Posts by Sacha
-
Speaker: The Democracy-Free Zone, in reply to Bart Janssen,
It's not just CHCH. Everything this government does in centred around the idea that managers can do thigs better than anyone or everyone else.
Exactly. The Press article Rob linked to above, The Business of NZ Inc, is an esential read about that.
Pro-business changes in our local governance and resource management systems are going through now for the whole country. Auckland and ECan were just the beginning. This was coming for several years, and no, it's not the fault of citizens that we haven't heard much about it.
-
Speaker: The Democracy-Free Zone, in reply to Lilith __,
I’d like to yell at all the people who didn’t vote in the last election
I wouldn't. They were let down by those who didn't provide a viable alternative to make the trip to the polling booth attractive enough.
Good to see more organised resistance emerging in Chritchurch. I reckon the schools issue might be the one to rally support more than ECan ever has.
-
Speaker: The Democracy-Free Zone, in reply to Lilith __,
This government had already taken ECan's democracy away in their first term - to say nothing of the Auckland region changes. The implications of the CERA legislation were also pretty clear when introduced.
Yet in the face of disorganised and ineffectual opposition they were re-elected, and even took Christchurch Central for the first time ever. Can you blame them for being cocky?
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Richard Aston,
those that can see it need to shout loud (very) and clear or the bullshit will win
this
-
Chris Barton has a detailed article on the huge cbd land grab that reveals what's driving the profound loss of democracy in Christchurch, just as agribusiness access to irrigation resources is behind the overthrow of ECan.
Unskilled leaders fail to reconcile business interests with public accountability. Yet that's who our nation and Canterbury's voters have elected.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Gareth Ward,
It's actually the "and so my job is not to worry about those people" line that blows me away - here's a man intending to be President who claims his job is not to worry about 47% of the population?!
And Obama gracefully kicks his ass on that in the (soft) Letterman interview.
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to BenWilson,
Social welfare has so long been linked to the idea of need, and stigmatized because of that, that most people can't imagine a system in which everyone gets it and no-one is stigmatized.
Egad, who would our unscrupulous pollies pick on instead?
-
Hard News: Media3: The Maori Media Man, in reply to mark taslov,
Mark, can you perhaps use the PAS quote tags instead of making your whole extract into a link?
quote
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Rosie,
It depends on a flat rate of income tax
Libertarians put it that way, but I know of nothing to stop progressive rates or other arrangements being added alongside a UBI. Other than 'efficiency' or suchlike, perhaps.
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Rosie,
and allowing them to keep all the money they make if they get some temporary or part time work
As you note later, a UBI usually suggests taxing *all* additional income.
Better tax on wealth and assets would help make up for reduced overall personal take, would encourage investment into productive businesses and away from silly things like inflated housing, and even address some of the inequalities over time if its associated with fair service provision.