[QUOTE=westerly;742105]Sadly, a third of every point goes to govt - so a bit of a disincentive to get too productive.
Printable View
Immigration NZ didn't ask Karel Sroubek 'obvious' question
Immigration NZ officials never asked convicted drug-smuggler Karel Sroubek if he had been back to the Czech Republic until they were ordered to review the case.
"This is despite Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway's specific queries about Sroubek's travel history, and the importance of the information which, if true, would have undermined Sroubek's case for residency."
Butt covering pathetic imo he needs to go imo (Dunstan) and i still think this may have been a sting.
Wonder who will be handed the gongs in this New Years Honours for services rendered?
Somehow unemployment has become part of the RBNZ brief (since Labour got involved?)
Is that code for we'll endeavour to increase or lower the number of destitute people until we get it just right
Seems pretty vicious and morally bankrupt economic policy if so
So Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has sneaked in a little tax increase via ACC. He's done that by cancelling the Vehicle Risk Rating system which gave owners of cars with higher safety ratings discounted registration fees. Cancelling a small incentive to get more safe cars on the roads seems a bit counter productive so it must be solely to do with increasing revenue
This isnt about increasing revenue. Its about wealth redistribution.
Essentially low income / "deprived" people pay more in ACC levies becasue they own old un-sasfge clangers. Wher as teh "Rich" peoepl can afford 4 - 5 Safetry Star rated vehicles adn for this they get to pay a lower ACC levly. In ILG's minf this is clearly unfair. We shoudl all pay the same.
What ILG has essentially doen is shoif $31 million of costs away from the poor and put that burden onto the shoulders of the rich. So this is essentially a tax increase for the wealthy, bu tno net income increase for ACC.
Makes a total mockery of Labours listening to "working parties" 68% of people who submitted on the proposed ACC changes reckoned the Vehicle Risk Rating System should stay. ILG chose to ignore this.
As well as ignoring the blazingly obvious. Motorcyclist create $129m in injury costs but only pay $34m in ACC levies. If ILG was really interested in a "fairer" system he would have raised motor cycle levies and helped stop car drivers subsidising middle aged twats on their Harleys
NZTA research has a different view. The least deprived (wealthiest) have 25% of 5 Star Safety rated cars and only 13% of the most deprived have a 5 star cart. (Which makes me wonder how they can afford such cars). The most deprived have 35% of unsafe cars (1 star safety rated) whereas the wealthier have 24% 1 star cars - which helps explain why they might be wealthy. (They value less depreciating assets over safety ratings). Pretty much 50% of wealthy and poor have 2 - 4 safety star cars.