Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Isn't an allowance tax free, unlike wages?
Yes. Hence my use of the word "untaxable" in the same paragraph. So once you account for tax, the housing allowance alone puts backbenchers in a better financial situation than is accorded to those on the minimum wage. Even with rebates and everything else the person on the minimum wage still loses far more than $1500 to the tax man.
-
Or rent-a-cops who seem more interested in causing trouble than stopping it.
I've had interesting discussions with an ex-Matrix guard of my acquaintance, who strongly suggests that a lot of the Matrix officers (many of whom are or used to be ex cops) are in it for the chance to knock heads. Given that they're almost an underground arm of the police in Auckland (I've heard of Matrix guards being involved in vehicle pursuits, searches for burglars, and various other things), it's just fortunate that we don't allow them to carry firearms.
-
An important point with trusts and when there might be 'stripback' is timing. I suspect that if you legitimately shifted funds to a trust while the business was all above board then it may not occur?
It's three years since I learned about trusts, and I'm sure the lawyers around here will correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that transfers into a trust are at risk for several years after the gifting if there's a bankruptcy. Between the official assignee and the courts there's fairly broad scope for trusts operated by the likes of Mr Blue Chip and others to be stripped of assets.
-
Interesting. Looking at the Act (section 5), the exemption applies to police and fire station bars (pretty much every volunteer fire brigade has a social club with a bar), bars at defence establishments, and prison officers' bars. So it's not just the police who are excepted, but it is a very narrow exception. And given the role of the police in enforcing liquor licensing law, it seems like a particularly unfair one.
Getting rid of the exception (for all of the above, not just the police) would cause much bitching and griping from the affected parties, I'm sure, but it's an exception that I just don't feel is appropriate. I could understand continuation of the defence one, given the nature of military discipline and the confined nature of defence premises, but the others just don't fit. -
The way I would see it working is this:
The primary residence, of no concern to Parliamentary Services except for paying for telecommunications connections (I have no problem with the taxpayer footing the bill for two phone lines and a residential internet connection for the residence of every MP), is where the partner (martial, CUB, or common-law) and/or dependent children (in the absence of a partner) of the MP reside. Doesn't matter if this is in Wellington or elsewhere, but it's clearly what the lay person would define as "home". In the absence of family, I'd say something like "the residence occupied for six months prior to election to Parliament".A secondary residence, available only to electorate MPs, would be either in Wellington or in their electorate. Quite how this would be funded should be up for discussion, but I do find it obscene that there's an untaxable allowance available to Ministers that is greater than the median national income, and that even backbench MPs can claim one that's barely less than the minimum wage ($12.5*40*52=$26,000, against a standard MP's allowance of $24,500).
-
a LOT of Police officers walking the beat and a pronounced lack of aggro.
This is one thing that I think is nice about the Auckland CBD. The cops are out on foot, and are approachable - as witnessed by a friend's photo on Facebook of her and some drunk mates with a nonplussed-looking police sergeant. Could do with more of them, to be sure, but within funding constraints they seem to be making the effort to do real beat patrolling in the city.
I remember when Newmarket got its foot patrols back, crime dropped significantly and permanently in the area around Broadway. There's a lot to be said for police officers being right there on the pavement with the general public. -
police bars.
The suggestion to bring them under the licensing law is a good one.
Sorry, what?! They're actually not under licensing law? For fuck's sake! Does that apply to any private bar (such as sporting clubs and volunteer fire brigades), or is it something that's peculiar to the police? How long's that been in the law, I wonder?
-
Probably not, but if you really want to go there I don't see why MPs really need heavily subsidized housing in the first place. If rental property on the open market in Wellington is too much for damn Ministers of the Crown (or backbenchers who aren't exactly on the minimum wage themselves), how does anyone else manage?
To be fair, Craig, anyone who's required to live away from home by their employment will reasonably expect their employer to provide accommodation. This applies at any level.
What stinks is English moving his entire family to Wellington and then claiming that his "home" is in Dipton. Home is, quite clearly, Wellington, because that's where his wife and children reside. The mechanations of the trust just make it stink more, rather than less. -
and a bar on the grounds of the Police College itself would be more than usually scrupulous about obeying the law
Yes, that aspect of it did surprise me. Having spent a week there for a course at the beginning of the month (in no way related to the Police, just taking advantage of their very good facilities for running residential courses), with participants retiring to the bar every evening, the bar struck me as particularly well-run and compliant. Maybe they got a big shake-up as a result of this case, but they have a prominent sign at the bar saying that there will be no stock-piling of drinks before close. They're certainly now doing far more to discourage binging (to the extent of not selling jugs of beer) than is expected of any ordinary public house.
-
Rich, they are entitled to contribute the benefit of their experience to the people who do decide the policy, though. Or would you rather that health policy was decided without the input of medical professionals? That the military had no say on defence policy? Coz that's what you're advocating.
As for fire fighters wanting petrol banned, can't see it. They'd probably rather see stoves and cigarettes banned, given their strong role in preventable fire deaths. If you're going to deride the inclusion of emergency services in the policy-making processes, at least have a clue about what might give them cause for concern.