Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
It's not money on top of the Budget though - it's spending WITHIN the budget. So it's part of the surplus/deficit.
I know. Hence reducing it reduces the deficit, increasing it reduces the surplus.
That still doesn't answer my question. You could achieve the same long term effect by saving more when you're in surplus, and less when you're in deficit couldn't you?
-
Rod Oram suggested that the long-term returns on the NZSF will be actually be greater than the cost of borrowing – i.e. that borrowing to invest in the NZSF *is* profitable.
On this basis the government should just borrow a trillion dollars, invest it, and keep the one billion profit that it makes after a year.
Is suspect the truth is that the margin between the cost of borrowing and the income of investing for something as safe as our government is very small. You'd make a small loss. But you're right Keith, it'd be good to see actual figures. They would quickly tell us if National has made a good decision here or not.
-
Personally I'd much rather they save more (into the fund) when they're in surplus, and cut it right back when they're in deficit. Though if anyone can provide an explanation as to why that's a bad idea, I'm glad to hear it.
-
Parliament doesn't want rugby fights brought before the courts, and it has left prosecutorial discretion intact to allow this to occur. Parliament doesn't want light smacking brought before the courts and it has left prosecutorial discretion intact to allow this to occur, but it also doesn't want light smacking to be criminal, and yet passed a law making it so.
I suspect that parliament doesn't want minor assaults on the rugby field to be criminal.
I play a contact sport, which doesn't involve people punching me, and I certainly play it with the expectation that people won't punch me. If someone assaulted me in a serious manner while playing it then I sure would be talking to the police and I'd expect them to take it seriously.
I think the analogy still holds.
-
I suggested I was an anti-smacker who opposed the amendment to section 59 on the Crimes Act for other reasons
Graeme, would you agree that there are other incidents that take place in society which the law makes criminal, but which, if parliament was to debate/vote on them, it would agree that it also wouldn't want those people convicted?
-
the pro-rule-of-law-ers who think Parliament shouldn't be passing legislation it really doesn't want enforced.
I think this is a argument which leads to no victory point.
Even if parliament did amend laws but then not want them to be enforced, which is a matter of debate...
Laws will be interpreted by police policy, police action, judges, lawyers, and juries. It is the mixture of those things that will determine how laws will and won't be enforced, and what will lead to a conviction and what won't, what will lead to an arrest and what won't.
It's the same for all the other incidents of assault and many other crimes.
To me this argument runs full smack into the counter point of "well even if that's true it doesn't matter because [two paras above]".
It's no victory because it's been assumed for many other incidents. When the assault laws were put in the crimes act parliament didn't want them to apply to many things that happen on the sports field. They didn't explicitly put a statement along those lines in.
This is an argument that we only have because it's about children and some people think that children have less rights in this area. They should front up and defend that belief rather than the 10 other arguments (laws they don't want enforced, light smacks don't harm kids, government shouldn't interfere in parenting) they make.
Lets have a referendum on "parents should have the right to assault their kids as part of parenting because children don't have the right not to be subject to physical violence like an adult does" which is what we're really doing. Put that question out to the public and see if 80% say yes.
-
I don't mind MS what I mind is not being able to use anything else.
Oh well, take that up with your middle management by all means. We're basically free to put whatever we want on our computers, despite there being some costs when things get fubared.
As one academic found out when they torrented down some very large pdfs for research and left the torrent application running over the weekend. $800 bill later...
-
Cutting government investment in services to reduce private sector debt seems like nothing more than magical thinking.
Are we cutting government services to donate the money to the private sector now?
-
People may turn to gay relationships if their original relationships don't work out.
Man.
Who do I donate this toaster oven to?
-
Donny is actually Walter's imaginary friend
Now you're just being silly.