Posts by Eddie Clark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I/S, listen, please, instead of lecturing.
I, and many others over the average wage, benefit from National's proposed tax cuts.
I, and many others over the average wage, do not vote for National.
Dismissing all in the above group as evil right wingers who are out only for themselves and will vote solely on short-term economic self interest is, to use your words, "willfully blind" to how people actually make political decisions.
To reiterate the core point I made in my first post. Assuming all those over the average wage are National voters is both incorrect and slightly insulting. If the Nats want my vote they can start by being a bit nicer to teh gayz, ethnic minorities, beneficiaries, and the working poor - not by offering tax cuts.
-
Maybe we could personalise it - the PM makes $375K a year - Key wants the job and he wants a 6% tax cut on income over ~75k - that means that under a National govt the PM will be getting 6% more on $300k of their income - $18,000 a year - or $346 a week - or 20 blocks of cheese in today's currency
Fair enough, Paul, I take your point (although the 33% thing seems to me to be aspirational from National - they haven't come out with any actual policy ideas of how to get there). But I wasn't really disputing that the well off did better under their tax cuts - they do. I was just objecting to I/S's implication that anybody who earns over $45,000 will immediately give in to greed and be bribed by tax cuts into voting National. As Russell said - I/S's analysis is generally superb, but the "eat the rich" moments do grate.
-
I/S:
...so he can give a great stonking tax cut to his rich mates.
Is that sort of rhetoric really helpful? I earn somewhere close to the top tax bracket and yet...
I didn't ask for a tax cut. I don't need a tax cut. I'd be happy to pay more tax to give lower income people a tax cut. I also have absolutely no intention of voting National or Act. How is it at all meaninful to class everyone that earns one dollar above the average wage as "John Key's rich mates"? Classifying people's political orientation solely on their income is both incorrect and mildly insulting.
-
@ Peter Ashby:
"Keep your eyes peeled for the unpeated Caol Isla and Ardbegs then."
Yes, there's this amazing whisky pub in Bowmore on islay with a huge range of islay whiskies by the dram. I had a (rather expensive) dram of a Cadenhead 13 y/o sherry finish Caol Isla, and it was so, so good. Tis a pity they pour so much of their malt into blends.
-
For a cheapish (80 bucks) slightly idiosyncratic Islay, I can highly recommend the Bruichladdich "Rocks". Very very lightly peated, ridiculously easy to drink, and the cheapest one in their range. I indulged in a trip to Islay last month and tried a few of their new lines at the distillery (by far the most welcoming, easy going distillery tour), but I liked that the most.
Now I just need to wait for their two sherry finishes (10 y/o, distilled when they randomly opened for 3 weeks in 1998) to get to NZ... nom nom nom.
-
That story is disappointing, but not exactly surprising, from both the Listener and Rishworth. Rishworth, for a Bill of Rights expert, has a somewhat... narrow view of the reach of human rights in New Zealand.
-
Lucy - Espressoholic 2000. The hot chocolate is good, but is the ONLY thing it does well. Bad, non-local coffee, and music blaring at a volume that totally thwarts conversation (the latter also a problem with the night shift at Midnight Espresson).
And to go back a ways to those commenting on Vancouver coffee - Starbucks on every corner is, from a coffee perspective, better than a Timmys on every corner. Dear god, Timmys coffee. The donuts, on the other hand, are delicious heart attacks in a bag. Yum.
-
Coffee snobbery, slightly sillier but four times more tedious than wine snobbery
Oh no, Tom, coffee snobbery is quite rational. After a steady diet of Starbucks being some of the BEST coffee one can find, one of the things I'm most looking forward to back in NZ is the coffee. Coffee in Canada is truly, truly terrible. I'm told Vancouver is a bit better, but still too many Starbucks.
-
To throw something else into the discussion. As RB and some others have said, there are VERY strong policy reasons for not allowing criminal justice to be dealt with privately. To do otherwise would mean that the wealthy could simply pay for criminal acts and walk away with no record while everybody else has to face jail / criminal sanctions. And the law is quite strict in trying to dissuade people from intimidating witnesses to crimes.
See, for example, sections 117 and 118 of the Crimes Act:
116 Conspiring to defeat justice
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.
117 Corrupting juries and witnesses
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who—(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person, by threats, bribes, or other corrupt means, from giving evidence in any cause or matter (whether civil or criminal, and whether tried or to be tried in New Zealand or in an overseas jurisdiction)
...
Now Crimes was not my best subject at law school, and perhaps 117 is inapplicable because this is technically bribing someone to not make a complaint, rather than not to give evidence in an existing proceeding. However, 116 is broadly worded, and even if an assault case could not be made out, if it was confirmed that Veitch assaulted his girlfriend in any way and then paid her not to complain to the police, there is a possible case of obstruction of justice. Graeme would know better than me (you know all the pedantic ins and outs, Edge).
-
Also - excuse me, settling criminal matters privately? Do you want to go back to the middle ages days of paying a blood price to pay off a murder?
They are great, honking, very obvious public policy reasons that we don't allow people to contract out of criminal responsibility.