tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post8029947489134963715..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: More refugees?Eric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-90749759186895584642014-08-23T01:46:03.898+12:002014-08-23T01:46:03.898+12:00Though none of these regulations should exist, why...Though none of these regulations should exist, why not advertise the beer as "Suitable for people who a Gluten intolerant"?<br />Or rename the beer as a new brand - Glutefree or NoGluten or Gluteless?Andrew Batesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-42320224470871690892014-08-22T15:27:53.827+12:002014-08-22T15:27:53.827+12:00Where can I get those 'peanut-free' peanut...Where can I get those 'peanut-free' peanuts?Shoreboy57noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-72826714475744731372014-08-20T22:03:22.122+12:002014-08-20T22:03:22.122+12:00The exemption was granted long before anti-discrim...The exemption was granted long before anti-discrimination legislation was ever thought of :-)<br /><br /><br /><br />Anyway I was trying to make a wider point about regulation. I assume that the reason for the regulation is that jewelry can harbour pathogens that are not removed in the course of normal hand-washing. So, either this poses enough of a risk that all jewelry must be removed before hand-washing with no exception or it isn't a big risk at all in which case why do we have the regulation at all.<br /><br /><br />Likewise if the regulators want consumers of food and beverages to have reliable information available to indicate whether it is safe for them consume an item then it needs to be across the board without exception. Why have food labeling laws if it is going to be hit or miss whether an item is fully labeled or not.Donaldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-38322743879128654722014-08-20T21:17:17.592+12:002014-08-20T21:17:17.592+12:00Many people's wedding rings don't come off...Many people's wedding rings don't come off any more, and to enforce the rule would be unlawful discrimination on the basis of marital status.Matthew Proctornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-84963622314201021302014-08-19T20:16:59.396+12:002014-08-19T20:16:59.396+12:00The 2013 budget data says that 3% of tax payers (P...The 2013 budget data says that 3% of tax payers (PAYE payers I think) pay 26% of income tax already. Previous estimates I did and found suggested that ~50% of tax payers were not net tax payers including some estimates I did of GST. For the avoidance of doubt, it was the lowest 50% that were not net tax payers.<br /><br /><br />Taxing the top 3% another chunk will raise the tax take, but increase the incentive for avoidance and structuring etc. But, if my calcs were even vaguely correct, the top 50%, or incomes over ~$80k pa in 2013 are already the only net tax payers. <br /><br /><br />So it is no wonder they have set the top rate to hit the 'rich', it is politics of envy. When will people and politicians realise that the solution is not solely redistribution, the problem is we need more higher paid, net tax payers!The other Neilnoreply@blogger.com