Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I wonder, I wonder, why the focus on Key and not his wife or even son and daughter, as it is so common practice by those in high office, also in business, to ensure their wealth does not stick to their name, and is instead registered and kept under the name of a wife, partner or child.
It seems hopeless what the MSM and opposition do in NZ, it is all focused on John Key, by now they must have learned, the man is much smarter than most of them, and as former merchant banker, well familiar with alternative investment vehicles, he will know all the legal and other ins and outs to do business.
Dig where you may not have thought the trusts and wealth may be hidden, dig into Bronagh and Max and his sister's accounts, too, I suggest.
-
I am astonished that some may take Mathew Hooton for serious, he is the greatest spin master and truth twister we have in New Zealand. Any serious UBI would also be linked to tax income and taxable income, e.g. serve as a tax free basic income.
So that means nothing more or less than a minimum basic income being guaranteed for all, those who can and want to work and earn more than the UBI, and those who may not be able to, being students or disabled persons or mothers caring for a young child while being sole parent. The latter would still be entitled to top ups in a fair system.
The calculation must be done by comparing the effects of the UBI on real earned income and by considering tax rates.
Hooton will try to spin it like this is a freeby for all, on top of what they earn already, and I guess Farrar comes from the same quarter.
That is simply nonsense, as high income earners will still have the UBI as a minimum tax free income but have to pay tax on the higher income they earn.
We need to return to a more progressive tax system, so that the big earners pay their truly "fair share" again, and cannot simply exploit loopholes to pay nothing much at all, by for instance using trusts to pay them a low income, while the wealth may accrue within the trust, for later.
Labour need to get a grip on this and get some experts comment on the UBI, or all efforts will be a waste of time, and they have already only half committed themselves to an UBI in the near future.
This debate is now going into fool's territory, while most MSM journos struggle to just get a grip on their now correct holiday pay, I presume.
-
Polity: Home-spun non-truths, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Kathryn Ryan had Guy Standing on her Nine to Noon show yesterday morning, but she did not let him talk in detail about the UBI.
Another missed opportunity for some more balanced information.
-
Polity: Home-spun non-truths, in reply to Hilary Stace,
The way it has been presented, often only quoted as being about $ 211 a week per person, it will hardly thrill the majority on benefits, as if that is all they would get, it is definitely not enough to pay basic living costs. It would not even cover the rent for a room in many flats in Auckland.
But there are different models of an UBI, and those that are on benefits for health and disability, and for needing to care for a child or disabled person, they will surely need a good top-up to cover their actual needs.
It will not completely do away with a kind of “welfare system”, it can save a lot of administrative costs though, and if linked to taxation, it would work quite well, I think, provided the necessary changes to tax rates will be done.
-
With a fair few of the kind of “media persons” we have on TV, radio and writing in print, a proper, objective, not emotion laden discussion appears near impossible these days.
I listened in to Duncan Garner on Radio Live this afternoon, and while he said he welcomed a discussion on the UBI, he did not appear all that sincere when then throwing in bizarre comments about people having their free choice to use the money on whatever they like, e.g. booze, drugs and whatever they wish. He called it a “dole” for everyone, rich and poor, and middle class.
Again, there was too much of stirring up at work, to get listeners call in and share their prejudices, some calling it “communist”, others irresponsible and so forth.
Paul Henry did of course rubbish the idea on his show this morning, and his “panel” guests seemed just as poorly informed and biased.
So Farrar may have led the way with all this, but the herd seems to be following his lead, yet again, in rubbishing it all before anybody has done any proper analysis or quoted some research.
What about getting Prof. Guy Standing from London in to comment on this, he seems to be the expert and strongly in favour of an UBI.
Instead we get talk back comments and throwaway arguments by so many wannabe experts, the usual bank economists and radio hosts who only have one thing on their mind, to stir up emotive discussions, to get more listeners and higher ratings, no matter how poor the participants are actually informed.
Like with anything that comes from the opposition, it tends to be discredited and destined to the waste bin by so many in the mainstream media, before it has been carefully considered on its merits.
So the judgment seems to be out, it is too complex, too many are against it, therefore it must be a "goner", I suppose.
-
Speaker: ‘Kiwimeter’ is a methodological…, in reply to linger,
"Media organisations will want a survey with results reflecting their target disposable-income demographic, and biases in that direction are fine with them."
MSM and “bias”, oh, do you really think they are biased?
I have followed the MSM for years, and bias seems to rather be the rule rather than the exception, that is some forms of bias, which may in many cases only be subtle, but nevertheless real.
Look at how much Maori contents we get on TVNZ, and we already can see one form of bias there. With the rise of the internet and more online and social media, the majority of TVNZ viewers are likely to belong to a “more mature” group of the population, meaning older than the average New Zealander.
Having kept costs and their own research expenses low for years, is it any wonder that the MSM, including TVNZ, increasingly label anything as a “survey” or “research”, that may just appear to be such, but does not meet truly scientific criteria.
This and the earlier post by Tze Ming Mok are excellent, raising issues we need to discuss and further analyse.
MSM are generally going down hill with their standards in reporting, that is what I observe daily, so click bait and this kind of “survey” stuff is what seems to become the new normal now. I am very worried about where the journey is going.
But we do at least still get more representative data on New Zealand and its people with the Census that is conducted every few years.
-
If this survey is run on the same basis as the kinds of polls that Duncan Garner sometimes presents on his ‘Drive Show’ after 3pm, then I would not give it much credit. I wonder how scientific it is. And with the poor informing we get from much of the MSM, can we talk about informed people making comments and giving answers that should have much merit?
TVNZ’s reporting on some findings tonight did not really convince me that this was survey is of that much value. More infotainment than anything else, I fear.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
The architect (usually employed by the developer and/or builder) commented:
"The debate has suffered from blinkered thinking and cherry picking of facts; those engaging in the process desperately need a holistic understanding of both the controls and their purpose. It’s time that the voices of the informed, specifically those who regularly deal with the built environment, are heard and valued."A "holistic understanding", and therein lies the devil. It alredy implies much flexibility, and reading the proposed PAUP text, there are so many words and terms used, they mean one thing to one person and a totally different thing to another person.
Another look at Council’s marked up text for the PAUP (after mediation meetings and taking various concerns on board) may be warranted, and look at sections 10 and 11 re how much discretion Council will have, according to their adopted position on assessment criteria, to allow developments (from the residential provisions covered by hearing topics 059 to 063):
https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/online-services/new/files/IRePCVxDR8JOu7YsWO1BeWKCArh94AthZta8MwFIRePCAlso take note of the new terminologies like "Planned built character and residential amenity", "planned built character and neighbourhood", which allow significant changes to the build and character of existing neighbourhoods.
Read also – for instance – the inserted point under 11.2 Assessment criteria, page :
"e. Whether the infringement will, in combination with other control infringements, give rise to adverse cumulative effects on the environment. This will require the effects of multiple development control infringements to be considered as a whole and not in isolation from one another."This is all very different to what was proposed with the notified Plan, where some rules kicked in after 3 controls would be breached.
And this is what was agreed on by an extra stakeholder “expert conference group” – further to and following mediation under hearing topics 059 to 063:
https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/online-services/new/files/6fPnRRQBwa9hbNuQ2vjiVsKKFINCps7V2LJ9JW6YV6fPWhat all this means is, that Council officers will have lots of discretion under the already proposed and further changed plan provisions to allow developments that involve MULTIPLE infringements of development controls. It appears rather that infringements will be the rule than the exception, which puts all this into a new perspective.
Those that simply rely on what was notified, and on what some “experts” tell the public, they will be astonished about what will be allowed already, should the Independent Hearing Panel adopt and recommend all these proposed changes.
The issue with the so called “out of scope zoning” that arose since December does not change anything of this, and it is silly to make this such a drama. As the plan has already allowed for much intensification, zoning is just one instrument, the application of the development controls (allowing many discretionary infringements in a rather flexible assessment process) is what really matters. The changes to density in MHS, MHU and THAB zones, even Mixed Use zones, I believe, allows for more developments already, much more than was notified.
With no required minimum dwelling mix, with minimum studio apartments at 30 square metres, with deleted storage and other requirements, we will have a potential for many new developments that will not really turn out to be what some may think.
Going by past examples, I have little faith in Council’s officers to make the right decisions. And all this does still not address the high building and land costs we have, which have been inflated by increased demand and lingering supply, and also by significant speculation on the Auckland housing market. Nothing will come cheap now, nothing.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
At the end of that Listener article I did again read something that is no longer applicable, and which few in the media seem to know:
"The council increased the minimum size of apartments from 30 to 35sq m metres in 2007. “But that makes the minimum price $350,000 – it’s all wrong and completely unnecessary.”That was Council's position since 2007 and what was also notified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, but has been reduced to 30 square metres again, during mediation and consultation as part of the hearing process. 35 square metres it is for those units in new developments that already also include balconies.
See sections 7.17, 8.17 and 9.16 for details re minimum dwelling size. Bear in mind also that a minimum dwelling mix also no longer applies under the Council's now adopted position re the AUP, so a developer can build developments that consist only of 30 square metre studio units.
I am astonished how the media continue to misinform the public, they obviously do not know all the details about what they are writing about.
And Martin Dunn of City Sales does naturally have very vested interests, does he not, same as many developers that want as little in rules as they can get away with.
Truly, who is happy to live in 20 square metre size apartments that do already exist??? Maybe students not having to live in them for long?
-
WINZ and MSD got off lightly, the now convicted killer has wasted the rest of his life, just another New Zealand human tragedy that resulted in more tragedy:
"Russell John Tully went from nicest bloke to killer"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77612963/Russell-John-Tully-went-from-nicest-bloke-to-killer
"Russell Tully was born in Ashburton Public Hospital on March 14, 1966, to Eileen Patricia, a registered nurse, and Patrick Noel, a railways clerk. His mother was then 33 and Patrick, a strong Catholic, was 45. They already had a son Kevin and a daughter Catherine, who now live in Australia and have made their lives a success.
Patrick Tully died in 1980 when Russell was only 14 and his mother did not remarry. In 1984 the two boys were living with Eileen. Kevin worked as a farmhand and Russell was a storeman.
After his job as a storeman, Russell worked for an Ashburton machinery company which refurbished tractors and the like and sold them overseas.
A workmate from the time, who did not want to be named, said Tully was a good worker and "you couldn't have met a nicer bloke".
Tully was a quick learner and had a good mechanical aptitude. They went rabbit shooting together.
"There was never any sign that he was anything other than a good bloke. He was always smiling, always joking. He had a really nice girlfriend."
Tully had not done an apprenticeship but stayed at the company at least a couple of years."
He moved to Australia and seemed to be doing fine for a while.
But how can such a person's life derail?
There were sadly no questions asked re how WINZ staff treated him, and how the new and more draconian regime in force since mid 2013 may have impacted on Tully and also on the staff working with him. It appeared MSD made huge efforts to keep a lid on all that they may have done wrong, and simply did all to label the shooter as "manipulative", "intimidating" and so forth.
When do some in the media dare shine the light on what goes on at WINZ, I wonder? The increase in abuse and assaults on WINZ workers over recent years is not just a coincidence. Or do they want to tell us some people are born bad?
Meanwhile we still get NO evaluation on the trials or social experiments that are done with mentally ill and other ones on benefits. I my humble view this is nothing short of disgusting what MSD and WINZ do or rather not do.