offering tax cuts
but they're hardly offering to roll back the ones to the wealthiest which have not had the broader benefit English claimed for them.
If they insist on 'austerity' it should be for everyone, not just those most reliant on state services and least able to shelter their wealth from taxation.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to HenryB,
but are there other examples of legislated `tax and spend' limits?
California. Sorry, having some connectivity problems today but someone can no doubt find links about what a disaster that one was as well.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
All that has happened is that ACT has agreed to water it down further. If anything, this is a concession from the 1.1%, not to it.
Wasn't the agreement last term simply to support it to first reading? In which case, anything beyond dropping it is a concession (though more to Nat factions than to Act).
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to merc,
Brass
now there's a re-run worth re-running
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
we *are* the trouble
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to HenryB,
the cap is not really a cap at all but actually a sinking lid
Recall the government getting away scot free in the last term with "capping" the asses of several thousand public servants.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to merc,
That's a classic of penny wise, pound foolish - leaving a purpose-built civic meeting chamber at Henderson without the right gear (mainly desk-mounted microphones) for large meetings. Mind you, one wonders where the old gear in the ex-Auckland City town hall went to?
And what "look" the gear used the rest of the time in Henderson has. Presumably Auckland Transport uses the chamber, being based there? Though I guess they don't need to conduct their business in public quite so much.
-
One thing commentators seem to have missed, related to the list of exclusions noted in that editorial and elsewhere.
The definition of core operating expenses will exclude finance charges, the unemployment benefit, asset impairments and spending on natural disasters. Those exemptions should give governments ample room to provide relief in recessions and emergencies.
The biggest growth in state income support spending over the next two decades will not be unemployment but superannuation, followed by what are currently called Invalid and Sickness benefits. That pressure on its own will cause problems if this nutty neolib measure is enforced.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Tom Semmens,
this morning's Herald editorial
-
Capture: Don’t Point Me Out In A Crowd, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
That is one frickin' iconic shot.
word