Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well that sure turned vicious quickly, cheers Craig =|
I think the point that an allowance for maintaining a second home is valid certainly stands. It's just that in English's case, it strikes me that his home in Dipton should be regarded as the second home and the allowance applied there. I've been suggesting that a well-constructed and transparent main/second home system (whereby main home is defined as where your family or you spend most of your time perhaps?) seems like the clearer way of doing it. Mr English would have still got his payment, it just would have had much less mud stuck to it.
It does raise issues around paying someone $900 a week for a place in Dipton OR Wellington, but introducing sliding scale payments would just force odd family decisions I think.
-
Pfft, "inherited" Decade of Deficits.
I think you'll find the surplus/deficit is an annual operational position - i.e. it comes each year from YOUR spending and YOUR tax levels Mr English. Don't pretend like somebody else is still in charge. -
I am lost. Somebody tell me the right answer.
My answer:
Total: Public students receive ~4x the amount of money Private students do
"Operational funding": Private students receive ~10% more money than Public- There is some concern over whether the respective "operational funding" buckets are directly comparable
- This is based on Graeme's 2008 numbers PLUS the stated respective increases -
And I'd note that my stupid estimate is for 2008 PLUS the $35/$320m funding additions).
-
While I'm not sure I get to same vitriolic conclusion, Angus' point about a global cost of tradeable units is a fair one. Of course, the Ugandans have a much lower reductions target, but the marginal cost of that extra tonne is much higher for a poor country.
At which point it seems you're arguing for a progressive carbon pricing mechanism?
-
A quick back-of-the-napkin suggests that private students get maybe 10% more in "operational funding". Public students get about four-times the total amount. Per student.
(I'll take a different line to Graeme and suggest operational funding for each may be the same things across both (given that it's a pretty specific term for MoE))
-
Oh, and that number was well out - the $35m is across the whole budget period. Not an annual opex amount.
-
Man, if MoE can't bucket spending along consistent lines, how the hell am I meant to make irrelevant spreadsheets for the internets?
-
Hang on a bit there Graeme - those numbers are 2008 - given the budget boost stated, private school funding has doubled.
Now if we just compare operational funding and (to be conservative to the private schools case) presume all of the $320m went to operational funding of public schools, then private school operational funding is now 38% higher than public.
If any of the $320m public money went into another one of your buckets then that percentarge is even higher.Certainly public school gets a lot more money per student given that "we" pay their teacher salaries and property of course
-
I think they've got "gross" in there incorrectly though? As they are talking about purchasing units on the international market where marginal costs incentivise you to?
So have been trying to answer my own question here - can someone confirm that Gross Emissions INCLUDES offset units purchased internationally? And Net Emissions just includes carbon sinks as the difference?
i.e. I can emit 10,000whatevers but buy units for 3,000, and my Gross Emissions are actually 7,000?