Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ha, is this INCREDIBLE irony or is someone Wikipranking?
In 2002 Worth was appointed Honorary Akela (Great Lone Wolf) of the Girl Scouts Korea in the same ceremony as US First Lady Laura Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Worth -
You have to be mildly amazed at the way National has got the "attack the messenger" spin working though. Not just through the National Internet PR Department but actually out into the MSM as well.
Labour have got a long way to go with controlling political messaging when something like this is getting turned around to "Goff's a hypocrite"
-
There's been a loss of 'net Worth?
Magnificent Dad Joke. ^5
-
directionless, aimless leadership sells us short.
Absolutely, at least if he was far-right we'd get SOMETHING done :>
-
This certainly seems a more accurate criticism than the standard "he's a privatising Rogernome in disguise!" one his interweb opponents will trot out.
-
So Labour has a very interesting card to play - given that Goff provided evidence of "political appointments for favours" allegations privately to Key but they were deemed to be nothing? This has been confirmed as a separate incident and presuming it's a separate lady then they may have some very awkward questions for the PM.
-
Keith, excellent analysis of the numbers BTW and I'll avoid distracting from them (although I maintain that the debate is being framed incorrectly).
One point of interest though:
Good question. The rate of return and the debt risks were assessed as part of the original fund design process. Treasury had deemed it a prudent level which also maximises return.
By this you mean that Treasury decided the 40 year frame was prudent? Because it seems the design of the Fund (stemming from the Act) doesn't have anything to do with debt - it just demands that you put enough money into the Fund to cover the 40yr average super requirement less whatever it gives back
-
I think it's unhelpful to bring up a hypothetical zero-margin scenario,
I disagree - your argument (equally hypothetical) hinges on the Fund making returns above debt. I believe THAT muddies the waters as it continues to frame the discussion around how well the Fund returns, rather than the intent of the smoothing of Superannuation payments and the fact that you want to do that at least cost.
But it ain't my blog!
-
But if all the money for the contributions is borrowed
Treasury effectively treats the capital contributions as part of total superannuation spending for the country (they always graph Net super expenditure plus the capital contributions). This seems valid as it's a net super position over the years.
So to try and separate capital contributions out from any other Govt spending and say "this bit is all debt funded, but this bit is all tax funded" is spurious in my mind.
-
So Computerworld is saying police have started an investigation into someone stealing DNA from the National Databank.
Coincidence?
Or has Worth been secretly cloning an army on an alien world to overthrow the Government whilst still maintaining a face as Govt Minister? YOU tell me there's no similarity there