Friday, November 30, 2007
Crude racial steretypes, part 74
It's official, "the Chinese as a race are exceptional savers". We have it on good authority from Hamilton District Court Judge Wiltens. First name Dickhead, I suspect.
What is potentially quite an interesting story, both from a human interest perspective ("Jing and her husband had both worked in New Zealand during their seven and five years respectively in the country, had paid taxes and 'contributed just as much as anyone else'"), and a health care payments perspective ("She had given birth to a son in September. When she was asked to submit her passport to confirm her entitlement to free health care she falsified her travel document to make it appear that she had residency"), is turned into an incoherent ramble by the Herald.
But the main point of interest from my perspective is the judge's deranged stereotyping.
The enlightened judiciary of this country might also like to reflect on some other stereotypes about the Chinese 'race' that undercut the 'savings' reputation: they are exceptionally enthusiastic gamblers (so there goes the savings thing); they are bad drivers (so their high insurance premiums further eat away at their savings); they undercut the white man in the labour force (so their incomes are low); and they like to live in suburban McMansions (so their housing costs are high).
Honestly, what a load of crap. I sentence District Court Judge Dickhead Q. Wiltens to 200 hours of sensitivity training at the local polytechnic and 50 hours of multicultural awareness courses at Waikato University.
What is potentially quite an interesting story, both from a human interest perspective ("Jing and her husband had both worked in New Zealand during their seven and five years respectively in the country, had paid taxes and 'contributed just as much as anyone else'"), and a health care payments perspective ("She had given birth to a son in September. When she was asked to submit her passport to confirm her entitlement to free health care she falsified her travel document to make it appear that she had residency"), is turned into an incoherent ramble by the Herald.
But the main point of interest from my perspective is the judge's deranged stereotyping.
The enlightened judiciary of this country might also like to reflect on some other stereotypes about the Chinese 'race' that undercut the 'savings' reputation: they are exceptionally enthusiastic gamblers (so there goes the savings thing); they are bad drivers (so their high insurance premiums further eat away at their savings); they undercut the white man in the labour force (so their incomes are low); and they like to live in suburban McMansions (so their housing costs are high).
Honestly, what a load of crap. I sentence District Court Judge Dickhead Q. Wiltens to 200 hours of sensitivity training at the local polytechnic and 50 hours of multicultural awareness courses at Waikato University.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
When is a pay increase not a pay increase?
This post is prompted by a similar question posed by Yamis (well, identical really) two posts down, and the comments that ensued. I thought I'd bump them up here 'cos I kind of like where it's going. In an intellectual sense, not a financial one, obviously.
It was all prompted by this observation from Yamis:
We then got to talking about how much pay increases of 4% and 6% meant for individuals in our chosen professions.
There's the kick in the gonads, folks: Pay increase - tax & ACC levy - inflation is often pretty marginal in terms of a net improvement in your financial situation. Pay increase - tax & ACC levy - inflation - cut to WFF entitlements - cut to Accommodation Supplement = sweet fuck all, and only a marginal improvement on no pay increase at all.
Or, as Yamis put it:
People seem to welcome pay increases with enthusiasm, but things like marginal tax rates aren't discussed often enough.
I then mapped out two scenarios, with some help from the IRD tax calculator. One for Joe Blogs (no allowances) on $50,000 getting a 4% increase. And another for Joe Blogs (no allowances) on $60,000 getting a 6% increases.
=========================
If you are in the top tax bracket you lose 40% of any increase (39% tax + 1% ACC)
So basically a 6% increase becomes a 3.8% increase (i.e., someone on $60k would net about another $2,200 a year).
Although this percentage figure assumes you're keeping all of your existing pay - which you ain't.
Someone on $60k nets about $45k (excl. any rebates, supplements). So the extra $2,200 represents a 4.9% increase in net income.
Official inflation last year was 3.2%, so you're do slightly better than that. Again, this is assuming you have no rebates, WFF entitlements, or supplements to be cut, etc.
=========================
If you are in the middle tax bracket you lose 34% of any increase (33% tax + 1% ACC)
So basically a 4% increase becomes a 2.7% increase (i.e., someone on $50k would net about another $1,350 a year).
Although this percentage figure assumes you're keeping all of your existing pay - which you ain't.
Someone on $50k nets about $38k (excl. any extra rebates, supplements). So the extra $1,350 represents a 3.5% increase in net income.
Official inflation last year was 3.2%, so you are idling in neutral. Any cuts to allowances or whatever and you Mr Blogs are in the red.
It was all prompted by this observation from Yamis:
PPTA members received a 750 dollar bonus as part of the agreement. However that was before tax of course. After tax it came out at about 480 dollars. I then called up the IRD to tell them about it and our family assistance payments are going to be cut by 17 dollars a week until the end of the tax year so in essence the 750 dollar bonus is going to wind up being about 180 dollars in my pocket. I dare not call Work and Income or else our Accommodation Supplement will get slashed and the bonus will end up costing us god damn money.
We then got to talking about how much pay increases of 4% and 6% meant for individuals in our chosen professions.
The thing is that when I get my 4% pay increase soon it will mean a couple of thousand extra, but once allowances are cut accordingly (and they will take a big hit) the actual amount that I am better off will be about 1%. And compare that to inflation ... and we will actually be worse off.
There's the kick in the gonads, folks: Pay increase - tax & ACC levy - inflation is often pretty marginal in terms of a net improvement in your financial situation. Pay increase - tax & ACC levy - inflation - cut to WFF entitlements - cut to Accommodation Supplement = sweet fuck all, and only a marginal improvement on no pay increase at all.
Or, as Yamis put it:
A 4% pay increase minus over 1% in tax equals about a 2.8% pay increase. So chances are a 4% pay increase will even mean that Joe Blogs with no allowances whatsoever is still going to be slightly worse off. And for Joe Family Assistance and Accommodation Supplement Blogs like myself you are actually clearly worse off.
People seem to welcome pay increases with enthusiasm, but things like marginal tax rates aren't discussed often enough.
I then mapped out two scenarios, with some help from the IRD tax calculator. One for Joe Blogs (no allowances) on $50,000 getting a 4% increase. And another for Joe Blogs (no allowances) on $60,000 getting a 6% increases.
=========================
If you are in the top tax bracket you lose 40% of any increase (39% tax + 1% ACC)
So basically a 6% increase becomes a 3.8% increase (i.e., someone on $60k would net about another $2,200 a year).
Although this percentage figure assumes you're keeping all of your existing pay - which you ain't.
Someone on $60k nets about $45k (excl. any rebates, supplements). So the extra $2,200 represents a 4.9% increase in net income.
Official inflation last year was 3.2%, so you're do slightly better than that. Again, this is assuming you have no rebates, WFF entitlements, or supplements to be cut, etc.
=========================
If you are in the middle tax bracket you lose 34% of any increase (33% tax + 1% ACC)
So basically a 4% increase becomes a 2.7% increase (i.e., someone on $50k would net about another $1,350 a year).
Although this percentage figure assumes you're keeping all of your existing pay - which you ain't.
Someone on $50k nets about $38k (excl. any extra rebates, supplements). So the extra $1,350 represents a 3.5% increase in net income.
Official inflation last year was 3.2%, so you are idling in neutral. Any cuts to allowances or whatever and you Mr Blogs are in the red.
Monday, November 26, 2007
What have I got to show for November, other than an itchy moustache?
It's been a while since I blogged atchya. 25 days in fact ... crap, that must be some kind of record. But for those who were wondering (no one, judging my the comments around here) I am alive and well, and mustachioed. I went to Canada for 2 weeks at the start of the month ... a pretty decent trip I guess, but I was glad to get back and be pleasantly surprised by the awesome weather we've been enjoying. Including for yesterday's Santa Parade ... and I wasn't too proud to give Grand Marshall Steve Price a big wave. What a legend the guy has been this year. Possibly the best sportsman turning out on NZ soil on a regular basis in 2007?
The cricketers appear to be going from bad to worse, but without Sky it's a bit hard to get into it. Full credit to Cricinfo though. When I was in Canada I noticed there are two cricket channels you can subscribe to, although they seem to specialize in replays of India/Pakistan games (surprise, surprise).
I briefly caught up with occasional contributor Bobert in Vancouver International Airport, as our paths crossed for all of 15 minutes. He was in good form and trying to get beaten up by wearing a Montreal Canadiens scarf.
I certainly watched my fill of hockey on TV ... but am looking forward to visits to Wellington for the Bangladesh and England test matches.
Right, better get back to work. I have barely made it out of neutral since returning.
The cricketers appear to be going from bad to worse, but without Sky it's a bit hard to get into it. Full credit to Cricinfo though. When I was in Canada I noticed there are two cricket channels you can subscribe to, although they seem to specialize in replays of India/Pakistan games (surprise, surprise).
I briefly caught up with occasional contributor Bobert in Vancouver International Airport, as our paths crossed for all of 15 minutes. He was in good form and trying to get beaten up by wearing a Montreal Canadiens scarf.
I certainly watched my fill of hockey on TV ... but am looking forward to visits to Wellington for the Bangladesh and England test matches.
Right, better get back to work. I have barely made it out of neutral since returning.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
When Is A Bonus Not A Bonus?
Well secondary teachers have recently negotiated a new three year agreement with the government which is decidedly average in terms of two key areas. Namely wage increases and class sizes. Teachers crapped out by having 79% voting in favour of it though I imagine if they took the Auckland figures only it would have been far more even. The cost of living in Auckland (mainly of course house prices) has made teachers more hardline but with no weighting in the big centres taking the cost of living into account we are always going to get stiffed.
Its interesting that in NZ you can be a 'professional' but still qualify for Family Assistance, Accomodation Supplement and get a Community Services Card.
Anyway, to the original point of the post. When is a bonus not a bonus?
PPTA members received a 750 dollar bonus as part of the agreement. However that was before tax of course. After tax it came out at about 480 dollars. I then called up the IRD to tell them about it and our family assistance payments are going to be cut by 17 dollars a week until the end of the tax year so in essence the 750 dollar bonus is going to wind up being about 180 dollars in my pocket. I dare not call Work and Income or else our Accomodation Supplement will get slashed and the bonus will end up costing us god damn money. The IRD have these stupid thresholds rather than having some fluid sort of system which alters based on percentages and unfortunately we have just popped over one of these abitrary numbers.
I suppose at the end of the day we should count ourselves lucky that we live in a country where we even get these benefits.
But then again if we were taxed at 8% instead of 35% like I was in Korea we wouldn't fucking need any of it!!!
And on class sizes. Parents and teachers have consistently said they want smaller class sizes but the government has basically done jack to get them down. In the recent agreement they have said that they will "endeavour" to get them down to 26 on average per teacher. Apparently endeavour is a legally binding word meaning that they must do their best to meet that target but so far it seems the way they are going to go about this is to work with schools on timetabling to get the numbers down. After talking with the person responsible at our school he says it is impossible. Our Year 9 classes next year are forcast to be in the region of 34 per class. Our rooms are barely able to fit that many desks and chairs in let alone have the ability to talk to the students one on one for more than 3 seconds a lesson and check their work. And that's if you have a class that is well behaved (yes, some are).
I look forward to the government pulling its head out of its arse and realising that schools need to recruit more teachers and get more of them in schools. And how do they do this?
Get smaller class sizes and pay us buggars more.
:)
Its interesting that in NZ you can be a 'professional' but still qualify for Family Assistance, Accomodation Supplement and get a Community Services Card.
Anyway, to the original point of the post. When is a bonus not a bonus?
PPTA members received a 750 dollar bonus as part of the agreement. However that was before tax of course. After tax it came out at about 480 dollars. I then called up the IRD to tell them about it and our family assistance payments are going to be cut by 17 dollars a week until the end of the tax year so in essence the 750 dollar bonus is going to wind up being about 180 dollars in my pocket. I dare not call Work and Income or else our Accomodation Supplement will get slashed and the bonus will end up costing us god damn money. The IRD have these stupid thresholds rather than having some fluid sort of system which alters based on percentages and unfortunately we have just popped over one of these abitrary numbers.
I suppose at the end of the day we should count ourselves lucky that we live in a country where we even get these benefits.
But then again if we were taxed at 8% instead of 35% like I was in Korea we wouldn't fucking need any of it!!!
And on class sizes. Parents and teachers have consistently said they want smaller class sizes but the government has basically done jack to get them down. In the recent agreement they have said that they will "endeavour" to get them down to 26 on average per teacher. Apparently endeavour is a legally binding word meaning that they must do their best to meet that target but so far it seems the way they are going to go about this is to work with schools on timetabling to get the numbers down. After talking with the person responsible at our school he says it is impossible. Our Year 9 classes next year are forcast to be in the region of 34 per class. Our rooms are barely able to fit that many desks and chairs in let alone have the ability to talk to the students one on one for more than 3 seconds a lesson and check their work. And that's if you have a class that is well behaved (yes, some are).
I look forward to the government pulling its head out of its arse and realising that schools need to recruit more teachers and get more of them in schools. And how do they do this?
Get smaller class sizes and pay us buggars more.
:)
Monday, November 19, 2007
Ellerslie Flower SHOP Good riddance!
I went to this for the first time on Saturday with the missus and tiny tot as I was able to get tickets for 21 bucks a piece instead of 35 due to an under ground contact on the inside of the outdoor entertainment industry (picture the garden mafia).
And let me tell you that its hardly worth 10 bucks let alone 35. AND it's losing money and needs bale outs for gods sakes. Basically 50% of the site is taken up with stalls trying to sell you shit. The 'gardens' are by and large bloody nice but there aren't a hell of a lot of them. There are some other nice displays, and a couple of small kids sections and then a couple of very large marquees with displays and a couple selling yet more crap. The site is not exactly user friendly. I had to wheel a push chair round and couldn't get through a couple of places due to the volume of people and we had to backtrack constantly due to the 'roads' all running away from the entrance and more or less back to it.
65,000 people went through and if they all paid about 25 dollars each they would have been looking at over 1.6 million in ticket sales. I'm sure the stallholders were all paying several hundred dollars each for the privilege of being there as well.
I just wonder though that if you took all of them out what would be left? Do we pay 10 bucks every time we go into Westfield malls?
And the parking. Well, coming down the southern motorway we were directed off at the Manukau Velodrome. We parked up, paid 6 dollars, walked for a few hundred metres and then had to hop on a shuttle bus for a 10 minute drive to the venue. As nice as it is having the event in a botanic garden it really is crying out for a huge flat venue with masses of entry points and parking spaces and half as many stalls and twice as many displays. And at least Christchurch will have a good sized flat venue. I can see it working for at least the first year or two. But then they might struggle a bit after that with the smaller population, clashes with racing weeks, the novelty wearing off and the ticket prices. But we'll see.
Weed that fools!
And let me tell you that its hardly worth 10 bucks let alone 35. AND it's losing money and needs bale outs for gods sakes. Basically 50% of the site is taken up with stalls trying to sell you shit. The 'gardens' are by and large bloody nice but there aren't a hell of a lot of them. There are some other nice displays, and a couple of small kids sections and then a couple of very large marquees with displays and a couple selling yet more crap. The site is not exactly user friendly. I had to wheel a push chair round and couldn't get through a couple of places due to the volume of people and we had to backtrack constantly due to the 'roads' all running away from the entrance and more or less back to it.
65,000 people went through and if they all paid about 25 dollars each they would have been looking at over 1.6 million in ticket sales. I'm sure the stallholders were all paying several hundred dollars each for the privilege of being there as well.
I just wonder though that if you took all of them out what would be left? Do we pay 10 bucks every time we go into Westfield malls?
And the parking. Well, coming down the southern motorway we were directed off at the Manukau Velodrome. We parked up, paid 6 dollars, walked for a few hundred metres and then had to hop on a shuttle bus for a 10 minute drive to the venue. As nice as it is having the event in a botanic garden it really is crying out for a huge flat venue with masses of entry points and parking spaces and half as many stalls and twice as many displays. And at least Christchurch will have a good sized flat venue. I can see it working for at least the first year or two. But then they might struggle a bit after that with the smaller population, clashes with racing weeks, the novelty wearing off and the ticket prices. But we'll see.
Weed that fools!
Friday, November 02, 2007
Cameron v the 13th
Good fight. Nice to see a heavyweight from overseas in NZ who could actually fucken fight for once.
A few points. We knew Shane Cameron bled easy but tonight we saw that even if he was a better fighter those cuts will totally derail his career. By the end he had cuts that went right around his eyes. I don't think there is anything they can do to fix that problem.
He might well have won the fight on points if he had no cuts and had been able to see clearly for the full 12 rounds but that is such a huge handicap to overcome.
The commentators were saying that he was ahead in the last round but I thought Friday was perhaps slightly ahead. Cameron was on the front foot and trying to be the aggressor throughout the fight but Friday seemed to be landing the best punches.
And what about the fucken ring surface? That was a disgrace. It's 2007 and they haven't worked out a surface that doesn't get slippery. It was slippery as soon as it was wiped. Even the ref was having trouble. A fighter could easily have been knocked out because of losing their footing and the promoters should sort their sh*t out.
But I have to say, after watching last nights basketball and tonights boxing, league and rugby can fuck right off until next March.
A few points. We knew Shane Cameron bled easy but tonight we saw that even if he was a better fighter those cuts will totally derail his career. By the end he had cuts that went right around his eyes. I don't think there is anything they can do to fix that problem.
He might well have won the fight on points if he had no cuts and had been able to see clearly for the full 12 rounds but that is such a huge handicap to overcome.
The commentators were saying that he was ahead in the last round but I thought Friday was perhaps slightly ahead. Cameron was on the front foot and trying to be the aggressor throughout the fight but Friday seemed to be landing the best punches.
And what about the fucken ring surface? That was a disgrace. It's 2007 and they haven't worked out a surface that doesn't get slippery. It was slippery as soon as it was wiped. Even the ref was having trouble. A fighter could easily have been knocked out because of losing their footing and the promoters should sort their sh*t out.
But I have to say, after watching last nights basketball and tonights boxing, league and rugby can fuck right off until next March.
Labels: boxing, shane cameron
Thursday, November 01, 2007
I would rather be tasered in the balls
...than in the eye.
And while I would rather be tasered in the eye than shot, I still think there's too much evidence of the cops abusing this tool.
And while I would rather be tasered in the eye than shot, I still think there's too much evidence of the cops abusing this tool.
Labels: crap
Marx's Balls
Did you know that Karl Marx complained about boils on his groin? Did you know that according to Sam Shuster writing in the British Journal of Dermatology that it affected his clarity of thought and deeply influenced his writing of Das Kapital.
According to Shuster, that “skin disease causes tremendous upset" among its sufferers, he added. "When people have got it their self-image goes down and you get self-loathing. And hidradenitis is among the worst for getting you down.”
So there you have it. Karl Marx felt a little insecure, a little down and in his self-loathing figured it best to call for equity between classes.
Dear right wing conservatives, is this really the best that you can do? I mean, is this the Alamo of arguments against Marxism? The man had a skin rash, so he must have been a nutter? What the hell does this say? That people suffering from medical conditions can not have clarity of thought.
Dear Shuster, I’d like to see you carry that argument on to other great thinkers, scientists, athletes and artists that suffer from conditions that might impact their self-esteem. Take Stephen Hawking for example. I am sure that there are days when he gets a bit down on himself.
The last refuge of scoundrels, according to Samuel Johnson, is patriotism. But I think that attacking an individual’s idea through personal defaults is pretty damn close. And, slowly but surely this seems to be occupying a bigger piece of the public imagination.
The other week I heard a commentary from Fox News that attacked Al Gore for being too fat. The newscaster went on to say that while you can critique some of George Bush’s moves, you can’t deny the fact that he is in great shape.
From Fox News I expect that kind of banter. But, from today’s Globe and Mail I would expect better.
According to Shuster, that “skin disease causes tremendous upset" among its sufferers, he added. "When people have got it their self-image goes down and you get self-loathing. And hidradenitis is among the worst for getting you down.”
So there you have it. Karl Marx felt a little insecure, a little down and in his self-loathing figured it best to call for equity between classes.
Dear right wing conservatives, is this really the best that you can do? I mean, is this the Alamo of arguments against Marxism? The man had a skin rash, so he must have been a nutter? What the hell does this say? That people suffering from medical conditions can not have clarity of thought.
Dear Shuster, I’d like to see you carry that argument on to other great thinkers, scientists, athletes and artists that suffer from conditions that might impact their self-esteem. Take Stephen Hawking for example. I am sure that there are days when he gets a bit down on himself.
The last refuge of scoundrels, according to Samuel Johnson, is patriotism. But I think that attacking an individual’s idea through personal defaults is pretty damn close. And, slowly but surely this seems to be occupying a bigger piece of the public imagination.
The other week I heard a commentary from Fox News that attacked Al Gore for being too fat. The newscaster went on to say that while you can critique some of George Bush’s moves, you can’t deny the fact that he is in great shape.
From Fox News I expect that kind of banter. But, from today’s Globe and Mail I would expect better.
Labels: Marx, right wing logic
