Posts by Rik
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@ Tony - thanks for those links.
@ Russell - I now know what a "plurality" is! And yes the tone does sound a bit "threatening" so I take the tone back. But not the words.
At least I got a good laugh out of the responses...
-
When the overwhelming majority of competent scientists and the science academies of all the major countries line up behind a theory of anthropogenic climate change, I take the view that I'd be a fool to disagree.
Sure - but has this actually happened? Every time I take some interest in this topic there seems to be respected scientists on opposing sides and you're left wondering if they can't figure it out then who can?
With regard to ACT/Maori Party - what government under MMP (unless it gets an outright majority of votes) is not going to have to deal with squabbling minority parties? I don't see this as solely a National problem - unless it is because they have decided to take the "inclusive" approach which involves dealing with widely disparate idealogists. And if that is a bit harder to do then good on them for trying.
There seems to be plenty of "capitalist pig" theorising going on here (privatising airspace in parks, etc) and that's fine, whatever floats your boat, but I do sometimes wonder, why don't you just sit back and watch what actually unfolds with an open mind?
One thing for good lefties (which I understand to be the bulk of the scribes here) to consider - the majority of NZers that bothered to vote, voted for National. So while you might not like what is happening, you are now in the minority in this country.
-
Paul - thanks for the US tax rate info - the devil is always in the detail. Maybe our tax rates aren't so bad but it sure seems a lot harder to get by these days on what I would have thought was a reasonable income. But then again - one income + two kids might be the real issue for me.
James - actually I would support doubling GST and dropping the tax rate by 10 points. At least that way everyone ends up paying something - even those that earn an awful lot but have interesting ways of avoiding paying income tax.
-
James
it's National - with Act support - who wet the electors' appetite for tax bribes in 2005
It all depends which way you look at this.
If you are a high payer of income tax then you might say that Labour dropped a few bribes (interest free student loans, for example).
If you are a beneficiary you might say National/ACT have dropped a few bribes (lower taxes).
It is my personal opinion that the top tax rate kicks in way too early - as soon as you hit that it's barely worth working. From memory in the US Obama was talking about the top tax rate kicking in at a household income of around USD200k (or was it USD300k?) whereas here it kicks in at around NZD60k which roughly equates to about USD36k.
I'm all for ensuring nobody slips through the cracks but I'm not so keen on ensuing everyone can live the life of Riley (whatever that means) on the back of the relatively small minority in NZ that pay the vast majority of the total tax take.
-
You really thought his patronising rant about voters having been "bribed with their own money" for the last three years cut to the quick of the financial crisis? The public accounts are not the problem.
Yep!
But he wasn't referring to the global economic turmoil - he is still thinking about cleaning up after Labour's Robin Hood-style bribery over the last several years.
Hey - I quite like that analogy. If Helen Clarke was Robin Hood where do Cullen and some of the others fit in to the band of merry men?
-
My curiosity was piqued so I took a look at the TV3 interview with Roger Douglas.
After the description that led me to take a look I was surprised to see a guy who appeared to be making good sense in his summation of recent times and only stating the obvious about the future.
-
Great commentary people - really enjoying reading it.
Except this cynical post:
i had the sneaking suspicion it was only a flashy layer of coins around a hollow centre.
in other words, a bit like an actual rich person.
Says a lot about the author, I suspect.
-
I'm intrigued, though: on which side of the ledger do you put the story about taking Mary-Margaret to an ACT meeting?
True, true - it does help strike a balance.
I just re-read the post and I think what got me was the multiple expamples of the two-facedness (is that a word?) of John Key. Seems to mirror some of the Labour campaign marketing.
Now it's not that he isn't necessarily two-faced but as always the devil is in the detail. Let's look at an example:
John Key tells Pita Sharples privately that he will not get rid of the Maori seats whereas in other public forums he says that he will be getting rid of them.
Certainly sounds a bit two-faced (or a "flip-flop" if you will).
But was it really? As I understand it he says that he told Pita Sharples that losing the Maori seats wasn't set in stone and that while he would like to get rid of them if it meant getting the Maori party onside he had bigger fish to fry (in terms of running the country).
Sounds reasonable to me.
My pick has Labour hanging in there for another term so don't panic, you probably won't have to put up with him for much longer.
Anyway - I probably don't have a full grasp of the facts and after a couple of whisky's probably am not making much sense anyway.
How about I just look forward to your next post - don't make it too much of a tear-jerker, you get some funny looks around the office!
-
Ooops - sorry, got side-tracked with looking after babies...
I realise I was a bit vague in my original post - it's just that you have a great (and witty) writing style and generally choose life-affirming or emotive topics such as extra-curricular tutelage of your daughter, travels around France, the upsetting death of a friend, etc that make you ponder the bigger picture of life.
And I am not a fan of personal politics. Cast your vote and see what happens...
-
You know I used to really enjoy reading your blogs David.