Posts by Keith Ng
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh. "I didn't call you a whore, you suck cock for free and you're still a dirty skank".
It wasn't meant as a backhanded accusation.
For the record, I am very consciously *not* trying to weaselword my way out of the fact that I am accusing DPF of a pretty serious lack of integrity. But it was appropriate to clarify exactly what I was accusing him of.
-
Why? Here's why:
He said Waterview Connection surface road options are being considered by the Transport Agency and all would be wide enough to provide for easy widening to three lanes in each direction.
-
I'm not 100% sure I get the percentile graphs - does the final one suggest that come April 2011, under National's planned tax package (I irrationally HATE the term cuts), the top 10 percentile will be paying net total of $450 MORE in tax than they do now?
Nope. $450 *million* more. So the top 10% combined will pay more tax in 2011 than they do now. They pay more because they'll earn more, and because of fiscal drag.
Also, it would be useful if you could align your y-axis scales in the Labour and National graphs so as to make comparison easier (because by themselves the graphs don't tell you as much as the comparison). And your post is largely about comparison.
They don't really hold up well for direct comparisons, since they are of different sizes. The point was to illustrate the distribution pattern for each package.
-
Keith - I would like you to apologise for your assertion that someone else authored/wrote/had input or even suggested my blog post.
I will take your word for it. And not the Parliamentary kind of take-your-word-for-it. I mean I will actually take your word for it. And I apologise for implying it.
But, what I was actually implying was two-fold: It looked and smelled like the kind of stuff the research unit produces, so either it actually *was* a research unit paper (an assert which I withdraw), or it might as well be one.
Integrity is the issue here. There is a huge difference between making a case for something and creating outright distortions purely to serve PR messages.
For example, your post essentially tried to paint Labour's tax cut as weighted towards the rich. Not because it's actually true, or because anyone really cares about a purely hypothetical tax cut programme, but because the key attack line on the Budget is that the Nats' tax cut have gone (or will go) to the rich, and you're trying to preempt that with a counter-argument.
Whether you're doing it independently or not, you are messaging for the National Party, and this is categorically different to expressing a point of view. You are entitled to do either, of course, but I was just pointing it out.
And also Keith you really should not lecture on transparency of relationships when you failed to even publicly announce you were leaving blogging to go work for Helen Clark. Fortunately I did it for you.
I stopped blogging immediately when I was employed there. I declared where I was when I came back.
-
You'd think someone getting on their high horse about numeracy would know the difference between a percentile and a decile, wouldn't you?
Touche. I have no defence on that count.
-
The discrepancy I noticed was that the "When it's actually ..." figures for Labour, double in the next graph "Total impact of packages 2008-2011", even though the axes appear to have the same measures. I'm not sure of the significance of the x-axis change of "Income per year" to "Individual annual income" - perhaps the second graph is for a couple earning the same amount each ?
Possibly the problem is the y-axis, which should have "per year" removed from the second graph (since the title says it is the Total impact ... 2008-2011).
There is definitely something wrong with it, because it is not clear what it is actually saying.
Sorry. The first two graphs were for the Oct 2008 package. The third graph was the combined impact of all proposed tax cut 2008-2011. Again, my bad.
In my defense, I really didn't want to do the tax cut over income graph, because I think they're stupid, and the second graph was originally entitled "Very Bad Graph. Do Not Read."
-
I do think it's about time we automatically inflation adjusted income tax and nominally reduced fiscal drag to 0 - I doubt any Minister of Finance will ever go for that though.
Problem is, nobody wants to raise taxes, but everybody needs to raise taxes. Letting growth and inflation do the job for the them gives them more options without the political cost, while inflation adjustments are sp small that they just fuck people off: "Chewing gum budget", anyone?
-
The discrepancy I noticed was that the "When it's actually ..." figures for Labour, double in the next graph "Total impact of packages 2008-2011", even though the axes appear to have the same measures. I'm not sure of the significance of the x-axis change of "Income per year" to "Individual annual income" - perhaps the second graph is for a couple earning the same amount each ?
Possibly the problem is the y-axis, which should have "per year" removed from the second graph (since the title says it is the Total impact ... 2008-2011).
There is definitely something wrong with it, because it is not clear what it is actually saying.
Sorry. The first two graphs were for the Oct 2008 package. The third graph was the combined impact of all proposed tax cut 2008-2011. Again, my bad.
In my defense, I really didn't want to do the tax cut over income graph, because I think they're stupid, and the second graph was originally entitled "Very Bad Graph. Do Not Read."
-
I'm pretty sure it's not "/week".
Yes, my bad. Amended.
-
Joshua Arbury has already had a look at this issue on his excellent Auckland Transport Blog (hit me if he doesn't become Auckland's Transport Czar in 20 years time).
Ouuu... excellent. Thanks for that.