Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks, Neil. And yes, I agree about the Australian tax system.
-
And with respect to Deborah do we need advice from Australia or even from Kiwis living in Australia?
That was gratuitous, Neil.
-
You can do 'fairness' in a number of ways. (1) When it comes to paying for something, one way to do it fairly is to ask everyone to pay the same a amount. (2) Another way to do it fairly is to ask everyone to pay the same proportion of their income. (3) A third way to do it fairly is to ask people who earn more to pay a higher proportion of their income than people who earn less, because even after wealthier people have paid a higher proportion of their income, they will still have more left in their pockets (in absolute terms).
It's worth being clear about what sort of definition of 'fair' you are working with before claiming that x is fair or y is fair.
-
Don's right. Poorer households spend more of their income on food, so greater proportion of their income goes on GST. Wealthier households tend to be able to save more of their income.
Wealthier households will pay a greater absolute amount of GST, because they spend a greater absolute amount on food, but relative to their income, they pay less GST.
-
And, of course, there's always something good at The Hand Mirror.
Linky love! Thank you, Russell.
-
Another nice post on Alas a Blog, about Obama vs. Clinton, arguing that there are two issues that really matter, health care and foreign policy, that on health policy, there are no real differences, and then saying that Obama is better on foreign policy, and promising another post detailing why.
He also points out that neither candidate has clean hands, at all, when it comes to racism vs. sexism.
-
I became a hostage to fortune the day my elder daughter was born. It happens to all parents; suddenly, the worst that could happen is not something that could happen to us, but something that could happen to our beloved child.
I think that's what motivates us to seatbelts. I know that my daughters are far more likely to be assaulted or raped by someone they already know, rather than a stranger, but I still fasten up that seatbelt, and warn them not to get into cars or go anywhere with another adult, even if that adult says, "Mummy said so." I walk to and from school with them, because they have to cross a major road (two lanes in either direction) and several minor roads, and even though there is a controlled crossing on the main road, I have on occasion seen cars sale serenely through a red light there. So I fasten up that seatbelt again, and check that the traffic has actually stopped, before sending them across the road.
That's why this story and others we have seen in the media of late, of children stricken by cancer, is so frightening. All those seatbelts are no bloody use whatsoever. What a wretched thing for wee Belle, and her parents.
I hope the exhibition is a roaring success.
-
And on Shakesville, 10 bad reasons for voting for Clinton from a Clinton supporter.
-
From Alas, a Blog, from someone who is voting Obama, and will post pro-Obama arguments in a day or two.
Top Ten Bad Pro-Obama Arguments
1) Clinton is just plain selfish for not dropping out of the race! It shows she has bad character.
2) Racism has benefited Clinton this election, totally unlike sexism benefiting Obama, which has never happened and if it ever did happen didn’t matter.
3) Clinton is eeeevviiiil.
4) Obama will run center but govern left.
5) Obama is the next JFK!
6) Obama is the messiah. Worship him, foolish mortals, or your very soul is lost.
7) Hilary is only where she is because of her husband.
8) Hillary is a horrible role model because she stayed with Bill after Monicagate.
9) Hilary has shrill laughter. She reminds me of my hectoring mother. She’s a woman, and woman things disturb me.
10) The math proves Hillary can’t win, so no one should vote for her.
-
I'm finding the commentary on Shakesville more balanced than most. It has bloggers who are pro-Clinton, and bloggers who are pro-Obama, and they seem to be able to maintain a civilised discourse without resulting to dubious epithets about their non-preferred candidate.
For example, Jeff Fecke has a great piece on the "bitter" issue, which puts the quote in context, and points out that Obama was, well, right! But a few day or two later he also pointed out that Clinton shouldn't be forced out.
Kate Harding has written an excellent piece pointing out that Obama is not a progressive, and another one worrying about the way his religion is affecting some of what he says.
I've only been reading it for a week or so, so I don't know how they handled the Clinton:I-was-shot-at-in-Bosnia debacle.