Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
I'd like to know a little more about MPs renting properties of each other. Do they manage to save the taxpayer money or is there some kind of double up of payments going on?
I believe, though I haven't researched it, that it works like this:
1. You are an MP from somewhere that isn't Wellington.
2. You've been an MP for some time and bought a house or apartment in Wellington some time ago, for the purposes of living there while in Wellington.
3. If you own that house freehold, parliamentary/ministerial services won't pay funds to support it, because it doesn't cost you anything (no mortgage).
4. So you rent the house you own out to another person, possibly an MP. They pay you rent. They claim that rent back from parliamentary services.
5. You then rent or purchase another property, and claim the rent or mortgage back from parliamentary services.QED.
-
Mr English showed signs of frustration yesterday.
Perhaps if you weren't quite so obviously rogering the taxpayer for every cent Bill, and then got called on it, we'd take a bit more interest in your calls for the country to tighten their belt.
-
(I know Hayden writes well, but I lack any interest in sport: I assume posts will meander from the original post there, much as they do in other posts?)
Actually all Haydn's posts start talking about team uniforms. Thankfully we all manage to move the comments onto how the NZRFU sucks and is destroying rugby.
-
I think Adam Hunt's reminder about the Chartists is well made. We certainly do not want to return to the situation where only men with money can afford to be members of parliament.
That's a straw man argument though. I haven't heard (on here at least, I haven't turned over any rock on the Herald's Your Views) anyone arguing that they shouldn't be paid, indeed well paid at that.
I don't really mind the minister of finance getting a big salary with a 2 at the front and five more numbers before it hits the decimal.
I mind MPs wriggling their finances around like worms to get an extra $24K/year on top of that. I mind that Ministers, who earn the most, seem to be doing it the most.
One of the things I'd like to see from our Members of Parliament is a bit of humble pie when they take their big salaries which we all pay. Not sticking their hand into as many obscure pockets to grab some more.
-
What, you mean doctor the documents? Or change the rules and say it was just a coincidence they changed the day before release? Probably a no win for them, although they could have prepared their response a bit better.
No, I mean they could have figured out that English was going to get hit a couple of months ago, and he could have gone back down to the half allowance that he'll be getting from now on, back then.
Given that National controlled when this would start and how it would be released, you'd think they would have sorted out their own house first so they didn't take a hit from an transparency structure that they approved.
-
Why else do you have a family trust unless you're trying to avoid some tax somewhere?
My parents set up a family trust around a piece of property. It does have tax advantages, but the main reason was that they wanted to be able to guarantee that the property would remain in the family in perpetuity, and a trust is the best way to do that.
I don't there's a partisan advantage for anyone here.
I think there's a moderate advantage for Labour (and possibly the Greens), but only if they STFU and let the media savage ministers.
Soon as they open their mouth their own dodgy past in this matter will be opened up as well. As someone pointed out, bad luck on national's part that the UK scandal happened, and that the Green Party outmanouvered them.
I do have to wonder why National didn't do a quick "how would this look when released?" audit of all its MPs ASAP once they decided to release these. A few quick changes and this would never have looked as bad to the public.
-
And if the job was CFO of a business spending $70 Billion a year, I would expect to be spending well over $2,000 a month on accommodation.
Well that's nonsense.
Any CFO of a 70 billion dollar business that was racking up deficits like NZ is for the next few years would be out on their butt.
And Bill English wouldn't get appointed CFO of a business that size. Microsoft doesn't earn that much in a year FFS.
And we're not a business, we're a country.
-
But surely Wayne Bennett and his like are the exceptions to the rule?
Exceptions have learnt something that the others haven't.
Maybe Graham Henry (if he needs to learn something extra) can't, in which case you're correct.
But I'm dubious about anyone being put out to pasture on the basis of two losses in South Africa. Everyone loses in South Africa most of the time. The country had largely swung behind the coaches at the end of last season, now we're swinging back again and they're 'past it'.
If we were to step outside New Zealand, we'd note that everyone that comes to New Zealand loses overall. They might get an occasional victory here and there, but overall, All Blacks reign supreme at home. Does that mean that every other coach around the world is past it?
-
As it happens, I'm not against critics flagging up influences in their reviews, but my problem with the "x mixed with y" approach is that it doesn't deal with the salient point- how is the work different and/or better than those pieces.
As a person who will just flick through reviews and scan them briefly, a bit of "you'll like this if you liked [a couple of well known bands/albums]" doesn't go astray.
Though in this day and age a review on paper of music seems to make little sense. Something like what Graham Reid has done - review with music sample - makes a lot more sense.
-
You'd have to say, if there was a place to develop a tactic of run the ball from your own 22, and kick short out of your own half, it wouldn't be South Africa.
It's a country where rugby players and physics make any penalty within about 60 metres 3 points. Surely it's the essential place to play a territorial game.
Looking at the selections and tactics, the present coaching panel may have reached the end of their shelf life this season
I don't buy that coaches have an automatic shelf life. There's nothing about being five years older that prevents Henry being a great coach. Good coaches take young talent and make it great, they mould individuals into teams and they develop strategies to overcome the opposition.
It's a position that requires constant development and learning and change to adapt.
Take Wayne Bennett for example. 18 years in charge of the Broncos and no signs of a shelf life. Switches to the Dragons and they're doing OK.