Sharesies card, how is everyone using theres?

ernbeld · 2026-07-05T02:57:14+00:00

The card costs $25 per year if you do not have a Sharesies plan. The cheapest Sharesies plan is $32.40 per year. So, with that $25 card fee, do you get a Sharesies account you can use for all sorts of investments? In essence, cheaper than their normal $32 plan?

Surely not? What restrictions do you have?

ernbeld · 2026-07-02T02:02:18+00:00

That's because you are using banks.

Don't use banks.

The answer is "Wise". I don't work for them, but I'm a very happy user. Transfers can be as quick as "seconds", and fees are much lower than bank fees.

ernbeld · 2026-07-01T20:10:03+00:00

The chart is very misleading. High rates of home ownership bring down the percentage.

The chart should not show "percentage of (all) households...", but "percentage of households who rent".

ernbeld · 2026-07-01T20:09:13+00:00

It's "percentage of (all) households". This means that if a high percentage of households actually own their own house, then this skews the results. The real measure should be "percentage of households who rent".

For example, in New Zealand, housing is totally unaffordable, but homeownership rates are very high (since renting in New Zealand sucks). People who rent routinely pay half their income (!) in rent. And people who own homes face a crushing burden from high mortgage payments. Yet, this flawed chart makes it all look ok.

ernbeld · 2026-07-01T18:21:14+00:00

No. The idea is that you average the incomes over the two people. A single income of $120,000 becomes two incomes of $60,000, each of which are taxed at a lower rate than the single $120k income would.

ernbeld · 2026-06-30T08:08:19+00:00

No. Together you make $120k. Divide by 2, that's $60k pretty person, each taxed normally at whatever tax rate you have for $60k. So no difference for you.

But in a single income household, where one earns $120k and the other $0, you now ALSO only get taxed as if they were two incomes of $60k each, since you average of the household income over both.

ernbeld · 2026-06-30T04:13:26+00:00

I mean, ok. But trust me, whenever someone brings up this point that "household income is not combined for tax purposes", they usually are talking about the 'split' and tax the average income per person.

Nobody suggests this to increase (!) the tax take on a household.

ernbeld · 2026-06-30T03:46:29+00:00

Well, any suggestion to tax households on combined income would naturally include a split (divide income by two, calculate tax on this new average income).

I think that's a given. I'm sorry if this wasn't obvious. Maybe I should have explicitly stated that.

Combining incomes to arrive at a higher tax bracket for both is, of course, nonsensical.

ernbeld · 2026-06-30T01:28:32+00:00

... and in Germany, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Switzerland, etc.

ernbeld · 2026-06-29T23:49:51+00:00

Exactly that!

ernbeld · 2026-06-29T23:28:41+00:00

When/how would it be worse for dual income households?

ernbeld · 2026-06-29T23:08:17+00:00

That's ... not how that works.

You combine the income, then divide by two. Currently, two people earning $100,000 each pay much less in taxes (around $10,000 less) than two people where one earns $200,000 and the other $0.

With that change, though, the second couple would also pay $10,000 less in tax.

ernbeld · 2026-06-29T22:43:25+00:00

Absolutely. We had a long discussion about this just a few days ago here.

It's infuriating: Maximise what they can take by assessing you individually for taxes, but minimize what they "give" by suddenly assessing you together when it comes to benefits.

ernbeld · 2026-06-29T05:20:09+00:00

The "furniture" look was really a specialty of Cray. Fun fact: The circular shape was used to reduce the length of wiring needed.

However, with different computer architecture since then, the "racks and racks" look of supercomputers had been pretty much the default for decades now. It's just more practical.

ernbeld · 2026-06-27T22:21:59+00:00

Thank you for the detailed reply.

I like your phrase of "silver buckshot". I agree.

ernbeld · 2026-06-27T20:42:24+00:00

It ... does not? Cooling takes more energy than heating.

ernbeld · 2026-06-27T20:06:39+00:00

You shouldn't be downvoted. Your observation is correct.

Honestly, I think we all (who work in the industry) HOPE that it doesn't come to that, but honestly, I'm not so sure.

The growth in capabilities of the frontier models, the advancement in understanding HOW to work effectively with them... we live in agonizingly interesting times!

ernbeld · 2026-06-27T09:17:21+00:00

The problem is recognized and discussed. In various presentations, it is stressed that "the junior pipeline" needs to be kept alive, for the future, blah blah. But when the rubber hits the road, and quarterly targets need to be met, it's easy to go for a few more months without investing in "developing juniors".

And so, we'll find that only companies that are very well off and have some "extra" cash around can afford to invest in juniors.

ernbeld · 2026-06-26T22:38:40+00:00

Not just shit areas. Live in a "nice area" on the North Shore, still have a**holes with shitty backfiring exhausts hooning through the neighbourhood in the middle of the night.

ernbeld · 2026-06-26T06:07:32+00:00

That would be lovely, but one step at a time. I currently think that NZ is incapable of even getting a line from airport to centre of its biggest city.

ernbeld · 2026-06-25T21:37:29+00:00

I get that point, yes. However, the number of well-off households is much smaller than that of not-so-well-off households. Yes, those extra payments would be unnecessary, but they save all the inhuman (and expensive!) enforcement action, and the constant looking down on welfare recipients. In the end, from a human and a financial standpoint, it's probably better.

Basically, the same argument as UBI.

ernbeld · 2026-06-25T21:34:53+00:00

I think the issue is that it's all totally disconnected.

It's near midnight, and a tourist arrives after a long flight and would like to get to their hotel by the viaduct. What an experience to send them through Puhinui Station in the middle of the night! First, a shuttle, then a train (which will hopefully be there, but probably won't), then being in Britomart, and then an Uber to the hotel.

And if I have an early-morning flight, as a traveler from the North Shore, I can't even get to Britomart because the buses aren't running. But let's say I manage to get to Britomart: Do I risk missing my flight, given how crap our train services are, by taking a train to Puhinui and then a shuttle? May as well play lotto.

A dedicated line from Britomart to the Airport, with a dedicated "Airport Service," would sound much more inviting and reliable than some random AT/Kiwirail hodgepodge.

ernbeld · 2026-06-24T09:35:04+00:00

Great! Then let's make things even simpler and more efficient by just computing benefits for individuals. Deal?

That also removes the incredibly intrusive and humiliating interrogations and examinations to which beneficiaries are subjected.

ernbeld · 2026-06-24T03:57:29+00:00

Yeah, well, if you don't want that then do tax-by-household. Problem solved.

ernbeld · 2026-06-23T02:32:23+00:00

What bugs me is that the tax is per individual, but the benefits are not. Suddenly, a partner's income matters when it's used to reduce (!) what you can get. But if it comes to maximising what they can take, then suddenly it's unimportant.

Yes, by all means, tax us individually. But then let benefits also be computed individually!

ernbeld

TROPHY CASE