Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If this policy is all about tackling obesity, why then does Australia still have such an obesity problem? They've had exemptions on food for years. Most stats I've been able to locate on Google rank Australian obesity levels on a par with our own.
I'm not sure if anyone ever claimed that it would solve obesity, or any such miracles.
-
Is "runaway production" SAG speak for "other countries having a film industry"? As in "film productions that ran away from us"?
-
Seriously, if this is about poor people eating, the better way is to drop income tax at the bottom, increase welfare. Then they can decide if everyone else's ideology that they should eat fresh whether they can really afford to or not should apply to them. Or spend it on any one of a thousand other things that money can buy and fucking the tax system can't.
I think that there's value is trying to make things that are good for us cheaper, if that will lead to people eating more of them and having positive outcomes. A general increase in income won't lead to an increase in healthier food, as you haven't changed the priority by changing the relative prices.
I think there's a lot of ifs along that path though.
-
This seems a little unlikely, considering the role Gollum plays in the book.
Yes, Andy Serkis is already signed up.
However for the context of today's thread, he may have a different sort of contract, since he doesn't actually appear in the movie.
-
The character of Galadriel isn't in "The Hobbit", so Blanchett is unlikely to be involved in the film.
From Peter Jackson:
“Gandalf, being a 2,000-year-old wizard, is still around and plays a major role in ‘The Hobbit,’ and we’re having Ian McKellen reprise,” explained the filmmaker, who is executive-producing the flick and writing the screenplay. “There’s a couple of other characters: Elrond, who was played by Hugo Weaving [in the original films], and there’s a possibility of Galadriel, who was played by Cate Blanchett.”
(source: http://filmonic.com/cate-blanchett-to-return-as-in-the-hobbit-986)
-
In the meantime, it would seem prudent not to accept anyone's take on this dispute at face value – not least when it comes to the likes of Sir Ian McKellen and Cate Blanchett, whose names have been invoked without them having apparently said anything at all on the matter.
While the union isn't a legal entity, the fact that most of these actors haven't been employed yet may mean that won't make too much difference. If the union blacklists the movie, they may not sign in, and the fact that there's no union body to legally negotiate with might not matter.
So the credibility of the union beyond that is probably going to be important. I think any statement that some of these core actors make is going to be pretty important.
-
Which leads to the political own goal in this. How can Labour attack the recent tax cuts/GST hike as regressive when they introduce their very own regressive tax cut?
They can't. GST is a flat tax, any cut in it would be flat as well.
-
I find it hard to believe that the cost of implementing a GST exemption would be that high. Exemptions already exist which suggests the systems have the ability to define exemptions and all you are doing is changing what fits that definition.
I think the point is that the exemptions as they are at present either affect you or they don't. You're either in the GST business or you're not.
This will change under Labour's proposal to some businesses being partially in the GST business. So they'll have to go through their stock and figure out which to charge GST on and which not to. And when new stock comes in they'll have to decide if they're GST or not GST. Not impossible, but a pain and a cost.
And then I guess theoretically they could be audited and required to account for which things they didn't charge GST on. It would be a big advantage over your competitor if you could get more of your stock put in the 'no GST' pile.
-
Didn't Peter Dunne campaign not too long ago on zero GST on council rates? Mind you, it depends on his target constituency.
Yes. A tax cut for people who own expensive properties.
-
That this *is* a tactical advantage does not mean it is caused by tactical behaviour. My analysis leads me to the conclusion that it is not behaviour from Maori Party voters, or Maori roll voters that primarily causes this, but the relative youth of the Maori descent population, coupled with lower enrolment and turnout.
If Maori were (as Craig calls it) Te Borg, the tactical vote implications would be quite impressive. Up to 13 electoral seats all overhung, with all the party votes going to a party which would enter into a pre-arranged coalition with the Maori Party. Balance of power almost guaranteed.
Sadly, people don't work like that.