Posts by Don Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It is clear now that critics Henry's resting policy for the downturn in S14 gates was plain wrong.
I agree about afternoon games. It is really hard to take children - future fans - to matches that don't finish to close to 10pm. There should be a better mix.
Then there is the issue of treating fans like walking wallets to be emptied. I am sick of the way it is assumed as soon as you are in the stadium threshold you surrender all rights and independence of thought to the RFU or whoever it might be. Even the music blasting away all the time adds to this nightmare, let alone the emptying of bags of anything that can be eaten or drunk during a game.
We have paid to watch some sport. Nothing else.
Time to stop treating fans as rich morons and maybe we will feel more like watching again.
-
I guess it's what you do with it that counts, Graeme.
-
No it isn't, unfortunately...
Also discovered that files 2 and 3 are in fact a repeat of 1 :-(
That's a lot of megs for your serves to pass around.
Otherwise...it is shaping up to be an excellent show!
-
Hi Russel. Is the podcast part 1 supposed to be 88mb?
-
I was looking for more of that Brief Encounter film, David, and found this scene. Seems...apt.
-
Shame rugby doesn't have goalies, in my experience they are *always* grumpy. Is there an equivalent in rugby? Fly half, maybe. More prima donna 's, really, but the two traits go together.
-
Sorry, that was Danielle. Is Deborah grumpy as well? Can we start a XV?
-
The main problem with removing GST on food, as somebody mentioned above, is that it is an inefficient way to help poor people.
I am not sure how to say this more politely, but you are wrong.
Cutting GST is a very efficient way of helping poorer folk. For one thing, you don't need arbitary measures of "poorness", you don't need gangs of Government employees to determine whether someone is poor enough to qualify and as a "poor" person you don't need to waste hours filling in forms attending interviews or getting your local charity to advocate on your behalf - just to prove to these employees that you are indeed poor enough.
One of the great gains of the post WW2 welfare states was to remove the Dickensian stigma that was traditionally attached with receiving assistance from the state of charity. One of the great losses of the 80s and 90s has been the re-attachment of that stigma.
As for as the long term nature of recent food price rises...I would not be too sure about that. The protectionism of Europe, the USA and Japan has very much skewed global production incentives. In many ways this is chickens coming home to roost, unfortunately it is the very poor nations that are suffering disproportionately.
I am with Deborah though, this thread is making me grumpy.
-
That was exactly my point.
In which case I missed it. Apologies, but this statement:
Critically, such a policy would benefit relatively well-off people who spend more money on food -- that'll be me -- far more than the poor people RAM claims to represent.
was so misleading it did deserve some comeback.
and as for this:
Who'd bet against the 12.5% saving on food being at least partially swallowed up by increased margins,
Well, that's an admission of the anti-competitive nature of our food industry and an issue for the Commerce Commission, surely.
I am definitely a fully paid up member of the latte set but removing GST from food would help the poorest sections of society, no question. It would do so without the need for means testing, tax rebates and a whole swag of more complex ways of trying to target poverty- which also fill buildings with bureaucrats.
And yes, the middle classes, childless and even rich pricks would also benefit, but not in the same proportions.
-
Good to see that a family of five on 95 grand a year are considered beneficiaries in modern day NZ. I wonder what sort of response that would have got 20 years ago. ;)
Can't speak for NZ, but you have to go back nearly 30 years in the UK to see what "sort of response" there would have been. That is pre-Thatcher.
At that time mothers *directly* received something called family allowance for each child they had. It was not means tested and reached the people who needed the money very effectively. Mothers and children.
No one was stupid enough to call it a "benefit" thirty years ago. That label applied to WFF is particularly boorish and meant to be demeaning to the folks who do claim the tax rebate. In many ways it is a shame there is still a means test for WFF as it makes it less effective.