The 2017 Election Thread [Archive] - Page 10

TheDemonLord

10th April 2018, 12:19

We can keep going as we have been, but it would be a big improvement if you made an effort to back up your claims with a bit of reference or logic is all...

You see, that's a 2 way street - you've made claims, with nothing to support them. I've simply said that you are incorrect and pointed to some objective bits of evidence.

You've asserted that you know what my perspective was 5 years ago - I've pointed out there is no possible way you can know that.
You've asserted that Capital Gains is Income - I've pointed to both the Legal, Accounting and linguistic definitions to show it's not.
You've asserted that NZ doesn't used the FRB System - I've pointed to both Wikipedia, the existence of a Reserve Bank and a quote from the Reserve Bank to show it's not.
You've asserted that Risk is not associated with Reward - I've pointed to both the linguistic usage and peoples actions to show that it is.
You've asserted that a Linguistic proof is not sufficient - I've pointed to Love as an example of something we can prove to be true by looking at the linguistic evidence and by looking at how people act.

As you are probably aware - I rather enjoy arguing - and you have been a robust and intelligent opponent, but on this matter, you've been talking out of your arse.

jasonu

10th April 2018, 12:33

It's actually pretty quick to skim a post for references and logical rebuttals.

Ahhh the old KB half read a post and call the poster a cunt method.

Graystone

10th April 2018, 12:36

You see, that's a 2 way street - you've made claims, with nothing to support them. I've simply said that you are incorrect and pointed to some objective bits of evidence.

You've asserted that you know what my perspective was 5 years ago - I've pointed out there is no possible way you can know that.
You've asserted that Capital Gains is Income - I've pointed to both the Legal, Accounting and linguistic definitions to show it's not.
You've asserted that NZ doesn't used the FRB System - I've pointed to both Wikipedia, the existence of a Reserve Bank and a quote from the Reserve Bank to show it's not.
You've asserted that Risk is not associated with Reward - I've pointed to both the linguistic usage and peoples actions to show that it is.
You've asserted that a Linguistic proof is not sufficient - I've pointed to Love as an example of something we can prove to be true by looking at the linguistic evidence and by looking at how people act.

As you are probably aware - I rather enjoy arguing - and you have been a robust and intelligent opponent, but on this matter, you've been talking out of your arse.

I didn't assert that I knew you perspective 5 years ago.

I have provided a definition of income so we can continue that discussion, but you just say I'm wrong and provide no counterpoint to back that up.
I've tried to engage with you on fixed assets and how they are treated, but again you just say I'm wrong and provide no counterpoint to back that up.
I've asked for the fractional reserve to be supplied, this is a key part of a country using frb. There are many countries that use systems derived from or similar to frb, but having a limit is pretty key.
There's a whole industry dedicated to milking the risk/reward 'linkage' which very successfully ensures risk is not rewarded. Take a guess what that might be... Linguistics does not satisfy the burden of proof, its based on common opinion only.

Katman

10th April 2018, 13:02

Why call me a bogan?

I didn't call you a bogan.

I called you bogan.

You may have fooled the others - but not me.

Crasherfromwayback

10th April 2018, 13:04

Ahhh the old KB half read a post and call the poster a cunt method.

Where's the problem? Cunt. :innocent:

TheDemonLord

10th April 2018, 13:21

I didn't assert that I knew you perspective 5 years ago.

You did, by proxy:

In order to know that I either had no perspective on not owning a house or that my perspective has changed, you'd need to know what my perspective was 5 years ago.

I have provided a definition of income so we can continue that discussion, but you just say I'm wrong and provide no counterpoint to back that up.

That's right - because the definition YOU provided did not support what you were trying to stretch it to. No need for Counterpoints - it was right there in the definition. Not to mention the Legal, Accounting and IRD definitions also don't stretch to it either.

I've tried to engage with you on fixed assets and how they are treated, but again you just say I'm wrong and provide no counterpoint to back that up.

Because you are trying to conflate 2 different things as the same. They aren't. So you are wrong and I don't need to provide a counterpoint - cause they aren't the same and are not treated the same.

When you stop doing that, maybe we can try and engage again.

I've asked for the fractional reserve to be supplied, this is a key part of a country using frb. There are many countries that use systems derived from or similar to frb, but having a limit is pretty key.

And I answered you, with a quote from the Reserve bank - it says there is a ratio that they set, depending on the banks financials. That there is a ratio means:

1: There is a Limit (because there is a ratio - it's not Zero)
2: They are allowed to lend out money, keeping only a fraction of the reserve (because there is a ratio, it's not 1)

it doesn't matter what the reserve ratio is set (although from memory, it's around 10%). And you still need to provide proof that we aren't using it.

There's a whole industry dedicated to milking the risk/reward 'linkage' which very successfully ensures risk is not rewarded. Take a guess what that might be... Linguistics does not satisfy the burden of proof, its based on common opinion only.

Let's do a quick analysis of that statement: The point you are trying to make is that Risk is not linked to Reward - the point I'm making is that it is, and the way we can prove this is true is because people act and speak as if it is true.

If your premise is correct - then people would not act as if it were true, and yet - you clearly state that "whole industry dedicated to milking the risk/reward 'linkage'" - which entirely proves my point, by your own words.

TheDemonLord

10th April 2018, 13:22

Where's the problem? Cunt. :innocent:

You what Cunt?

Crasherfromwayback

10th April 2018, 13:27

You what Cunt?

Years ago my sister had a black tee shirt with the word cunt on the front in large font. Seeing peoples reaction to it/her was fantastic.

TheDemonLord

10th April 2018, 14:20

Years ago my sister had a black tee shirt with the word cunt on the front in large font. Seeing peoples reaction to it/her was fantastic.

heh

Reminds me of this:

https://www.heavymetalonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ST2008.jpg

jasonu

10th April 2018, 14:33

Where's the problem? Cunt. :innocent:

That's Mr. Cunt to you!!!

husaberg

10th April 2018, 17:00

So you just agreed, I made no mention whatsoever as to who beneficiaries should work for.
Only that's not what you said though is it.

What I proposed was that those receiving a benefit should provide labour to that value.

Actually the work just has to be of sufficient value to cover their benefit, it matters fuck all who pays it.

And you also just agreed that it was you that raised the issue about having them work for private enterprise..
Not only did I never say I never denied I raised I disagreed with the use of this labour I pointed it out multiple times.
here is one example

Yet you are the one who suggested it was ok. Did you forget that. i said i never had a problem with it as long as it was for community like projects.
post 2080
Yet despite of your many repeated protests that private enterprise would never seek to profit from it you decline to exclude them from being able to do so.

Actually the work just has to be of sufficient value to cover their benefit, it matters fuck all who pays it.

So it's your ideology that's gotten all hurt and mortified at your own imagined slight on the dignity of the socialist ideal. Isn't it? As is amply demonstrated by you childish closing "argument.
No what the issue here is you seem to have no issue with a free enterprise profiting out of free labour. no amount of your clumsy attempt to try and say it wouldn't happen. would ever be as persuasive as saying you have no issue with it being prevented from happening. The fact that you refuse to say that is what speaks volumes.

And yet again I'll point out that nobody has to imagine that beneficiaries supplying labour for private enterprise wouldn't work, it's been done, it didn't work, (no pun intended), and it was the private sector that didn't want it. Which is hardly surprising, they're beneficiaries for the simple reason that they've failed to find anyone prepared to pay them what they want for the value they offer.
Yet it occurred in the past its pretty clear you lack imagination or is it fits with your ideals you can agree all you want that in your opinion it wouldn't happen, your opinion on it maters little to me because I have seen it happen.

Ocean1

10th April 2018, 17:59

Only that's not what you said though is it.

Yeah, it really is. You continue to fail to comprehend what's written, dude, even when you quote it yourself.

There's just no point in even attempting any sort of rational discussion with you, your attempts to insist that up is down in an attempt to claim some sort of victory in a debate you believe you're having are just sad.

Graystone

10th April 2018, 18:28

You did, by proxy:

In order to know that I either had no perspective on not owning a house or that my perspective has changed, you'd need to know what my perspective was 5 years ago.

That's right - because the definition YOU provided did not support what you were trying to stretch it to. No need for Counterpoints - it was right there in the definition. Not to mention the Legal, Accounting and IRD definitions also don't stretch to it either.

Because you are trying to conflate 2 different things as the same. They aren't. So you are wrong and I don't need to provide a counterpoint - cause they aren't the same and are not treated the same.

When you stop doing that, maybe we can try and engage again.

And I answered you, with a quote from the Reserve bank - it says there is a ratio that they set, depending on the banks financials. That there is a ratio means:

1: There is a Limit (because there is a ratio - it's not Zero)
2: They are allowed to lend out money, keeping only a fraction of the reserve (because there is a ratio, it's not 1)

it doesn't matter what the reserve ratio is set (although from memory, it's around 10%). And you still need to provide proof that we aren't using it.

Let's do a quick analysis of that statement: The point you are trying to make is that Risk is not linked to Reward - the point I'm making is that it is, and the way we can prove this is true is because people act and speak as if it is true.

If your premise is correct - then people would not act as if it were true, and yet - you clearly state that "whole industry dedicated to milking the risk/reward 'linkage'" - which entirely proves my point, by your own words.

By proxy? seems a bit weak and open to interpretation. Surely applying your own interpretation on to what I did is quite hypocritical in this instance!

Definition #1 is "The flow of cash or cash-equivalents received from work (wage or salary), capital (interest or profit), or land (rent)." how is capital gains not covered by the capital profit term here?

The fixed asset came through your opinion that tax should not be paid on both capital gains, and income gained from that capital asset (rent, and house appreciation); which was followed by your assertion that 'absolutely nothing' happens to the money coming in from selling a motorcycle factory, since you can no longer make motorcycles. So the fixed asset line of reasoning is very relevant to that, unless you are contending that plant, building, and land are not fixed assets?

Would you kindly direct me to the reserve bank quote/source, I only recall the wiki posted in support of this.

If an entire industry can milk people by preying on their risk=reward thinking, ie, the industry ensures risk does not result in financial reward, clearly it illustrates there is no intrinsic linkage between the two.

Graystone

10th April 2018, 18:41

I didn't call you a bogan.

I called you bogan.

You may have fooled the others - but not me.

At least try to color within the lines there P.I. Pastels, not seeing any difference between using the term as a common noun or an adjective.

husaberg

10th April 2018, 19:01

Yeah, it really is. You continue to fail to comprehend what's written, dude, even when you quote it yourself.

There's just no point in even attempting any sort of rational discussion with you, your attempts to insist that up is down in an attempt to claim some sort of victory in a debate you believe you're having are just sad.
Don't go letting actual reality cloud your take on events there ocean, you're clearly out of your depth.

TheDemonLord

10th April 2018, 19:11

By proxy? seems a bit weak and open to interpretation. Surely applying your own interpretation on to what I did is quite hypocritical in this instance!

In order to make the claim that you did, you needed to know things you cannot possibly know. There's no hypocrisy here.

Definition #1 is "The flow of cash or cash-equivalents received from work (wage or salary), capital (interest or profit), or land (rent)." how is capital gains not covered by the capital profit term here?

Because Profit in this sense has a very specific meaning - and it's not the one that you are trying to stretch it to.

The fixed asset came through your opinion that tax should not be paid on both capital gains, and income gained from that capital asset (rent, and house appreciation); which was followed by your assertion that 'absolutely nothing' happens to the money coming in from selling a motorcycle factory, since you can no longer make motorcycles. So the fixed asset line of reasoning is very relevant to that, unless you are contending that plant, building, and land are not fixed assets?

You've managed to Mangle together several distinct concepts. Perhaps instead of skim reading, you should go back and read exactly what was said.

Would you kindly direct me to the reserve bank quote/source, I only recall the wiki posted in support of this.

Sure, right after you provide some form of evidence that we don't use the FRB system. Or you can re-read what I wrote. I'd even made it short, since you struggled with long form answers.

If an entire industry can milk people by preying on their risk=reward thinking, ie, the industry ensures risk does not result in financial reward, clearly it illustrates there is no intrinsic linkage between the two.

An intrinsic link does not mean that the outcome is guaranteed, otherwise we wouldn't call it "risk". Please stop this disingenuous reasoning. Furthermore - I'm presuming the Industry you are thinking of is Gambling - Reward does get paid out, thus the link is maintained.

Graystone

10th April 2018, 19:22

In order to make the claim that you did, you needed to know things you cannot possibly know. There's no hypocrisy here.

Because Profit in this sense has a very specific meaning - and it's not the one that you are trying to stretch it to.

You've managed to Mangle together several distinct concepts. Perhaps instead of skim reading, you should go back and read exactly what was said.

Sure, right after you provide some form of evidence that we don't use the FRB system. Or you can re-read what I wrote. I'd even made it short, since you struggled with long form answers.

An intrinsic link does not mean that the outcome is guaranteed, otherwise we wouldn't call it "risk". Please stop this disingenuous reasoning. Furthermore - I'm presuming the Industry you are thinking of is Gambling - Reward does get paid out, thus the link is maintained.

It literally says capital profit in the list, the web search for capital profit redirect to capital gains, which is exactly what are discussing. Where is the stretch in that? Are you actually trying to say capital profit and capital gains are different things?

How about you clarify by answering a simple question, do you think plant/buildings/land are fixed assets?

Cmon TDL, you should be better than this, post 2240 has some reserve bank stuff in quotes but no source is provided 2202 is similar. Don't drop to Katman's level and just make shit up and claim it is there somewhere, actually follow the peer review process... The burden of proof sits with the one who makes the claim, so it is still your turn.

An intrinsic link means across a large enough group the output becomes probable, in the case of gambling it is inverse as across the large group all the risk results in loss to those taking the risk, and reward to the industry milking it.

Katman

10th April 2018, 19:28

Don't drop to Katman's level and just make shit up and claim it is there somewhere

Dude, you used to say the same thing to Ed in the Shorai thread.

Graystone

10th April 2018, 19:36

Dude, you used to say the same thing to Ed in the Shorai thread.

He probably shouldn't have been eating crayons either then.

I assume this is some P.I. Pastels endevour to guess what my old user was, I'll give you a hint, I based my new name on it. It'll surprise you to figure out the link; and it would sure a shit surprise me if you had the mental capability to :innocent:

TheDemonLord

10th April 2018, 19:45

It literally says capital profit in the list,

No it doesn't - it says Capital (profit) - not Capital profit - these are 2 different things - and the former has a very specific meaning. That is what you are trying to stretch.

How about you clarify by answering a simple question, do you think plant/buildings/land are fixed assets?

Commercial or residential?

The point about Commercial assets was to demonstrate why it's not income in a strict sense. You gain the $ value, but you loose the asset value.

The rules for Capital Gains are different, You are trying to conflate those 2 concepts.

The burden of proof sits with the one who makes the claim

And your proof/source for the motion that we don't use a FRB system is where exactly? Cause currently - I'm 2 separate Wiki sources and a direct quote from the Reserve bank's website, to zero.

Not to mention (again) that the fact we have a Lender of last resort (the Reserve bank) means that we use the FRB system.

An intrinsic link means across a large enough group the output becomes probable, in the case of gambling it is inverse as across the large group all the risk results in loss to those taking the risk, and reward to the industry milking it.

People win Lotto. There's your "across a large enough group the output becomes probable" - Thanks again for proving my point.

Katman

10th April 2018, 19:58

I assume this is some P.I. Pastels endevour to guess what my old user was, I'll give you a hint, I based my new name on it. It'll surprise you to figure out the link; and it would sure a shit surprise me if you had the mental capability to :innocent:

I don't need the hint bogan.

Graystone

10th April 2018, 20:04

No it doesn't - it says Capital (profit) - not Capital profit - these are 2 different things - and the former has a very specific meaning. That is what you are trying to stretch.

Commercial or residential?

The point about Commercial assets was to demonstrate why it's not income in a strict sense. You gain the $ value, but you loose the asset value.

The rules for Capital Gains are different, You are trying to conflate those 2 concepts.

And your proof/source for the motion that we don't use a FRB system is where exactly? Cause currently - I'm 2 separate Wiki sources and a direct quote from the Reserve bank's website, to zero.

Not to mention (again) that the fact we have a Lender of last resort (the Reserve bank) means that we use the FRB system.

People win Lotto. There's your "across a large enough group the output becomes probable" - Thanks again for proving my point.

Perhaps supply some of your own meanings and references to them then? Looking a lot like you're just nit picking the nittiest picks in mine to cover the lack of anything to support your own opinions on the matter. For example, I looked for this Capital (profit) you say makes all the difference, and again just found it redirected to capital gains, not to mention it has "(interest or profit)" in brackets, not simply the "(profit)" as you say.

Right, so when you said "absolutely nothing" happened to that, you meant was that it got converted from a fixed asset to a liquid one, and any differences were taxed accordingly? Obviously it's not your bog standard income as the time period crosses a number of financial years, it is still money coming in though, and it does still get taxed. Can we close this loop then, and refer that back to your example of why getting rent income should mean capital gains go untaxed? Or do you dispute that money coming in through fixed asset sales gets taxed? (in the case of it being higher than book value)
The rules for capital gains are what I'm saying should be changed so they are fair, and investment/speculation treated as commercial activities. It's not conflation, it's been my main point the whole time.

Where's the direct quote and website source? It's a lot harder to prove a negative, obviously, so just stop with the evasion.

Lotto players lose money across the whole group, how is this a difficult concept for you to understand? The few that are rewarded, are vastly outweighed by the many that are not. Making the notion that risk = penalty at least as valid as risk = reward in an empirical sense for the context of gambling at the very least.

Graystone

10th April 2018, 20:05

I don't need the hint bogan.

I'll await with baited breath for your continued sleuthing than :laugh:

Katman

10th April 2018, 20:11

I'll await with baited breath for your continued sleuthing than :laugh:

Perhaps it's time you rolled out your next alter-ego bogan.

(I was going to say your next split personality - but, unfortunately for you, your personality is always the same).

Graystone

10th April 2018, 20:23

Perhaps it's time you rolled out your next alter-ego bogan.

(I was going to say your next split personality - but your personality is always the same).

You guys must have been very happy together, flick them a DM or something and they might come back...

Katman

10th April 2018, 20:25

You guys must have been very happy together, flick them a DM or something and they might come back...

Did you suffer too many anxiety attacks during your time here as bogan?

TheDemonLord

10th April 2018, 21:33

Perhaps supply some of your own meanings and references to them then? Looking a lot like you're just nit picking the nittiest picks in mine to cover the lack of anything to support your own opinions on the matter. For example, I looked for this Capital (profit) you say makes all the difference, and again just found it redirected to capital gains, not to mention it has "(interest or profit)" in brackets, not simply the "(profit)" as you say.

It's accounting - they are known for being rather nitpicky. The difference is Profit as Capital, not Profit from Capital.

Right, so when you said "absolutely nothing" happened to that, you meant was that it got converted from a fixed asset to a liquid one

Correct.

and any differences were taxed accordingly?

No, you see - this is the part where you are adding stuff in to suit your argument.

Obviously it's not your bog standard income as the time period crosses a number of financial years, it is still money coming in though, and it does still get taxed. Can we close this loop then, and refer that back to your example of why getting rent income should mean capital gains go untaxed? Or do you dispute that money coming in through fixed asset sales gets taxed? (in the case of it being higher than book value)
The rules for capital gains are what I'm saying should be changed so they are fair, and investment/speculation treated as commercial activities. It's not conflation, it's been my main point the whole time.

It's real simple - one is Income - and should be taxed. The other isn't and shouldn't be taxed. Your entire argument has required you to redefine the words to suit your agenda.

And I'm having none of it.

Where's the direct quote and website source? It's a lot harder to prove a negative, obviously, so just stop with the evasion.

It's the one in quotes, from the Reserve bank's website. Speaking of Evasion - you got any proof that we aren't using the FRB system yet? No? Well, Chop Chop.

Lotto players lose money across the whole group, how is this a difficult concept for you to understand? The few that are rewarded, are vastly outweighed by the many that are not. Making the notion that risk = penalty at least as valid as risk = reward in an empirical sense for the context of gambling at the very least.

And yet, People play Lotto. Because People believe that if they take the Risk, they will get rewarded. Thus, making it empirically true, in the same way that Love is empirically true.

Graystone

10th April 2018, 21:48

It's accounting - they are known for being rather nitpicky. The difference is Profit as Capital, not Profit from Capital.

Correct.

No, you see - this is the part where you are adding stuff in to suit your argument.

It's real simple - one is Income - and should be taxed. The other isn't and shouldn't be taxed. Your entire argument has required you to redefine the words to suit your agenda.

And I'm having none of it.

It's the one in quotes, from the Reserve bank's website. Speaking of Evasion - you got any proof that we aren't using the FRB system yet? No? Well, Chop Chop.

And yet, People play Lotto. Because People believe that if they take the Risk, they will get rewarded. Thus, making it empirically true, in the same way that Love is empirically true.

And your reference for "profit as capital", and presumably "interest as capital" as well since it was in the brackets too? Or at least your working definition...

I think you'll find nitpicky accountants would not consider that 'absolutely nothing', but progress is still good. So what happens when a fixed asset with a book value of 5k, is sold for 10k then?

Which quote? and which part of their website? context is very important (this is why referencing is a thing), and you've provided none of it...

Cool, so risk = penalty as well then. Love is hate, up is down, etc etc... This sort of timewasting red herring is exactly why I ask you keep your posts short, so thanks for mostly doing that and mostly filtering this sort of bullshittery out.

TheDemonLord

10th April 2018, 22:59

And your reference for "profit as capital", and presumably "interest as capital" as well since it was in the brackets too? Or at least your working definition...

By George! I think he's starting to get it...

I think you'll find nitpicky accountants would not consider that 'absolutely nothing', but progress is still good. So what happens when a fixed asset with a book value of 5k, is sold for 10k then?

You update the book value, because appreciation on an item is an estimate only, based on market forces, the items value is what the market says it is.

What you are suggesting sounds eerily like some of the practices that ended Enron from memory (where they did some fudgery with fixed assets to make their income look better)

Which quote? and which part of their website? context is very important (this is why referencing is a thing), and you've provided none of it...

I've provided more than you have for your assertion. Since you aren't following your own rules, I'm not inclined to follow them either.

Cool, so risk = penalty as well then. Love is hate, up is down, etc etc... This sort of timewasting red herring is exactly why I ask you keep your posts short, so thanks for mostly doing that and mostly filtering this sort of bullshittery out.

The only bullshittery is the twisting of words and definitions to suit yourself, it is rather tiresome.

I'll sum it up simply: Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained. Risk, is intrinsically linked to Reward. You cannot get reward without Risk. Risk itself does not guarantee the possibility of Reward. This is a very basic concept.

Katman

11th April 2018, 07:05

You update the book value, because appreciation on an item is an estimate only, based on market forces, the items value is what the market says it is.

If you sell a fixed asset for a price over and above the book value you pay tax on that extra amount.

After all, you've been claiming the depreciation on that asset as a business expense over the years prior to selling it.

Katman

11th April 2018, 07:09

You cannot get reward without Risk.

What about an inheritance?

Graystone

11th April 2018, 07:33

By George! I think he's starting to get it...

You update the book value, because appreciation on an item is an estimate only, based on market forces, the items value is what the market says it is.

What you are suggesting sounds eerily like some of the practices that ended Enron from memory (where they did some fudgery with fixed assets to make their income look better)

I've provided more than you have for your assertion. Since you aren't following your own rules, I'm not inclined to follow them either.

The only bullshittery is the twisting of words and definitions to suit yourself, it is rather tiresome.

I'll sum it up simply: Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained. Risk, is intrinsically linked to Reward. You cannot get reward without Risk. Risk itself does not guarantee the possibility of Reward. This is a very basic concept.

And your source or working definitions to support that? Stop with the evasion, it is becoming obvious you're just making shit up.

What I'm suggesting is how accounting works, you can't just update the value, the books won't balance. Even Katman knows how this stuff works. http://www.ird.govt.nz/tool-for-business/what-next/assets/assets-index.html click depreciation methods, then disposal. "If you sell your asset for more or less than its 'book value', you'll need to make an adjustment in your income tax return to account for the gain or loss."

Try this then https://thestandard.org.nz/gould-explains-how-money-works-to-brash/ and stop with the evasion and actually provide the source you claim to have.

I disagree, there is no risk that I'm not going to be rewarded for going to work today, there is no risk that my term deposits are not going to give me reward, there is no risk that long term investment in housing will not result in reward.

TheDemonLord

11th April 2018, 08:09

And your source or working definitions to support that? Stop with the evasion, it is becoming obvious you're just making shit up.

3 years of Economics.

What I'm suggesting is how accounting works, you can't just update the value, the books won't balance. Even Katman knows how this stuff works. http://www.ird.govt.nz/tool-for-business/what-next/assets/assets-index.html click depreciation methods, then disposal. "If you sell your asset for more or less than its 'book value', you'll need to make an adjustment in your income tax return to account for the gain or loss."

Are we talking about depreciating assets? I'm pretty sure we aren't.

Try this then https://thestandard.org.nz/gould-explains-how-money-works-to-brash/ and stop with the evasion and actually provide the source you claim to have.

Neither the Brash or Gould explicitly state we aren't using that system. Bryan Gould is neither an Economist, Accountant or a holder of any other relevant qualification. That, my Dear Graystone would be your classic Argument from Authority.

The Bank of England paper (which is what is being discussed) says:

"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit."

Which is a rather nice way of describe the FRB System.

I disagree, there is no risk that I'm not going to be rewarded for going to work today,

You're risk is 2fold - by going to work, you are forgoing opportunities that may have presented themselves, for greater financial gain. And there are a number of situations where your company could experience a situation where you wouldn't get paid.

there is no risk that my term deposits are not going to give me reward

Again 2fold risk - one is the opportunity cost of picking a term deposit and as mentioned, In NZ, Less than 20 years ago - people lost their money from such deposits.

there is no risk that long term investment in housing will not result in reward.

See previous point(s) Opportunity Cost and the Housing Market could crash.

----

Edit: And I'm out.

Katman

11th April 2018, 13:44

Are we talking about depreciating assets? I'm pretty sure we aren't.

Did you miss the bit of the quote that said 'gain or loss'. Here it is again - read it carefully.

"If you sell your asset for more or less than its 'book value', you'll need to make an adjustment in your income tax return to account for the gain or loss."

You're stated a number of times how you love to argue. Clearly that even extends to topics you've got no fucking clue about.

Edit: And I'm out.

That's probably a good idea.

3 years of Economics.

:killingme

Swoop

11th April 2018, 14:36

What about an inheritance?

We don't have that here.
https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/living-in-nz/money-tax/nz-tax-system

Perhaps "do some research"?

Katman

11th April 2018, 14:45

We don't have that here.
https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/living-in-nz/money-tax/nz-tax-system

Perhaps "do some research"?

I didn't say inheritance tax, shitforbrains.

I said what about inheritance as an example of reward without risk.

Perhaps learn to fucking read.

Crasherfromwayback

11th April 2018, 16:03

3 years of Home Economics.

----

Edit: And I'm out.

Listen cunt. Just because you can make a good batch of scones, doesn't make you a master mind when it comes to all things tax. :innocent:

Bye bye!

Swoop

11th April 2018, 19:09

I didn't say...
No surprises there with jumping ships mid tack.

In other words you've got nothing.

Head back to your favourite russian troll sites and find someone who helps your confirmational bias.

Katman

11th April 2018, 19:31

No surprises there with jumping ships mid tack.

Comprehension's not your strongpoint, is it?

Graystone

11th April 2018, 21:41

3 years of Economics.

Are we talking about depreciating assets? I'm pretty sure we aren't.

Neither the Brash or Gould explicitly state we aren't using that system. Bryan Gould is neither an Economist, Accountant or a holder of any other relevant qualification. That, my Dear Graystone would be your classic Argument from Authority.

The Bank of England paper (which is what is being discussed) says:

"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit."

Which is a rather nice way of describe the FRB System.

You're risk is 2fold - by going to work, you are forgoing opportunities that may have presented themselves, for greater financial gain. And there are a number of situations where your company could experience a situation where you wouldn't get paid.

Again 2fold risk - one is the opportunity cost of picking a term deposit and as mentioned, In NZ, Less than 20 years ago - people lost their money from such deposits.

See previous point(s) Opportunity Cost and the Housing Market could crash.

----

Edit: And I'm out.

Did you just try an argument from authority with a high school class? No source for the term you tried to use, no working definition, yup, it's clear you are just making shit up.

We're talking about fixed assets, depreciation is one option to change the book value; just changing it like you suggest is not an option, that's just not even close to how accounting works.

No, but it's a link supporting one's own viewpoint, something you have yet to provide, despite you being the one who made the claim. It describes many things, FRB is just one of those.

There's no risk of not being rewarded.

Figured you wouldn't last much longer once even Katman started showing you up. Thanks for playing though.

Swoop

12th April 2018, 14:01

Comprehension's not your strongpoint, is it?
When you make a statement and then dive off on another track it would indicate the English language isn't yours.

Katman

12th April 2018, 14:16

When you make a statement and then dive off on another track it would indicate the English language isn't yours.

I certainly didn't "dive off on another track".

Fuck off back and re-read the posts shitforbrains.

Swoop

12th April 2018, 14:24

I certainly didn't "dive off on another track".

Fuck off back and re-read the posts shitforbrains.
Why? You stated something that wasn't true and I pointed that out. We know that you can't handle others doing this to you.

Attempting to "comprehend" (or should that be "interpret"?) your posts is challenging, due to your outlook on life and your level of autism.
The many psychological disorder categories that you fall into provides a challenge to normal people.

Hopefully your counselling is progressing well.

Katman

12th April 2018, 14:44

Why? You stated something that wasn't true and I pointed that out.

TDL made the statement that there is no reward without risk - to which I replied "what about an inheritance".

What the fuck has that got to do with inheritance tax, shitforbrains?

husaberg

12th April 2018, 14:52

TDL made the statement that there is no reward without risk - to which I replied "what about an inheritance".

What the fuck has that got to do with inheritance tax, shitforbrains?
No risk with inheritence, some might point out that there is a risk that you might be disinherited Stevo.;)

Swoop

12th April 2018, 14:53

What the fuck has that got to do with inheritance tax, shitforbrains?

Your statements of profits, capital, depreciation and capital gains, immediately beforehand, related to a monetary and financial discussion.
Cocksucker.

Katman

12th April 2018, 15:02

Your statements of profits, capital, depreciation and capital gains, immediately beforehand, related to a monetary and financial discussion.
Cocksucker.

My reply was solely to the claim that there is no reward without risk.

It had nothing to do with profits, capital, depreciation or capital gains, shitforbrains.

Swoop

12th April 2018, 15:11

My reply was solely to the claim that there is no reward without risk.

It had nothing to do with profits, capital, depreciation or capital gains, shitforbrains.

"Context".

Another word lacking from your command of English. As I said, your ability to change tack and fuck off in whatever direction your lonely braincell chooses.

Katman

12th April 2018, 15:13

"Context".

Another word lacking from your command of English. As I said, your ability to change tack and fuck off in whatever direction your lonely braincell chooses.

Seriously shitforbrains, there's no ambiguity in it.

It was one sentence followed by a one sentence reply.

It doesn't surprise me that you're struggling to get your head around it though.

Swoop

12th April 2018, 15:34

Seriously shitforbrains, there's no ambiguity in it.

It was one sentence followed by a one sentence reply.

It doesn't surprise me that you're struggling to get your head around it though.

I guess that's as close as anyone gets to an apology from you.

Katman

12th April 2018, 16:08

I guess that's as close as anyone gets to an apology from you.

Refer post #2292.

sidecar bob

12th April 2018, 16:25

Cool, glad I don't live in New Plymouth right now. That's fucked. Thanks Govt.

jasonu

12th April 2018, 16:37

Cool, glad I don't live in New Plymouth right now. That's fucked. Thanks Govt.

pretty much.

Katman

12th April 2018, 16:39

Cool, glad I don't live in New Plymouth right now.

I've been saying that for years.

husaberg

12th April 2018, 18:36

Cool, glad I don't live in New Plymouth right now. That's fucked. Thanks Govt.
You might wish to check out the regional GDP it was already screwed over by National. Long before Labour came to power.
336111

sidecar bob

12th April 2018, 22:20

You might wish to check out the regional GDP it was already screwed over by National. Long before Labour came to power.
336111

Oh cool, another reason why its not labours fault.

sidecar bob

12th April 2018, 22:21

You might wish to check out the regional GDP it was already screwed over by National. Long before Labour came to power.
336111

Oh cool, another reason why its not labours fault.
Don't you think they should be doing something to make it better, not worse?

husaberg

13th April 2018, 00:13

Oh cool, another reason why its not labours fault.
Don't you think they should be doing something to make it better, not worse?

You mean like what National did for the West Coast when they forced a SOE to borrow money to buy a Lemon (Pike) then borrow huge amount's pay to pay them a dividend.appointed a stupid board that forced them to try stuff outside their core bussiness, Thus forcing them into insolvency, then failed to bail them out like they did for a rich overseas multinational (Rio Tinto in southland) which resulted in the loss of about 1500 of 100K plus a year jobs in a population of 30,000 people.

sidecar bob

13th April 2018, 07:49

You mean like what National did for the West Coast when they forced a SOE to borrow money to buy a Lemon (Pike) then borrow huge amount's pay to pay them a dividend.Thus forcing them into insolvency, then failed to bail them out like they did for a rich overseas multinational (Rio Tinto in southland) which resulted in the loss of about 1500 of 100K plus a year jobs in a population of 30,000 people.

No no, this is labour, they don't do that kind of dopey shit, that's why we voted for them.

husaberg

13th April 2018, 10:14

No no, this is labour, they don't do that kind of dopey shit, that's why we voted for them.
People voted for Labour as they were the lesser of the evils.
If they had voted National we would now be discussing why they were selling all the gas and oil reserves to the Chinese. Rather than a simple reservable moratorium on exploration. Have you considered that the deals national made with the overseas multinationals might not have been the best for all of NZ.

Ocean1

13th April 2018, 10:14

No no, this is labour, they don't do that kind of dopey shit, that's why we voted for them.

We didn't.

Katman

13th April 2018, 11:10

We didn't.

Well enough of us did. :sunny:

Crasherfromwayback

13th April 2018, 11:44

Well enough of us did. :sunny:

Fuck yeah!!!! Finally!

Swoop

13th April 2018, 15:12

People voted for Labour as they were the lesser of the evils.
In some way that's correct.
When they get together with other losers they "win".
Now the whole population loses.

Crasherfromwayback

13th April 2018, 16:00

In some way that's correct.
When they get together with other losers they "win".
Now the whole population loses.

Do you need a hanky mate? :innocent:

jasonu

13th April 2018, 16:47

Do you need a hanky mate? :innocent:

'cause Norman told you to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnpbcSASuMc

Swoop

14th April 2018, 16:47

Do you need a hanky mate? :innocent:
Nope. Just following the leftist S.O.P.:shifty:

Ocean1

15th April 2018, 16:38

Aye. Given the solid monopoly they have and the continual trickle of rumors like that it's hard not to be deeply suspicious of many local/regional council eh?

I'd like to see a breakdown of the costs that put a developed section on the market for $400k for example. A mate has developed complete suburbs and reckons $100k is about it, and that's including the council's extremely inflated charges.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/103045525/people-are-talking-about-suing-me-but-its-like-get-in-line

"I would only make $20,000 or $30,000 from a house and they were designed that way so first-home buyers could get into properties. We would make about $250,000 per subdivided section."

Crasherfromwayback

15th April 2018, 16:43

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/103045525/people-are-talking-about-suing-me-but-its-like-get-in-line

"I would only make $20,000 or $30,000 from a house and they were designed that way so first-home buyers could get into properties. We would make about $250,000 per subdivided section."

I went to college with him and his lil brother. Were dodgy as fuck even back then.

Woodman

15th April 2018, 16:55

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/103045525/people-are-talking-about-suing-me-but-its-like-get-in-line

"I would only make $20,000 or $30,000 from a house and they were designed that way so first-home buyers could get into properties. We would make about $250,000 per subdivided section."

He is claiming a pretty big margin with the sections there. Wonder how accurate that is considering the dodginess of the guy.

sidecar bob

19th April 2018, 18:06

Voltaire

19th April 2018, 18:38

Northland chums might not be labours biggest fans at the moment. https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/northland/103241844/whangarei-mp-says-northland-has-been-sacrificed-for-aucklands-light-rail

If the rest of the country begrudges all the roading money spent in Auckland, they can jolly well do 70KMPH too.:rolleyes:

I do find the idea of putting light rail from the CBD down Dominion Road to the Airport slightly odd. I would have thought extending it from Onehunga or further South with proper rail a better idea.

At the end of the day the roads are not really suitable for 100 k separated by 100mm of paint.

Graystone

19th April 2018, 18:41

sidecar bob

19th April 2018, 19:42

Ahh well, that's New Plymouth & Whangarei screwed over, Who's next?

Crasherfromwayback

19th April 2018, 20:49

Ahh well, that's New Plymouth & Whangarei screwed over, Who's next?

Well, we could've voted National back in, and let them and Dairy fuck the entire country!

eldog

20th April 2018, 03:05

If the rest of the country begrudges all the roading money spent in Auckland, they can jolly well do 70KMPH too.:rolleyes:

I do find the idea of putting light rail from the CBD down Dominion Road to the Airport slightly odd. I would have thought extending it from Onehunga or further South with proper rail a better idea.

At the end of the day the roads are not really suitable for 100 k separated by 100mm of paint.

A rail loop would have been better. Too late now, unless we put it underground?

On the weekend, I heard an argument about a 2nd harbour crossing. Eventual outcome, it’s time for someone to bite the bullet, ‘let’s do it”

yeah, nah let’s just put land values up, automatically increase rates and people’s perceptions that their property is worth more.

No wonder the clever ones are moving out.

Not just paint, what about other safety devices we have in Auckland road cones, “temporary speed limit” “slippery when wet”. Not to mention the classy drivers, painted on indicators and hero braking skills

Voltaire

20th April 2018, 07:43

A rail loop would have been better. Too late now, unless we put it underground?

On the weekend, I heard an argument about a 2nd harbour crossing. Eventual outcome, it’s time for someone to bite the bullet, ‘let’s do it”

yeah, nah let’s just put land values up, automatically increase rates and people’s perceptions that their property is worth more.

No wonder the clever ones are moving out.

Not just paint, what about other safety devices we have in Auckland road cones, “temporary speed limit” “slippery when wet”. Not to mention the classy drivers, painted on indicators and hero braking skills

Sure build a second bridge and put a toll on both of them, user pays.

I briefly had a supervisors job over the shore, 25 minutes to get there and over an hour back, that was in 2005 and I flagged it after 6

months, despite the salary and company V6 ute that did three days on a tank.

slippery when wet signs really mean " we did not seal the road properly "

sidecar bob

20th April 2018, 08:27

Well, we could've voted National back in, and let them and Dairy fuck the entire country!
Yeah. Lucky I reckon.

Swoop

20th April 2018, 16:18

Northland chums might not be labours biggest fans at the moment.
Fools who deluded themselves with labour's lies of solving ALL the nation's problems.
I wonder when the promised rail line from Whangarei to Auckland will happen...;)

Crasherfromwayback

20th April 2018, 16:21

Fools who deluded themselves with labour's lies of solving ALL the nation's problems.
I wonder when the promised rail line from Whangarei to Auckland will happen...;)

Never gonna be able to fix ALL of the total fuckups National created mate! And as I've said before, at least they plan to have a go. Way better than simply denying there's a problem to sort out! :brick:

Swoop

20th April 2018, 16:29

Never gonna be able to fix ALL of the total fuckups...
Never going to meet the promises made to get into parliament either, but that's S.O.P. for labour.

Crasherfromwayback

20th April 2018, 16:42

Never going to meet the promises made to get into parliament either, but that's S.O.P. for labour.

Lol. Just enjoy the next couple of years mate! You'll give yourself a stroke! Here's some gentle reading for you, to help you get in the right mood, mate!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/103259754/jacinda-ardern-named-in-time-top-100

Swoop

20th April 2018, 16:46

Lol. Just enjoy the next couple of years mate! You'll give yourself a stroke! Here's some gentle reading for you, to help you get in the right mood, mate!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/103259754/jacinda-ardern-named-in-time-top-100
*chortle*
The Patagonian Toothfish being ranked as a fuckwit among other fuckwits. "Winning".:rolleyes:

Grumph

20th April 2018, 17:01

Never going to meet the promises made to get into parliament either, but that's S.O.P. for labour.

Looking at what's coming out from under the carefully polished covers, if national had won the last election, I reckon even more of the seniors would have retired. They knew what was coming - they'd conspired to cover it up for long enough.
No government can afford to fix everything at present. Yes, some centers are going to have to wait, there are more urgent things to do.

There's a piece in a ChCh paper from Brownlee - makes interesting reading. And this was the prick they put in charge. Kaikoura is going to blow up in EQC's faces too from what I'm hearing. And the cost cutting swindling of the average kiwi started from the top.

Labour at this point are probably the most transparent govt we've had for decades.

Crasherfromwayback

20th April 2018, 17:12

Labour at this point are probably the most transparent govt we've had for decades.

And aren't the Nats voters the sorriest bunch of losers you've ever seen!?

sidecar bob

20th April 2018, 17:23

And aren't the Nats voters the sorriest bunch of losers you've ever seen!?

Every time labour fuck it up, you guys either blame the last govt or hypothesys how much worse it would now be under national.
So far, paedopillia, & hanging a couple of smaller communities out to dry. I wonder what they could possibly do that would have their voters saying they had actually fucked up.
Bunch of gullible cunts.:msn-wink:

TheDemonLord

20th April 2018, 17:25

Labour at this point are probably the most transparent govt we've had for decades.

It's easy to be transparent, when you've got nothing of substance....

Crasherfromwayback

20th April 2018, 17:37

Bunch of gullible cunts.:msn-wink:

Jacinda FTW!!!

Madness

20th April 2018, 17:47

It's easy to be transparent, when you've got nothing to hide...

Apparently so.

eldog

20th April 2018, 19:06

slippery when wet signs really mean " we did not seal the road properly "

Yeah, we know the road is dangerous
it will cause accidents and injuries
it may cause death
it will cost to fix our mistake
we aren’t liable, cause we write the rules

And this sign is all we could afford(or be bothered to do) to fix it

and we keep making the same judgments, cause we want to save money on expenditure, are yes the cost for our consultants goes up, our own salaries increase. H&S & PC getting out of hand
the road actual cost very little

still the road will be slippery when wet

jasonu

21st April 2018, 12:11

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/103259754/jacinda-ardern-named-in-time-top-100

I wonder who they think she is gong to influence.

Crasherfromwayback

21st April 2018, 12:45

I wonder who they think she is gong to influence.

More people than yourself. :bleh:

https://www.stylist.co.uk/long-reads/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-prime-minister-buckingham-palace-maori-culture-london-opinion/202476

Meantime, Mr Trump fan...this is fucking funny.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/103294837/donald-trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400

Crasherfromwayback

21st April 2018, 18:02

Murray

21st April 2018, 20:00

How many of you Cry Baby Nat's supporters were wanking off about how many inquiries Jacinda has started so far?

Here's something to stick ya false teeth into.

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/04/20/national-attack-labour-for-launching-75-inquiries-and-end-up-shooting-themselves-in-the-foot/

Just a question o most learned one. As a sales person why to you use bad language every post?

Katman

21st April 2018, 22:13

Just a question o most learned one. As a sales person why to you use bad language every post?

Does the word 'wank' offend you Murray?

Coldrider

21st April 2018, 22:28

How many of you Cry Baby Nat's supporters were wanking off about how many inquiries Jacinda has started so far?

Here's something to stick ya false teeth into.

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/04/20/national-attack-labour-for-launching-75-inquiries-and-end-up-shooting-themselves-in-the-foot/
EPIC FAIL, did you actually read it, Labour have set up 75 inquireys in the first 6 months of office, National set up 73 in in their first term in six months.

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 01:35

EPIC FAIL, did you actually read it, Labour have set up 75 inquireys in the first 6 months of office, National set up 73 in in their first term in six months.

Ummmmm...really?

jasonu

22nd April 2018, 03:48

EPIC FAIL, did you actually read it, Labour have set up 75 inquireys in the first 6 months of office, National set up 73 in in their first term in six months.

Please explain the difference.

nerrrd

22nd April 2018, 08:37

Please explain the difference.

I think the point was National heavily criticised Labour for setting up so many enquiries in their first 6 months of office, when it turns out they did almost exactly the same thing in theirs.

That’s how I read it anyway, your own bias will of course colour your view of the matter. My own bias tells me of course they did, they’re practically the same party except for a few slight differences around the edges.

oldrider

22nd April 2018, 08:57

I think the point was National heavily criticised Labour for setting up so many enquiries in their first 6 months of office, when it turns out they did almost exactly the same thing in theirs.

That’s how I read it anyway, your own bias will of course colour your view of the matter. My own bias tells me of course they did, they’re practically the same party except for a few slight differences around the edges.

The all do exactly the same thing when they get into "power"? (office) The real "power" is with the money providers/controllers (Banksters!) :stoogie: - Party cosmetic differences only allowed! :brick:

Madness

22nd April 2018, 09:44

Just a question o most learned one. As a sales person why to you use bad language every post?

What’s the relevance of Crasher’s vocation in regards to the language he chooses to use in social media? Are some professions allowed to use profanity more than others in your wee mind?

Coldrider

22nd April 2018, 11:23

Please explain the difference.
Even miss teen carolina knows why the usa needs maps in schools.

eldog

22nd April 2018, 11:36

Even miss teen carolina knows why the usa needs maps in schools.

Of The whole World map aka US of A

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 12:11

Just a question o most learned one. As a sales person why to you use bad language every post?

Tell ya what Murray, because it's Sunday, I'll give a fair question a fair answer. Whilst I gradually morphed into a salesman, before that, I was a mechanic. We tend to use *colourful* language at times.

(Ever sliced your hand open on the top of a cyl head, stuck a test light into the palm of you hand, or smashed it with a 32oz hammer? Tends to make you say naughty words)

Anyhow, once a salesman, I soon learnt how important the basics are.

1: Learn to read people fucking quickly, and act accordingly.

2: Listen, don't talk.

3: He honest, and genuinely try your best to help people.

4: Don't *sell* to people.

Most people (if you slip up on rule number one) don't mind the odd harsh word, if they believe you're doing number 2, 3 and 4 genuinely. It would be very rare I use such words with the wrong people, as I've become very good at reading people very quickly. But should it happen, yeah, in my experience, it doesn't really matter.

Hope that helps.

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 12:12

Please explain the difference.

Speaking of EPIC FAIL eh...

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 12:58

Voltaire

22nd April 2018, 13:04

Tell ya what Murray, because it's Sunday, I'll give a fair question a fair answer. Whilst I gradually morphed into a salesman, before that, I was a mechanic. We tend to use *colourful* language at times.

(Ever sliced your hand open on the top of a cyl head, stuck a test light into the palm of you hand, or smashed it with a 32oz hammer? Tends to make you say naughty words)

Anyhow, once a salesman, I soon learnt how important the basics are.

1: Learn to read people fucking quickly, and act accordingly.

2: Listen, don't talk.

3: He honest, and genuinely try your best to help people.

4: Don't *sell* to people.

Most people (if you slip up on rule number one) don't mind the odd harsh word, if they believe you're doing number 2, 3 and 4 genuinely. It would be very rare I use such words with the wrong people, as I've become very good at reading people very quickly. But should it happen, yeah, in my experience, it doesn't really matter.

Hope that helps.

I thought it was:

1: See how much money they want to spend/borrow.

2: See if you can interest them in stock you can't move.

3: Pretend you care about them

4: Commission $$$$

( or is this just my experience from Real Estate Agents)

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 13:07

I thought it was:

1: See how much money they want to spend/borrow.

2: See if you can interest them in stock you can't move.

3: Pretend you care about them

4: Commission $$$$

( or is this just my experience from Real Estate Agents)

Lol. I think the diff being, motorcyclists are pretty good at smelling bullshit. We had plenty of salesmen come and go in my 20 years at WMCC. The full of shit ones simply after the dollars didn't last long or do very well. :msn-wink:

jasonu

22nd April 2018, 13:32

Even miss teen carolina knows why the usa needs maps in schools.

Don't be a dick.
You appeared to be slating Labour but added a statement that says they are as bad as each other.

jasonu

22nd April 2018, 13:33

Speaking of EPIC FAIL eh...

That's what I thought. The cunt can't make his mind up.
What a dickhead.

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 13:38

That's what I thought. The cunt can't make his mind up.
What a dickhead.

Think it's more the cunt obviously can't read. Funny as all fuck.

sidecar bob

22nd April 2018, 17:35

Lol. I think the diff being, motorcyclists are pretty good at smelling bullshit. We had plenty of salesmen come and go in my 20 years at WMCC. The full of shit ones simply after the dollars didn't last long or do very well. :msn-wink:

Do/did you ever use what they drove/rode up on as an indicator of how to read them?

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 17:40

I always find it funny when sales people say they can "read people" as there was a story years ago in NZ of a guy who walked into a luxury car dealership wearing a t shirt, shorts and jandals who was "read" by the car dealer as a time waster. Two weeks later he turned up there in his luxury car and showed them they "read him" wrong.

From that reply i am guessing you have lost a big sale by reading someone wrong Ha Ha!!

Not at all. In fact, I'd share a story of what happened when I was one of the only Harley Salesmen in NZ that took the time with a certain then non customer, but I can't be fucked sharing it with you.

In the meantime, you fucking docile twat, learn the difference between reading people, and judging people. And I think the story you may be referring to, may well relate to Aaron Slight at a car yard in his home town.

Get a brain.

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 17:43

Do/did you ever use what they drove/rode up on as an indicator of how to read them?

Only the ones that rode up on a BMW Boxer... :innocent: But I could tell by their riding gear/helmet selection before I saw their bike. But seriously...nah. Old sayings have been around for as long as they have for a very good reason. Book/cover etc etc.

sidecar bob

22nd April 2018, 17:50

Only the ones that rode up on a BMW Boxer... :innocent: But I could tell by their riding gear/helmet selection before I saw their bike. But seriously...nah. Old sayings have been around for as long as they have for a very good reason. Book/cover etc etc.

yeah, I find It preferable to do business from my old Toyota people mover I initially bought for overseas guests to use, than any of my other cars.
You are far less likely to do a deal with some judgmental fuckwit to the point that I virtually never drive my man truck now.
Riding a maxi scooter weeds them out too.:lol:

Murray

22nd April 2018, 17:57

Crasherfromwayback

22nd April 2018, 18:29

No the story was not about Arron Slight you docile twat yourself.

Fucking gold. Fuck off.

TheDemonLord

22nd April 2018, 20:55

Judging by this reply again you demonstrate reading or judging people is somewhat of a sore topic with you as I never set out to attack you with my first reply to your post but simply said car dealers "as an example" can end up reading people wrong and there is no exact science about it that you appear to think there is? No the story was not about Arron Slight you docile twat yourself.

Somewhere there is an Amoeba, that is struggling to live, because of all the Oxygen you are carelessly using.

And the Amoeba would definitely be a much more pleasant and insightful poster on KB.

Ocean1

7th May 2018, 08:06

Good to know...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/103660283/tax-freedom-day-now-youre-working-for-yourself

TheDemonLord

7th May 2018, 11:13

jasonu

7th May 2018, 14:40

https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/p/q/7/i/z/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349. 1pq4yd.png/1525643827611.jpg

The look on Hilary's face just screams at me "I will eat your Soul"

What a couple of cunts.
You lot are stuck for the toothy one for another 2 1/2 years and you can keep that old whore for free!!!

TheDemonLord

7th May 2018, 15:50

and you can keep that old whore for free!!!

No Deal...

jasonu

7th May 2018, 16:06

No Deal...

$200 if you hit her with a dildo.

Ocean1

9th May 2018, 17:02

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/103766007/tax-working-group-papers-highlight-concerns-over-inequality

"There is considerable public concern about the levels of inequality"

Damn right there is, the bottom half of the income demographic needs to up their game and pay their share of fucking tax.

Lazy bastards.

RDJ

9th May 2018, 17:34

husaberg

9th May 2018, 17:57

RDJ

9th May 2018, 18:16

Ocean1

9th May 2018, 18:44

So judging by that statement do I take it that you consider the multinationals active in NZ are paying their fair share also then Ocean.
What about the banks were they paying a fair share under national then.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/91253046/johnny-moore-time-for-facebook-apple-and-google-to-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes

I have no idea how you take that conclusion, it's nowhere stated or implied. But since you asked :laugh: : it depends to what extent they're using taxpayer funded infrastructure.

I'm more concerned about the far bigger issue represented by the half of NZ that cost taxpayers more than they contribute. It's a serious imposition on the most productive 25% or so who are obliged to provide the "redistribution" to those who simply fail to produce the goods required to maintain their own lifestyle.

husaberg

9th May 2018, 18:49

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/103766007/tax-working-group-papers-highlight-concerns-over-inequality

Damn right there is, the bottom half of the income demographic needs to up their game and pay their share of fucking tax.

Lazy bastards.

I have no idea how you take that conclusion, it's nowhere stated or implied. But since you asked, it depends to what extent they're using NZ infrastructure.

I'm more concerned about the far bigger issue represented by the half of NZ that cost taxpayers more than they contribute. It's a serious imposition on the most productive, who are obliged
to pay for the "redistribution" to those who simply fail to produce the goods.

Really I was under the impression you were talking income tax :msn-wink:
Remember its IMCOME TAX not OCEANS IDEA OF USE OF INFRASTUTURE TAX.
Oh well go back to your general right wing hypocrisy then ocean.
Afterall why is it fair to get huge income earners like Facebook with little contributions little to NZ economy to pay a fair amount of tax on the money they generated in the National party set up NZ TAX haven.

Just because one lot are also connivingly dishonest does not mean we should not call others to task.
Too right especially if one lot are potential big cash donators to the national and Act party coffers.......

Ocean1

9th May 2018, 19:10

Really I was under the impression you were talking income tax :msn-wink:
Remember its IMCOME TAX not OCEANS IDEA OF USE OF INFRASTUTURE TAX.
Oh well go back to your general right wing hypocrisy then ocean.

Oh I'd be more than happy with a simply extortionate flat tax rate. The fact is income has fuck all to do with the consumption of tax funded resources. Quite the opposite in fact.

However, the disproportionately higher tax rate paid by the more productive is a blatant rort, and the fact that the more productive one is the less "eligable" one is for access to the very resources one's efforts paid for is seriously fucked up.

But I'm sure somewhere in your mind all that's not only perfectly reasonable but more of the same is eminently justifiable, you're a keen labour man after all.

Ocean1

9th May 2018, 19:13

Too right especially if one lot are potential big cash donators to the national and Act party coffers.......

Dude, labour's the party invented and funded by a few unions, it simply doesn't get more narrow minded than that.

husaberg

9th May 2018, 19:14

Oh I'd be more than happy with a simply extortionate flat tax rate. The fact is income has fuck all to do with the consumption of tax funded resources. Quite the opposite in fact.

However, the disproportionately higher tax rate paid by the more productive is a blatant rort, and the fact that the more productive one is the less "eligable" one is for access to the very resources one's efforts paid for is seriously fucked up.

But I'm sure somewhere in your mind all that's not only perfectly reasonable but more of the same is eminently justifiable, you're a keen labour man after all.
I will give you a clue the NZ taxation system is called income tax.
Higher earners spend less of their income on the basics of life so they have in essence more disposable income.
Its pretty simple that's why a flat tax is not a realistic option.
Unless of course you favour a flat gross income tax solely based on Gross earnings, After all if the cost of maintaining a business or the basics of life are irrelevant ....Thought not aye.:bleh:

husaberg

9th May 2018, 19:16

Dude, labour's the party invented and funded by a few unions, it simply doesn't get more narrow minded than that.

Only Unions actually pay tax far more than Facebook and plenty of others do.

Ocean1

9th May 2018, 19:36

I will give you a clue the NZ taxation system is called income tax.
Higher earners spend less of their income on the basics of life so they have in essence more disposable income.
Its pretty simple that's why a flat tax is not a realistic option.
Unless of course you favour a flat gross income tax solely based on Gross earnings, After all if the cost of maintaining a business or the basics of life are irrelevant ....Thought not aye.:bleh:

Yeah, Like I said:
I'm sure somewhere in your mind all that's not only perfectly reasonable but more of the same is eminently justifiable, you're a keen labour man after all.

Ocean1

9th May 2018, 19:38

Only Unions actually pay tax far more than Facebook and plenty of others do.

Really? How do total union tax payments compare with overall corporate tax contributions?

husaberg

9th May 2018, 20:20

Dude, labour's the party invented and funded by a few unions, it simply doesn't get more narrow minded than that.

Only Unions actually pay tax far more than Facebook and plenty of others do.

Really? How do total union tax payments compare with overall corporate tax contributions?

See there you go trying to twist what was said.
But out of interest
in 2010 Facebook in NZ paid 14K in income tax
in 2010 The Unite Union paid over 130k in income tax.

Yeah, Like I said:
Avoiding the question or could it be you are you not keen on a gross flat tax then....

Ocean1

9th May 2018, 21:32

See there you go trying to twist what was said.
But out of interest
in 2010 Facebook in NZ paid 14K in income tax
in 2010 The Unite Union paid over 130k in income tax.

Avoiding the question or could it be you are you not keen on a gross flat tax then....

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Really? How do total union tax payments compare with overall corporate tax contributions?

sidecar bob

9th May 2018, 21:44

I will give you a clue the NZ taxation system is called income tax.
:

Or my all time favourite, provisional tax, or that spending tax, called GST, or that tax you pay when you get some shit that plebs wish they paid called fringe benefit tax, or a whole bunch of other taxes that you possibly haven't earned enough to have learned about.
33 cents in the dollar could hardly be called tax.

husaberg

9th May 2018, 22:03

Or my all time favourite, provisional tax, or that spending tax, called GST, or that tax you pay when you get some shit that plebs wish they paid called fringe benefit tax, or a whole bunch of other taxes that you possibly haven't earned enough to have learned about.
33 cents in the dollar could hardly be called tax.
:not:As a farmer I think I ought to know a bit about tax.
Provisional tax is income tax thats just in advance.Or have you forgot you had a year off in your first year of business bob.
FBT is just that tax on Fringe benefits that are used or Given its no different than paying a bit of tax on what would otherwise be taxed as income
GST don't make me laugh, you pass that on and you claim back legitmate expenses and likely a few bike ones that were not as well.;)
Like everyone else you likely abused the depreciation on your stock and plant.
But lets see, how much did you have to pay in stamp duty and in livestock tax.

Ocean1

10th May 2018, 07:56

Or my all time favourite, provisional tax, or that spending tax, called GST, or that tax you pay when you get some shit that plebs wish they paid called fringe benefit tax, or a whole bunch of other taxes that you possibly haven't earned enough to have learned about.
33 cents in the dollar could hardly be called tax.

Face it mate, they're pretty much all wealth taxes by stealth.

Which is one way to get the money required to maintain the living standards everyone enjoys, it's what happens when you ask everyone to vote on what they want for lunch and who should pay for it.

The other way being to require that everyone contributes equally, or demonstrate why they're eligible for the charitable donations they expect from others.

sidecar bob

10th May 2018, 08:24

It's easier to understand taxation & be at peace with it if you think of it as a success fine.
The less the success, the lower the fine.

Ocean1

10th May 2018, 09:20

It's easier to understand taxation & be at peace with it if you think of it as a success fine.
The less the success, the lower the fine.

It's more accurate to call it a protection racket.

And the benefits and subsidies are rewards for failure? The more you fail the more you get rewarded?

Voltaire

10th May 2018, 10:36

It's more accurate to call it a protection racket.

And the benefits and subsidies are rewards for failure? The more you fail the more you get rewarded?

Any good examples?

Ocean1

10th May 2018, 11:49

Any good examples?

How does taxation for other than shared infrastructure differ from demanding money with menaces? That's what a protection racket is.

Start with "working for families", then troll through this lot: https://www.google.co.nz/search?ei=PojzWqyBM4Sg8QW66ZKgDw&q=new+zealand+income+restricted+subsidies&oq=new+zealand+income+restricted+subsidies&gs_l=psy-ab.3...97974.103652.0.104659.18.17.0.0.0.0.284.240 5.2-10.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..9.0.0....0.JYlcL5WjFI0

Voltaire

10th May 2018, 12:23

How does taxation for other than shared infrastructure differ from demanding money with menaces? That's what a protection racket is.

Start with "working for families", then troll through this lot: https://www.google.co.nz/search?ei=PojzWqyBM4Sg8QW66ZKgDw&q=new+zealand+income+restricted+subsidies&oq=new+zealand+income+restricted+subsidies&gs_l=psy-ab.3...97974.103652.0.104659.18.17.0.0.0.0.284.240 5.2-10.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..9.0.0....0.JYlcL5WjFI0

Does that include Pensions?

Ocean1

10th May 2018, 13:32

Does that include Pensions?

Well it's not on that list. But if you listen to either of the main parties they say NZ super isn't "fully funded", (meaning it comes from current tax revenue), in which case yes it does include pensions.

If you listen to the majority who've paid those taxes for their whole working life you tend to hear that they most certainly expected that some of their taxes go towards funding their pension.

Hard to avoid the conclusion that the money taxpayers expected to be invested towards their retirement was simply blown by successive vote buying sprees. Which is the main flaw with any system where voters don't have the protection offered by a written constitution: the many will always vote themselves money from the few.

jasonu

10th May 2018, 14:47

Voltaire

10th May 2018, 14:47

Ocean1

10th May 2018, 15:20

Not sure if that would help.

At what...15K a year for a Pension times 20 years...300K, people sure paid a lot of tax over their lifetime.:msn-wink:

Plenty of money around for things like keeping the Chinese out of the Pacific " our backyard".

If what would help?

Or more realistically $4k/year for 40 years @ 3% = $310k. (Which is about half what Kiwisaver returned). More than enough to cover the current pension, considering the attrition rate and the average duration.

Nowhere near as much as there is for subsidising those who somehow can't manage to support themselves, let alone anyone else.

Ocean1

10th May 2018, 15:26

Apparently most of you are wanting to pay MORE tax.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12048307

"The CTU's polling on income taxes is notable because Government has already ruled them outside of the tax working group's terms of reference."

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

husaberg

10th May 2018, 21:09

Well it's not on that list. But if you listen to either of the main parties they say NZ super isn't "fully funded", (meaning it comes from current tax revenue), in which case yes it does include pensions.

If you listen to the majority who've paid those taxes for their whole working life you tend to hear that they most certainly expected that some of their taxes go towards funding their pension.

Hard to avoid the conclusion that the money taxpayers expected to be invested towards their retirement was simply blown by successive vote buying sprees. Which is the main flaw with any system where voters don't have the protection offered by a written constitution: the many will always vote themselves money from the few.

So exactly whose vote buying sprees were they Ocean?

The Superannuation Fund was created by the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Act 2001 on 11 October 2001 by Michael Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cullen_(politician)), who was then Minister of Finance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Finance_(New_Zealand)) under the Fifth Labour Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand), and is colloquially known as the "Cullen Fund".
The New Zealand Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Government) had contributed $14.88b to the fund by 2012. The sovereign fund posted a record 25.8% return in the twelve months till 30 June 2013. In the 2009 New Zealand budget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_Zealand_budget) the National Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_National_Government_of_New_Zealand) suspended payments to the fund. Contributions were proposed to resume in 2020/21 when the Government's net debt to GDP falls below 20% again.Instead, the new Labour-led government started payments into the superfund again in December 2017.

New Zealand super

The Labour government’s New Zealand Superannuation Act, passed in August 1974, required mandatory pension contributions by employees and employers for all workers over the age of 17. Contributions could only be withdrawn if people were leaving the country permanently and payments would begin upon retirement from the age of 60. The new scheme came into operation on 1 April 1975 but its life would be short. In that year's election the National opposition proposed an alternative tax-funded National Superannuation scheme. This wooed many voters who were unhappy about their take-home pay being reduced to fund their retirement. The affordability of National Super, which replaced Labour's scheme in February 1977, would be severely tested as the numbers eligible for it grew. The question of how to pay for our retirement has dogged successive governments.

There were no dedicated tax increases to cover the increased costs of the expanded pension spending. At the same time, New Zealand's medium-term economic situation deteriorated from the mid-1970s, adding to the strain on government finances.
The results were a large overseas borrowing programme and a series of initiatives by successive governments to trim the costs of the new pension scheme and remove tax concessions for private provision.
This policy shift reflected a swing back to concerns about the affordability and sustainability of the public pension system.

Gee great stuff national
.................

Ocean1

10th May 2018, 21:35

So exactly whose vote buying sprees were they Ocean?

Gee great stuff national
.................

Do you understand what vote buying means?

But yep, bad move. Labour spending and the GFC notwithstanding they should have left the fund alone and cut the fuck out of spending elsewhere.

husaberg

10th May 2018, 22:27

Do you understand what vote buying means?

But yep, bad move. Labour spending and the GFC notwithstanding they should have left the fund alone and cut the fuck out of spending elsewhere.

he Labour government’s New Zealand Superannuation Act, passed in August 1974, required mandatory pension contributions by employees and employers for all workers over the age of 17. Contributions could only be withdrawn if people were leaving the country permanently and payments would begin upon retirement from the age of 60. The new scheme came into operation on 1 April 1975 but its life would be short. In that year's election the National opposition proposed an alternative tax-funded National Superannuation scheme. This wooed many voters who were unhappy about their take-home pay being reduced to fund their retirement. The affordability of National Super, which replaced Labour's scheme in February 1977, would be severely tested as the numbers eligible for it grew. The question of how to pay for our retirement has dogged successive governments.

The Superannuation Fund was created by the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Act 2001 on 11 October 2001 by Michael Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cullen_(politician)), who was then Minister of Finance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Finance_(New_Zealand)) under the Fifth Labour Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand), and is colloquially known as the "Cullen Fund".
The New Zealand Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Government) had contributed $14.88b to the fund by 2012. The sovereign fund posted a record 25.8% return in the twelve months till 30 June 2013. In the 2009 New Zealand budget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_Zealand_budget) the National Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_National_Government_of_New_Zealand) suspended payments to the fund.

I am well aware what buying votes means i posted some examples, Yet you still cant even bring yourself to properly admit you were sold out twice with your pension funds by your beloved NATIONAL.:lol:

Don't get me wrong i can see why the GFC upset you being as it was caused by those same regulation free, Right wing Free market economies you are always expousing as being great, collasping so dramaically. But dont worry all the common people paid to bail out all those private banks......

Ocean1

11th May 2018, 07:53

I am well aware what buying votes means i posted some examples, Yet you still cant even bring yourself to properly admit you were sold out twice with your pension funds by your beloved NATIONAL.:lol:

Don't get me wrong i can see why the GFC upset you being as it was caused by those same regulation free, Right wing Free market economies you are always expousing as being great, collasping so dramaically. But dont worry all the common people paid to bail out all those private banks......

My you really are a Labour troll. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I just said I didn't appreciate "My beloved National" selling out taxpayers, and you continue to react as if absolutely everything is an attack on your beloved labour.

For the record: I don't have any political affiliation or party preferences whatsoever, just an aversion for any political entity "redistributing" taxpayers hard earned money to those who simply don't work as hard. But the fact is: that's more or less the definition of socialism, the union's political arm's raison d'être.

jasonu

14th May 2018, 06:47

This is where the tooth fairy got her stupid slogan from.336709336708

Banditbandit

14th May 2018, 10:15

Apparently most of you are wanting to pay MORE tax.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12048307

Yes - that's true - been shown over and over again

Those here who object to the current level of tax, object to tax increases and want taxes to be lowered are in the minority ..

Banditbandit

14th May 2018, 10:17

, just an aversion for any political entity "redistributing" taxpayers hard earned money to those who simply don't work as hard. But the fact is: that's more or less the definition of socialism, the union's political arm's raison d'être.

Your statement is completely ideologically drive - and wrong.

You say you have no party affiliation - probably true .. or political affiliation - possibly true

But you certainly have the minority right wing ideology ...

Ocean1

14th May 2018, 10:25

Yes - that's true - been shown over and over again

Those here who object to the current level of tax, object to tax increases and want taxes to be lowered are in the minority ..

Show us again then.

I have no problem with the current level of tax. Happy for it to be higher. I simply object to the expectation that only the most productive should pay all of it.

Ocean1

14th May 2018, 10:33

Your statement is completely ideologically drive - and wrong.

You say you have no party affiliation - probably true .. or political affiliation - possibly true

But you certainly have the minority right wing ideology ...

My statement is one of simple fact, the labour party is a product of the unions, constructed, owned and directed by them. Their history is exactly what you'd expect from such socialist roots: one of advancing re-distributive policy at the expense of the "productive sector".

I don't think anyone is interested in your analysis of my affiliations, but your assessment doesn't agree with most others wrt my political alignment.

Also, there's nothing wrong with attempting to adhere to ideals that define ethically consistent concepts. You could try that instead of blindly parroting tired academic left tottering dogma.

Swoop

14th May 2018, 15:34

Dude, labour's the party invented and funded by a few unions, it simply doesn't get more narrow minded than that.
They are demanding a return on their investment now...

Apparently most of you are wanting to pay MORE tax.
That would be the people who voted for the "Let's tax this" party.

Social engineering costs money. Time to milk the middle and lower classes again.

R650R

28th May 2018, 13:39

Time to buy Unison shares... GhettoCinda project kicking off in my street, four vehicles a digger and five guys to put new power main into a HNZ property that is being subdivided... got to be at least 10-15k easy revenue there????

Swoop

11th June 2018, 15:07

Repealing the 3-strikes law... Nope. That's not happening now.

The oil exploration ban seems to be a result of the three stooges (Toothcinda, Winnie and Shaw) having a beer and deciding not to get anyone else involved... like people who actually KNOW what the fuck they are doing, involved.

:rolleyes:

Ocean1

11th June 2018, 17:16

Swoop

11th June 2018, 22:58

They seem to have no idea how the earnings that supply their taxes actually happen. :no:

The way they are throwing it around, there must be an unlimited supply...
As for spending a billion on getting rid of whatever [not quite a]mad-cow disease that no other nation has been successful in doing (although the "disease" does not affect any milk, dairy, or meat produced by said mad-cows) that seems like money well <strike>wasted</strike> spent.

jasonu

12th June 2018, 02:25

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12068645

5 seconds after that bint leaves to hatch the sprog what was predicted has begun.
Again, who were the thick cunts that voted labour and still defend this stupid cow???

Ocean1

12th June 2018, 20:20

The more labour change around here the more they stay the same. :laugh:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/104651548/overseas-investment-for-otakiri-springs-bottling-giant-approved-in-principle

Swoop

27th July 2018, 10:07

The green party are happily selling out their moral standards.

Being forced to support the "waka jumping" legislation, which they vehemently were against. Now they can be proud that un-democratic processes are supported by them.

As for the voters in the specific electorates, who voted for the candidate, and then see their elected official being effectively "decapitated" by this mad legislation?
Another sad day for The Lunatic Fringe party.

oldrider

27th July 2018, 10:47

Voltaire

27th July 2018, 14:57

They start off with small lies.

https://rowan.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/asb.jpg

pritch

27th July 2018, 16:26

I haven't seen the detail of the proposed waka jumping legislation but I like what I heard on the radio this morning. Perhaps you can recall Alamein Kopu (sp?)? She was an Alliance list MP I think. She left the Alliance and sat in parliament doing nothing but collecting full pay until the end of that parliamentary term. I suspect that didn't bother Winston Peters too much, but when a NZ First list MP performed a similar stunt that was different.

The legislation doesn't affect electorate MPs. If they leave their party, they face their electorate at the next election. Or they announce that they are leaving to spend more time with their family.

MPs who enter parliament on a party list, and then leave that party have no right to be in parliament. They should vacate their seat immediately to be replaced by the next available member on that party's list.

The new legislation is really only correcting an omission. That should have been the situation from the start.

While they are fiddling about though, perhaps they should consider going back to 100 seats? :whistle:

Ocean1

27th July 2018, 18:30

husaberg

27th July 2018, 18:51

Now we just need to correct the even more laughable omission that allows the leader of a party representing 7% of the national vote from holding the top job.

Or any job at all, preferably.
Did you mind when he was deputy PM and acting PM for national 96-99?

Ocean1

27th July 2018, 20:19

Did you mind when he was deputy PM and acting PM for national 96-99?

Yes.

What, with not being a fucking hypocrite an' all.

husaberg

27th July 2018, 20:53

Yes.

What, with not being a fucking hypocrite an' all.
Funny, We had a Pm that was a mother in that era as well.

Ocean1

27th July 2018, 21:13

Funny, We had a Pm that was a mother in that era as well.

As well as what?

And did she insist that everyone else pay for her choice?

husaberg

27th July 2018, 22:58

As well as what?

And did she insist that everyone else pay for her choice?
Quite the reverse, i would have happily coughed up a few extra tax dollars if Jenny would have had a bit of lipo and a face lift.:bleh:
Funny enough no one actually voted for national with Jenny as a PM
You do realise its pretty okay for a woman to have a baby and work these days though its even written into law.......

jasonu

28th July 2018, 02:24

Voltaire

28th July 2018, 08:11

You can see from the US that having a <strike>{dictator}</strike> President makes things happen so much faster.

Ocean1

28th July 2018, 11:22

Quite the reverse, i would have happily coughed up a few extra tax dollars if Jenny would have had a bit of lipo and a face lift.:bleh:
Funny enough no one actually voted for national with Jenny as a PM
You do realise its pretty okay for a woman to have a baby and work these days though its even written into law.......

Classy.

Like most rational people I tend to vote for a policy manifest, not a pretty face. Shipley happened to preside over a policy set that most people voted for, Ardern didn't, and neither does Peters.

Every female member of my family not actually a child has done, what's your point?

husaberg

28th July 2018, 13:07

Classy.

Like most rational people I tend to vote for a policy manifest, not a pretty face. Shipley happened to presided over a policy set that most people voted for, Ardern didn't, and neither does Peters.

Every female member of my family not actually a child has done, what's your point?

No one voted national at the election expecting Jenny Shipley to stage a coup and take over as PM.
Nor had they voted for NZ first at theat election expecting them to co into a coalition with national either at that time either.
Arden and the rest of her cohorts in the coalition won the election, its time for you to suck it up and deal with it.

jasonu

28th July 2018, 14:40

Quite the reverse, i would have happily coughed up a few extra tax dollars if Jenny would have had a bit of lipo and a face lift.:bleh:
..

That fat cunt needed more than just a face lift.

jasonu

28th July 2018, 14:44

Arden and the rest of her cohorts in the coalition won the election, its time for you to suck it up and deal with it.

Erm bullshit. Winston Peters managed to win the election with almost no votes.

Voltaire

28th July 2018, 15:44

Erm bullshit. Winston Peters managed to win the election with almost no votes.

Has he been to Moscow to kiss the ring yet?

jasonu

28th July 2018, 15:56

Has he been to Moscow to kiss the ring yet?

Nope didn't have to. He had national and the tooth fairy both sucking his dick at the same time.

Ocean1

28th July 2018, 16:12

No one voted national at the election expecting Jenny Shipley to stage a coup and take over as PM.
Nor had they voted for NZ first at theat election expecting them to co into a coalition with national either at that time either.
Arden and the rest of her cohorts in the coalition won the election, its time for you to suck it up and deal with it.

Yet again you seem to think you're engaging in a left right debate. And that's fine, go right ahead, but I'm not the natural protagonist you seem to want, there.

Outside of that I find my point already adequately presented. See ya.

husaberg

28th July 2018, 16:18

That fat cunt needed more than just a face lift.
Shes had a gastric bypass now and a heart attack she is now a lot slimmer than she was. She was also sued for some sort of reported bad management i think by the company recievers when she was a company director i never heard what the outcome was.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/68957290/jenny-shipley-among-mainzeal-directors-facing-legal-action
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11496266

Erm bullshit. Winston Peters managed to win the election with almost no votes.
The coalalition had the most seats, its pretty simple that's why the Nats are not in power anymore.

Yet again you seem to think you're engaging in a left right debate. And that's fine, go right ahead, but I'm not the natural protagonist you seem to want, there.

Outside of that I find my point already adequately presented. See ya.
You are whinging because the Nats lost, its pretty simple for anyone to see that.
Just as before the election nearly everyone of your posts was about how great it is with national in goverment, since the election all your posts are about how crap it is that national lost the election.
Note you very rarely post in reasons to be cheerful thread now yet prior to the election your posts were a glowing endorsement of everything national tried to garner the credit for.
Note NZ is still again voted the 8th happiest country in the world despite National losing the election.
You made a big deal out of it last time but not a peep out of you about it now.
NZ voted again the least corrupt country in the world again despite the national party losing the last election, but not a peep out of you again.

Ocean1

28th July 2018, 18:30

You are whinging because the Nats lost, its pretty simple for anyone to see that.
Just as before the election nearly everyone of your posts was about how great it is with national in goverment, since the election all your posts are about how crap it is that national lost the election.
Note you very rarely post in reasons to be cheerful thread now yet prior to the election your posts were a glowing endorsement of everything national tried to garner the credit for.
Note NZ is still again voted the 8th happiest country in the world despite National losing the election.
You made a big deal out of it last time but not a peep out of you about it now.
NZ voted again the least corrupt country in the world again despite the national party losing the last election, but not a peep out of you again.

Well it's apparently simple for you to see that.

Note that my posts about the above have never at any time been proposed as any endorsement of any political entity, they're almost always in response to some fuckwit whining about how hard we've got it and how it's all the fault of "TPTB" whoever the fuck that might be.

What political efforts I might endorse are those that support productive enterprise and provide effective infrastructure rather than those that discourage productive behaviour and blow a high percentage of the results of whatever does occur on pointless social engineering theories. If that describes National policy rather than those of some socialist's wet dream cobbled together months after the fact and representing the interest of nobody but the politicians involved then I don't see why that might come as any surprise, it's hardly a unique observation.

husaberg

28th July 2018, 19:18

Well it's apparently simple for you to see that.

Note that my posts about the above have never at any time been proposed as any endorsement of any political entity, they're almost always in response to some fuckwit whining about how hard we've got it and how it's all the fault of "TPTB" whoever the fuck that might be.

What political efforts I might endorse are those that support productive enterprise and provide effective infrastructure rather than those that discourage productive behaviour and blow a high percentage of the results of whatever does occur on pointless social engineering theories. If that describes National policy rather than those of some socialist's wet dream cobbled together months after the fact and representing the interest of nobody but the politicians involved then I don't see why that might come as any surprise, it's hardly a unique observation.

So i take it you are still pretty miffed national lost the election then:laugh:
Ps your posts in reason to be cheerful were never in reply to anything, they were totally unsolicited.

Ocean1

28th July 2018, 21:16

So i take it you are still pretty miffed national lost the election then:laugh:
Ps your posts in reason to be cheerful were never in reply to anything, they were totally unsolicited.

They didn't.

And the whole thread is a response to chicken little fuckwits blaming everyone but themselves for purely imaginary catastrophes.

husaberg

28th July 2018, 22:39

They didn't.

Even Bill English conceded Dude:baby:

https://youtu.be/_72MbuPz05A

Ocean1

29th July 2018, 10:26

Even Bill English conceded Dude:baby:

He conceded that Peters had the legal ability to make the back room deal he did, in spite of the fact that no NZ government had ever previously been assembled by anything other than the highest polling party. Apparently Labour also recognised the fact that they'd come second and had more or less resigned themselves to another term in oposition, until Peters had a wee chat. Sounds more like a legal technical loophole needs closing than any natural authority to assume power.

Unless you've been hiding under a rock you'll be aware that poling data since the election shows that a) National not only polled higher than any other party at the election but have done so ever since. b) Winston First's support has completely collapsed, giving you some idea of what most of NZ thought about the resulting farce, and, c) most of NZ thought the Green leadership's doubling down in support of benefit fraud wasn't the sort of behaviour they saw as fit to be let loose with the taxpayer's cheque book. At least it looks like neither of the last two have any future in NZ public life, thank fuck.

pritch

29th July 2018, 11:04

Winston First's support has completely collapsed, giving you some idea of what most of NZ thought about the resulting farce, .

Nah. You're reading too much into that. Polls usually show a drop in support for minor parties between elections. When voting time looms their support goes up. That seems to happen every time.

Like Jim Bolger said, "Bugger the pollsters".

nerrrd

29th July 2018, 11:48

Voltaire

29th July 2018, 12:09

Jeebus, it's only been twenty bloody years of MMP or so.

The only way for a single party to 'win' an MMP election is to get more than 50 percent of the vote...which so far has never happened.

Otherwise it's wheeler-dealing all the way to the ninth floor, compromising your 'principles' left and right until a coalition 'agreement' is hashed out. I actually feel sorry for the politicians that they still get mercilessly criticised by some for having to do that. I don't blame any of them for exploiting the system they've been given to work with, that's what people do.

I suspect the sooner the older generation of pollies shuffle off to their cosy directorships the better the system might start to work (yes that's you too Winston).

I would not count on it, something happens once they get into the Beehive..... Rodney Hide started of as Perk Busters and look how that ended.

I'm surprised Politicians do referendums....look at Brexit what a shambles.

" We don't want foreigners over here taking all the jobs", yet the crops lay rotting in the fields as no one want to do that anymore

Grumph

29th July 2018, 12:25

Ocean1

29th July 2018, 12:45

Nah. You're reading too much into that. Polls usually show a drop in support for minor parties between elections. When voting time looms their support goes up. That seems to happen every time.

Like Jim Bolger said, "Bugger the pollsters".

It does. When it comes to Winston's antics and faced with the same promises all over again some of us have either very short or very selective memories.

What post election polls usually show is a firming of support for the govt and a drop in support for the opposition. Read into the recent results whatever you want.

Ocean1

29th July 2018, 12:52

Two points - Support for NZ First is never very visible between elections as we pensioners generally don't get polled...I can only assume we're not sexy enough.

And National couldn't cobble a coalition together cos they had no friends. I'd like to know what's happened to the Nat who thought releasing Winston's pension details just prior to the election was a good idea...

I did one of those survey things, apparently I align most with NZF policies. The ones I don't agree with more than offset the ones I do, though. And Peters continues to present as the rabid divorce lawyer from the Hollywood movie of your choice, the man perfectly represents everything that's wrong with an already seriously compromised electoral system.

husaberg

29th July 2018, 13:14

He conceded that Peters had the legal ability to make the back room deal he did, in spite of the fact that no NZ government had ever previously been assembled by anything other than the highest polling party. Apparently Labour also recognised the fact that they'd come second and had more or less resigned themselves to another term in oposition, until Peters had a wee chat. Sounds more like a legal technical loophole needs closing than any natural authority to assume power.

Unless you've been hiding under a rock you'll be aware that poling data since the election shows that a) National not only polled higher than any other party at the election but have done so ever since. b) Winston First's support has completely collapsed, giving you some idea of what most of NZ thought about the resulting farce, and, c) most of NZ thought the Green leadership's doubling down in support of benefit fraud wasn't the sort of behaviour they saw as fit to be let loose with the taxpayer's cheque book. At least it looks like neither of the last two have any future in NZ public life, thank fuck.

Ocean i see it still grates you personally to face up to nationals loss, but we have MMP under which the people that form a government have the majority of the seats in a coalition or a confidence and supply agreement.
National did not have this, due to their general lack of negotiating ability and alienation of other parties.

Suck it up, they lost the election otherwise the would obviously still be the government.

Note National for years has attempted to make sure it carried a coalition partner into parliament and not ran in opposition of other parties to make sure they dragged in extra seats ie Peter Dunne and ACT
Peter Dunne become a coalition partner with National, despite at times receiving under 1% of the party vote.2008,2011,2014

If you want to make sure your beloved national party is always in power maybe, you should get them to amend NZ's constitution to reflect that we have a dictatorship rather than a democracy

Graystone

29th July 2018, 13:35

Ocean i see it still grates you personally to face up to nationals loss, but we have MMP under which the people that form a government have the majority of the seats in a coalition or a confidence and supply agreement.
National did not have this, due to their general lack of negotiating ability and alienation of other parties.

Suck it up, they lost the election otherwise the would obviously still be the government.

Note National for years has attempted to make sure it carried a coalition partner into parliament and not ran in opposition of other parties to make sure they dragged in extra seats ie Peter Dunne and ACT

Ocean is right, they didn't lose the election (they had the most votes of any party, by a significant margin), they lost the government because they deemed it unacceptable to compromise their values/policy to the degree that labor did.

husaberg

29th July 2018, 13:45

Ocean is right, they didn't lose the election (they had the most votes of any party, by a significant margin), they lost the government because they deemed it unacceptable to compromise their values/policy to the degree that labor did.
Really what was the election that they won for? i could have sworn it was to decide who should govern NZ for the next 4 years.

Note National did not even know that Peters was not going to be entering a coalition with them, until after he had said he was going with Labour. So to suggest they refused or deemed it to be a unacceptable compromise to enter a coalition with NZF is rather amusing .

English conceded defeat.... National would be the strongest opposition the country had ever seen. He batted away questions over his future as leader after the second time he has taken his party to electoral defeat.

English says questions of leadership are not for tonight but for the weeks ahead.

But it is the second time he has led National to general election defeat. In 2002, under his leadership, National had its worst-ever electoral defeat, losing to Labour’s Helen Clark.

“We had satisfactory negotiations,” says English of talks with Peters and NZ First, adding: “He had more influence on forming a government than we did.”

He says speculation about disagreements over ministerial roles is “quite wrong”, but declines to go into details about what National offered to Peters.

He says learning that he was no longer PM via Peters’ televised speech, and not in advance, English dismisses it as “a bit of a detail”.
https://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Winston-Peters-NZ-First-billboard-had-enough-620x387.jpg?x35462https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/unnamed-1.jpghttp://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2012/03/Anti-MMP-plan-leaked-politics-national-Stuff.co_.nz_.jpg

Graystone

29th July 2018, 13:54

Really what was the election that they won for? i could have sworn it was to decide who should govern NZ for the next 4 years.

Note National did not even know that Peters was not going to be entering a coalition with them, until after he had said he was going with Labour. So to suggest they refused or deemed it to be a unacceptable compromise to enter a coalition with NZF is rather amusing .

Who got the most votes?

Don't be such an idiot, they both had talks with Peters about coalitions. Of course Peters would get the deal all signed with Labour before announcing he wasn't going with National. Peters may be a cunt, but he has a lot of political savvy, unfortunately the same cannot be said for James Shaw, Nats/Greens could have been a great govt...

husaberg

29th July 2018, 14:19

Who got the most votes?

Don't be such an idiot, they both had talks with Peters about coalitions. Of course Peters would get the deal all signed with Labour before announcing he wasn't going with National. Peters may be a cunt, but he has a lot of political savvy, unfortunately the same cannot be said for James Shaw, Nats/Greens could have been a great govt...
The most votes was the Coalition of Greens Labour and NZ first and the most seats.
Under FPF who got the most votes was irreverent Nation often won elections with less votes but more seats.
Under MMP who gets to govern is who can muster the most seats.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

Graystone

29th July 2018, 14:26

The most votes was the Coalition of Greens Labour and NZ first and the most seats.
Under FPF who got the most votes was irreverent Nation often won elections with less votes but more seats.
Under MMP who gets to govern is who can muster the most seats.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

I don't recall seeing that option on the ballot...
FPP was shit too.
Under MMP, the Coalition you 'voted' for, is only confirmed after all the votes have been cast, even the fucking flag referendum was better thought out than that shit.

husaberg

29th July 2018, 15:01

I don't recall seeing that option on the ballot...
FPP was shit too.
Under MMP, the Coalition you 'voted' for, is only confirmed after all the votes have been cast, even the fucking flag referendum was better thought out than that shit.
its the fundamental reality of MMP that any group that forms with the most seats can form a government.
If you don't like MMP maybe you should move to the USA, Russia or Zimbabwe.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

Ocean1

29th July 2018, 15:40

Ocean i see...

Yes, I've long since given up any attempt to interpret what you see from what anyone else posts, you've got this perpetual straw-man response set up and it's pointless trying to discuss anything at all with you.

Katman

29th July 2018, 15:43

husaberg

29th July 2018, 16:06

Yes, I've long since given up any attempt to interpret what you see from what anyone else posts, you've got this perpetual straw-man response set up and it's pointless trying to discuss anything at all with you.
A strawman arguement is when someone throws up continued topics that were nothing to do whith waht was posted this is how you have operated.
It is also how your new mate steve operate welcome to his club, but remember what the initiation is.

Graystone

29th July 2018, 16:32

its the fundamental reality of MMP that any group that forms with the most seats can form a government.
If you don't like MMP maybe you should move to the USA, Russia or Zimbabwe.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

And what Ocean was pointing out, and now what I'm pointing out, is the fundamental reality of MMP is that the formed govt is not the party that received the most votes, nor is it a group listed on the ballot.
Maybe I live here based on NZ's other virtues... I sure as shit didn't move here for the MMP system anyway.

husaberg

29th July 2018, 16:48

And what Ocean was pointing out, and now what I'm pointing out, is the fundamental reality of MMP is that the formed govt is not the party that received the most votes, nor is it a group listed on the ballot.
Maybe I live here based on NZ's other virtues... I sure as shit didn't move here for the MMP system anyway.
Really that you are and Ocean pointing out because i have done so many times.

Now we just need to correct the even more laughable omission that allows the leader of a party representing 7% of the national vote from holding the top job.

Or any job at all, preferably.

The most votes was the Coalition of Greens Labour and NZ first and the most seats.
Under FPF who got the most votes was irreverent Nation often won elections with less votes but more seats.
Under MMP who gets to govern is who can muster the most seats.
Even English conceded he lost why can you and ocean.......is it a bitter Bill to swallow

The difference is Ocean feels agreeved that his beloved National did not win the election and get to form a goverment.

Graystone

29th July 2018, 16:52

Really that you are and Ocean pointing out because i have done so many times.

The difference is Ocean feels agreeved that his beloved National did not win the election and get to form a goverment.

Interesting phrasing there on your second bit, since so far you have been saying forming a govt is how you win the election. Now it is something you do after winning the election?

The first bit is more indecipherable like phrasing.

husaberg

29th July 2018, 16:54

Interesting phrasing there on your second bit, since so far you have been saying forming a govt is how you win the election. Now it is something you do after winning the election?

The first bit is more indecipherable like phrasing.
You win a general election by gaining enough seats to form a goverment.
Let me guess are you a pom same as TDL who is not used to wining anything since 1968....

Ocean1

29th July 2018, 17:01

Really that you are and Ocean pointing out because i have done so many times.

The difference is Ocean feels agreeved that his beloved National did not win the election and get to form a goverment.

There's that straw again, I'm amazed you don't choke on the shear volume involved. Just to clear that all away: Ocean couldn't give a fuck which of the almost identical major parties govern, Ocean gives a fuck that the one that did, in fact win the election subsequently didn't get to form the government.

No amount of you explaining how that works somehow makes it a system that represents the wishes of a voting majority, which is supposed to be the whole point of the exercise. To reiterate: Zero votes were cast for whatever deal was cobbled together in secret by the losers involved after the fact. All clear now?

Graystone

29th July 2018, 17:02

You win a general election by gaining enough seats to form a goverment.
Let me guess are you a pom same as TDL who is not used to wining anything since 1968....

You also win elections by getting the most votes. Fucking novel concept though it may be.
Up, round, and a little to the left, you were only half a world out...

husaberg

29th July 2018, 17:15

There's that straw again, I'm amazed you don't choke on the shear volume involved. Just to clear that all away: Ocean couldn't give a fuck which of the almost identical major parties govern, Ocean gives a fuck that the one that did, in fact win the election subsequently didn't get to form the government.

No amount of you explaining how that works somehow makes it a system that represents the wishes of a voting majority, which is supposed to be the whole point of the exercise. To reiterate: Zero votes were cast for whatever deal was cobbled together in secret by the losers involved after the fact. All clear now?
All i are reading here is you moaning about how that national never won again. face it.

You also win elections by getting the most votes. Fucking novel concept though it may be.
Up, round, and a little to the left, you were only half a world out...
No you see here in NZ you clearly don't, win elections by gain the most votes, Not under MMP which in case you missed it that the system we here in NZ.
So like ocean has to, learn to live with it, or do something about it or piss off.
But don't bother to reply to my posts, if cant get the simple things correct.
Go back to what ever it is you and TDL are arguing about on the conspiracy thread, because trust me no one i have seen reads your to posts there either

Graystone

29th July 2018, 17:20

No you seen here in NZ you clearly don't Not here under MMP which in case you missed it that the system we here in NZ.
So like ocean have so learn to live with it or do something about it or piss off.
But don't bother to reply to my posts if if cant get the simple things correct.
Go back to what ever it is you and TDL are arguing about on the conspiracy thread because trust me no one i have seen reads your two posts there either

Exactly, therein lies the ire; have you even been paying attention? The people choose who they want to win the election based on policy and planning, then that all gets chopped and changed in the mad scramble for seats afterwards.
Yeh, cos kiwibiker is all about 'doing something' about shit and not just some miscellaneous whinging and banter... how about you go fuck your hat.
Either? Are you saying nobody reads our posts here? Who have I been 'conversing' with then? are you a ghost? Am I a ghost? I don't want to be a ghost :(

husaberg

29th July 2018, 17:23

Exactly, therein lies the ire; have you even been paying attention? The people choose who they want to win the election based on policy and planning, then that all gets chopped and changed in the mad scramble for seats afterwards.
Yeh, cos kiwibiker is all about 'doing something' about shit and not just some miscellaneous whinging and banter... how about you go fuck your hat.
Either? Are you saying nobody reads our posts here? Who have I been 'conversing' with then? are you a ghost? Am I a ghost? I don't want to be a ghost :(
adds to ignore, you are now a ghost. to me anyway. Its a waste of time replying to you as you don't actually understand that NZ has MMP. Like it or not coalition goverments happen
The only time Ocean has problems with them is when his beloved national cant figure out a way to make it happen for them

Graystone

29th July 2018, 17:25

ads to ignore you are now

Fuck, now how will I know if I am a ghost!

Ocean1

29th July 2018, 17:54

All i are reading here is you moaning about how that national never won again. face it.

Which is always your problem, you only ever hear what you want to argue against.

But I guess if ignoring reality makes you happy then fuck reality, right? :laugh:

It does make you happy don't it? Only if the semi-coherent rants are just you inventing shit to be angry about then I'd be forced to feel really sorry for you.

husaberg

29th July 2018, 17:59

Which is always your problem, you only ever hear what you want to argue against.

But I guess if ignoring reality makes you happy then fuck reality, right? :laugh:

It does make you happy don't it? Only if the semi-coherent rants are just you inventing shit to be angry about then I'd be forced to feel really sorry for you.
Lets see I translate that to Ocean does not like to see his own hypocrisy highlighted
I though most people already knew that.. was it news to you?
But if you really dont want you hypocritical statements pointed out i would suggest you don't make them so often.

Case in point

Well it's not on that list. But if you listen to either of the main parties they say NZ super isn't "fully funded", (meaning it comes from current tax revenue), in which case yes it does include pensions.

If you listen to the majority who've paid those taxes for their whole working life you tend to hear that they most certainly expected that some of their taxes go towards funding their pension.

Hard to avoid the conclusion that the money taxpayers expected to be invested towards their retirement was simply blown by successive vote buying sprees. Which is the main flaw with any system where voters don't have the protection offered by a written constitution: the many will always vote themselves money from the few.

So exactly whose vote buying sprees were they Ocean?
o exactly whose vote buying sprees were they Ocean?

The Superannuation Fund was created by the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Act 2001 on 11 October 2001 by Michael Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cullen_(politician)), who was then Minister of Finance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Finance_(New_Zealand)) under the Fifth Labour Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand), and is colloquially known as the "Cullen Fund".
The New Zealand Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Government) had contributed $14.88b to the fund by 2012. The sovereign fund posted a record 25.8% return in the twelve months till 30 June 2013. In the 2009 New Zealand budget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_Zealand_budget) the National Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_National_Government_of_New_Zealand) suspended payments to the fund. Contributions were proposed to resume in 2020/21 when the Government's net debt to GDP falls below 20% again.Instead, the new Labour-led government started payments into the superfund again in December 2017.

New Zealand super

The Labour government’s New Zealand Superannuation Act, passed in August 1974, required mandatory pension contributions by employees and employers for all workers over the age of 17. Contributions could only be withdrawn if people were leaving the country permanently and payments would begin upon retirement from the age of 60. The new scheme came into operation on 1 April 1975 but its life would be short. In that year's election the National opposition proposed an alternative tax-funded National Superannuation scheme. This wooed many voters who were unhappy about their take-home pay being reduced to fund their retirement. The affordability of National Super, which replaced Labour's scheme in February 1977, would be severely tested as the numbers eligible for it grew. The question of how to pay for our retirement has dogged successive governments.

There were no dedicated tax increases to cover the increased costs of the expanded pension spending. At the same time, New Zealand's medium-term economic situation deteriorated from the mid-1970s, adding to the strain on government finances.
The results were a large overseas borrowing programme and a series of initiatives by successive governments to trim the costs of the new pension scheme and remove tax concessions for private provision.
This policy shift reflected a swing back to concerns about the affordability and sustainability of the public pension system

.................

Or

Like most rational people I tend to vote for a policy manifest, not a pretty face. Shipley happened to preside over a policy set that most people voted for, Ardern didn't, and neither does Peters.

Every female member of my family not actually a child has done, what's your point?

No one voted national at the election expecting Jenny Shipley to stage a coup and take over as PM.
Nor had they voted for NZ first at teat election expecting them to co into a coalition with national either at that time either.
Arden and the rest of her cohorts in the coalition won the election, its time for you to suck it up and deal with it.

or this

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/103766007/tax-working-group-papers-highlight-concerns-over-inequality

Damn right there is, the bottom half of the income demographic needs to up their game and pay their share of fucking tax.

Lazy bastards.

So judging by that statement do I take it that you consider the multinationals active in NZ are paying their fair share also then Ocean.
What about the banks were they paying a fair share under national then.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/91253046/johnny-moore-time-for-facebook-apple-and-google-to-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes

I have no idea how you take that conclusion, it's nowhere stated or implied. But since you asked :laugh: : it depends to what extent they're using taxpayer funded infrastructure.

I'm more concerned about the far bigger issue represented by the half of NZ that cost taxpayers more than they contribute. It's a serious imposition on the most productive 25% or so who are obliged to provide the "redistribution" to those who simply fail to produce the goods required to maintain their own lifestyle.

Really I was under the impression you were talking income tax :msn-wink:
Remember its IMCOME TAX not OCEANS IDEA OF USE OF INFRASTUTURE TAX.
Oh well go back to your general right wing hypocrisy then ocean.
Afterall why is it fair to get huge income earners like Facebook with little contributions little to NZ economy to pay a fair amount of tax on the money they generated in the National party set up NZ TAX haven.

Too right especially if one lot are potential big cash donaters to the national and Act party coffers.......

Katman

29th July 2018, 18:30

Omg, it's happening again.

Ocean1

29th July 2018, 19:03

Lets see I translate that to

:laugh::laugh::laugh: I knew you couldn't hold all that straw in, the "must defend Proletariat from Wicked Tory Bogyman" pressure must be terribly painful for you.

Madness

29th July 2018, 19:22

Omg, it's happening again.

Waning Gibbous.

husaberg

29th July 2018, 20:12

:laugh::laugh::laugh: I knew you couldn't hold all that straw in, the "must defend Proletariat from Wicked Tory Bogyman" pressure must be terribly painful for you.odd becuase what you just posted is a classic strawman response.

Graystone

29th July 2018, 20:56

odd becuase what you just posted is a classic strawman response.

Mate, even TDL knows that is more ad-hominem than Strawman.

jasonu

30th July 2018, 02:16

The difference is Ocean feels agreeved that his beloved National did not win the election and get to form a goverment.

You mean like how the Democrats are still blaming everyone and everything except themselves that their hillary couldn't beat the most unpopular POTUS candidate of all time (actually the 2nd most unpopular as it turned out:cool:)

Katman

30th July 2018, 07:41

All i are reading here is you moaning about how that national never won again. face it.

No you seen here in NZ you clearly don't Not here under MMP which in case you missed it that the system we here in NZ.
So like ocean have so learn to live with it or do something about it or piss off.
But don't bother to reply to my posts if if cant get the simple things correct.
Go back to what ever it is you and TDL are arguing about on the conspiracy thread because trust me no one i have seen reads your two posts there either

Is that even English?

Total utter moron indeed.

TheDemonLord

30th July 2018, 10:36

Mate, even TDL knows that is more ad-hominem than Strawman.

I'm highly flattered that at multiple times in the current discussion I've been invoked as some form of Authority.

As for the Fallacy or fallacies - that's actually really interesting, because there are several subjective presuppositions (namely ones views on various political philosophies) and depending on what a priori viewpoints one holds - it could be an Ad Hominem AND a Strawman, it could be either or it could be neither.

Without wishing to wade into the debate - I see Husaberg's point, but I agree with Graystone and Ocean1.

It's the same debate as MMP vs FPP vs the Electoral College etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

What I'm interested to see however, is whether Comrade Cinda will be back at work on Thursday.

Ocean1

31st July 2018, 08:11

husaberg

31st July 2018, 09:08

And this is what a post-election "policy" mash-up gets you:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105873084/justice-committee-fails-to-report-back-on-waka-jumping-bill

Anyone here vote for that shit?
How many voted for Nationals asset sales? You remember the one they said would not occur or would not occur unless they were not cost neutral.
Or how many voted for National to destroy a SOEs profit by making sure that thhe couldn't be changing the power price below aggreed conracted price so national could prop up a Multinationals already huge profit margin.

Or how John Key when wanted to change the flag
He flatly refused a simple yes no referendum and ended up cost NZ 26 Million dollars

At first, Labour supported having a debate on changing the flag.
Politicians from all parties reached agreement on how the referendum should be conducted. But these recommendations were rejected by John Key. He refused to give New Zealanders the basic courtesy of asking if they wanted to change the flag by having the same simple yes/no vote in the first referendum.
He offered his view many times over. In fact he insisted so loudly on a fern that supposedly independent Panel members admitted it influenced them, and they duly chose three fern flags for the final five.
When it became clear that this was about Mr Key, not about what New Zealanders wanted, Labour's withdrew support. Andrew Little.

A Tv reporter asked Winston Peters this morning if he was worried about National (Peters replied without missing a beat) yes but only in a compassionate way.....

Ocean1

31st July 2018, 09:16

How many voted for Nationals asset sales? You remember the one they said would not occur or would not occur unless they were not cost neutral.
Or how many voted for National to destroy a SOEs profit by changing the power price to prop up a Multinationals profit margin. Marking sure thaat

Or how John Key when wanted to change the flag
He flatly refused a simple yes no referendum and ended up cost NZ 26 Million dollars

At first, Labour supported having a debate on changing the flag.
Politicians from all parties reached agreement on how the referendum should be conducted. But these recommendations were rejected by John Key. He refused to give New Zealanders the basic courtesy of asking if they wanted to change the flag by having the same simple yes/no vote in the first referendum.
He offered his view many times over. In fact he insisted so loudly on a fern that supposedly independent Panel members admitted it influenced them, and they duly chose three fern flags for the final five.
When it became clear that this was about Mr Key, not about what New Zealanders wanted, Labour's withdrew support. Andrew Little.

A Tv reporter asked Winston Peters this morning if he was worried about National (Peters replied without missing a beat) yes but only in a compassionate way.....

So, outside of the usual anti-National crap that's a no, is it?

Grumph

31st July 2018, 09:35

I was amused to watch the reporting of the Nats conference. They're still living in a FPP world.

If anyone in the halls of nat power had any sense they'd be starting another party. Maybe farmer based green as ACT has failed to attract any support.
If you have to work with MMP, at least understand it - and work the system.
If things don't change, I'd agree with Winston - Slimeon Bridges won't last.

husaberg

31st July 2018, 09:44

So, outside of the usual anti-National crap that's a no, is it?
As i pointed out to you you only ever post anti Labour crap or pro National propaganda i only reply to your posts to point out your hypocrisy in what you post.
Tell me again why you never complained about the other events i mentioned, which were worse, was it because national was in power then?
If i remember correctly you actually thought they were all good ideas the flag referedum,the bail out of Rio Tinto.
Plus the sale of SOE for no net gain. Against what National had promised prior to elections.

Ocean1

31st July 2018, 11:22

As i poited out to you you only ever post anti Labour crap or pro National propaganda i only reply to your posts to point out your hypocrisy in what you post.
Tell me again why you never complained about the other events i mentioned, which were worse, was it because national was in power then?
If i remember correctly you actually thought they were all good ideas the flag referedum,the bail out of Rio Tinto.
Plus the sale of SOE for no net gain. Against what National had promised prior to elections.

That's a no then.

Neither did the select committee supposed to advise parliament on the bill.

husaberg

31st July 2018, 13:00

That's a no then.

Neither did the select committee supposed to advise parliament on the bill.

This bill amends the Electoral Act 1993 in order to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system by upholding the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined by electors.
A no to what?
You dont vote on individual bills or amendments you vote in general elections youvote for people to make and pass the bills and amendments and policies.

Your article states it went to the select committee did it not.
The select committee can but not always do recommend that public submissions are made, but its only an option
the only thing Nick is up in arms about is they refused to add the national partys members proposed amendments
Which is their right to do so it was an even vote.
Why are you upset The bill was clearly not nationals The goverment never needed to include Nationals proposed amendments.

The likely reason national likely wanted to add amendments is they wished to delay again the implementation of a bill that has remained them to stay in power and benefited them in the past.
If the bill was so close to national heart maybe they should have introduced it themselves in the last three terms they were in government.

You should watch parliament one day and see how they try and do this at every opportunity forcing votes on amendments they know full well they do not have the votes to make.
Their attempted stalling tactics ss called a filibuster.

IN November
National Opposition had lodged 6254 written questions for government ministers
Numerous journalists weighed in on what appeared to be a Loch Ness sized "fishing expedition" – that is a generalised sweep for information, without knowing what you're looking for, hopeful something useful might come up.
Labour's leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, told media National was "spamming" the Government with trivial requests.
: a private member's bill supported by National introducing voluntary membership of tertiary students' associations was not split up into parts as it was originally drafted, meaning each individual clause had to be debated in the Committee of the Whole House, opening the door for excruciating procedural delays over months by Labour MPs. The bill still ultimately passed, though, with the net effect that Labour lost time for advancing its own members' bills.
Years ago Act's John Boscawenonce nce lodged 700 oral questions to members to delay the final reading of Government's legislation.

Oh look you did vote for this attempted delaying tactic.

National leader Bill English warned "it's not our job to make this place run for a minority government".
English was actually talking specifically about National's significant numbers on select committees, meaning the Government will not get a free ride. The three government parties will have to work together closely to take advantage of their slight overall numerical advantage. National only has to keep its own house in order. But even that threat is overstated – where select committees are likely to be split along partisan lines on flagship government policy such as workplace relations, Hipkins has ensured a government majority. The committees with parity between government and non-government members, such as Maori Affairs or Foreign Affairs and Trade, tend to consider issues that are more bipartisan or have little legislation to deal with.

Ocean1

31st July 2018, 15:48

A no to what?
You dont vote on individual bills or amendments you vote in general elections youvote for people to make and pass the bills and amendments and policies.

Your article states it went to the select committee did it not.
The select committee can but not always do recommend that public submissions are made, but its only an option
the only thing Nick is up in arms about is they refused to add the national partys members proposed amendments
Which is their right to do so it was an even vote.
Why are you upset The bill was clearly not nationals The goverment never needed to include Nationals proposed amendments.

The likely reason national likely wanted to add amendments is they wished to delay again the implementation of a bill that has remained them to stay in power and benefited them in the past.
If the bill was so close to national heart maybe they should have introduced it themselves in the last three terms they were in government.

You should watch parliament one day and see how they try and do this at every opportunity forcing votes on amendments they know full well they do not have the votes to make.
Their attempted stalling tactics ss called a filibuster.

IN November
National Opposition had lodged 6254 written questions for government ministers
Numerous journalists weighed in on what appeared to be a Loch Ness sized "fishing expedition" – that is a generalised sweep for information, without knowing what you're looking for, hopeful something useful might come up.
Labour's leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, told media National was "spamming" the Government with trivial requests.
: a private member's bill supported by National introducing voluntary membership of tertiary students' associations was not split up into parts as it was originally drafted, meaning each individual clause had to be debated in the Committee of the Whole House, opening the door for excruciating procedural delays over months by Labour MPs. The bill still ultimately passed, though, with the net effect that Labour lost time for advancing its own members' bills.
Years ago Act's John Boscawenonce nce lodged 700 oral questions to members to delay the final reading of Government's legislation.

Oh look you did vote for this attempted delaying tactic.

My criticism is for the bill, I never suggested it was National's. So why you continue to foam at the mouth at the slightest inference of criticism against the coalition is beyond me. Actually now that I think about it it's not... you're second name doesn't start with Peters does it?

This isn't some supply issue tiff to be haggled over, it's Winston's revenge against his ex NZF mates for jumping his leaky as fuck waka years ago. It's the imposition of party control over elected officials, y'know, the ones supposed to be representing their constituents? It's a serious departure from the principles embodied in a parliamentary democracy, it eliminates accountability for exactly the post election policy blindsides it represents.

And it's obvious that it's Winston's payment for services rendered in that post-election back room deal that bought his votes to Labour. So it's entirely appropriate to point out that not only was this significant reduction in democratic accountability to the voter achieved without any sort of public referendum whatsoever, but that it's designed to transfer yet more control to the party head office and remove it from the electorate?

I can't see how even a rabid socialist could be happy with it to be honest. Especially as it's not yet clear what other power trips Winston demanded for his "support".

Banditbandit

31st July 2018, 16:47

A Freudian slip perchance ???

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105892634/simon-bridges-accidentally-calls-paula-bennett-paula-benefit

husaberg

31st July 2018, 16:50

My criticism is for the bill, I never suggested it was National's. So why you continue to foam at the mouth at the slightest inference of criticism against the coalition is beyond me. Actually now that I think about it it's not... you're second name doesn't start with Peters does it?

This isn't some supply issue tiff to be haggled over, it's Winston's revenge against his ex NZF mates for jumping his leaky as fuck waka years ago. It's the imposition of party control over elected officials, y'know, the ones supposed to be representing their constituents? It's a serious departure from the principles embodied in a parliamentary democracy, it eliminates accountability for exactly the post election policy blindsides it represents.

And it's obvious that it's Winston's payment for services rendered in that post-election back room deal that bought his votes to Labour. So it's entirely appropriate to point out that not only was this significant reduction in democratic accountability to the voter achieved without any sort of public referendum whatsoever, but that it's designed to transfer yet more control to the party head office and remove it from the electorate?

I can't see how even a rabid socialist could be happy with it to be honest. Especially as it's not yet clear what other power trips Winston demanded for his "support".
I am not frothing at the mouth I are only pointing out your hypocrisy
As i pointed out you don't get to vote on bills the bill was entered and has gone through the process.
What you keep over looking it is an Amendment to another bill that has expired
One that despite your ignorance that was not Winston Peters who submitted the original bill but it was Michael Culling who did so.

Waka jumping, New Zealand enacted the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001, which had been introduced by Michael Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cullen_(politician)) in 1999.

A party-hopping law came in under the Labour-Alliance coalition in 2001, but had a sunset clause and expired in September 2005. It was re-introduced two months later , but languished on the order paper until National won the 2008 election - when it was dropped altogether.

Also the 2005 Supreme Court decision between the Act Party and former MP Donna Awatere Huata also was a reason to include the additional clause about party rule compliance.
The court ruled that Huata should be removed from Parliament and replaced by an Act list MP, rather than stay on as an independent.
Also it was always spelled part of the 100 day coalition program.
The bill only expels list MP's who wish to jump ship an electorate MP who chose to leave the party he stood for could stand in a by election rather than by expelled as an MP.
If they truly have the backing of an electorate then the electorate will vote them in no mater what party they stand in.
I also Note 12 of the 34 Waka jumpers of the MMP era have lept from National
In fact Four National MPs have jumped wakas to NZF yet none have gone fron NZF to National:whistle:

If you truly want a referendum go ahead get the 285,000 signatures then
But what good is an referendum or what the people want. It never mattered to National.

The New Zealand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) corporal punishment referendum, 2009 was held from 31 July to 21 August, and was a citizens-initiated referendum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_New_Zealand#Citizens_initiated_refe rendums) on parental corporal punishment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_corporal_punishment). It asked:[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_citizens-initiated_referendum,_2009#cite_note-2)
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Voter turnout was 56.1%. 87.4% of votes answered 'no'. The result of the referendum was non-binding and the New Zealand government did not change the law in response to the outcome.In June 2009, then Prime Minister John Key said that the government would change the law if it was not working, but that he believed the current law was working well

Ocean1

31st July 2018, 19:31

I am not frothing at the mouth I are only pointing out your hypocrisy

No, what you're doing is translating what people say into shit that fits your prejudices, and then arguing against that.

Like I said, a walking straw man generator.

So since you've got nothing relevant or even vaguely rational to contribute I'll leave you to it.

husaberg

31st July 2018, 20:43

No, what you're doing is translating what people say into shit that fits your prejudices, and then arguing against that.

Like I said, a walking straw man generator.

So since you've got nothing relevant or even vaguely rational to contribute I'll leave you to it.
If thats what it takes for you to slink off thinking you still have an ounce of respect go for it.
But if you want to post utter crap expect it to be pointed out for what it is.
You might find your incessant hypocritical whining is better appreciated down at the bowls club.

Katman

31st July 2018, 21:15

Well sparks were certainly flying today with Winston calling Simon a joke and Gerry implying Winston was drunk.

husaberg

31st July 2018, 21:28

Well sparks were certainly flying today with Winston calling Simon a joke and Gerry implying Winston was drunk.
I think you will find it was Nationals party president Peter Goodfellow that said National had dodged a "whisky swilling bullet" by not going into government with Peters.
I think you will also find he was likely more aggrieved at Simon Bridges calling him a poor mans Donald Trump
That one never got much coverage as no one remembers who Simon is.:Oops:

Poll 27th May Simon Bridges 9 percent of the vote for preferred Prime Minister
Which was a fall from 12% in April
Ardern sitting safely at 40.2 percent on the same poll.

337860

the Best one was when Simon called Paula Bennet Paula benefit
The video is here.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12098535
http://werewolf.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Bridges-Bennett-big-326x245.jpg

jasonu

1st August 2018, 02:20

Well sparks were certainly flying today with Winston calling Simon a joke and Gerry implying Winston was drunk.

Both prolly true.

sidecar bob

1st August 2018, 16:41

Didn't take Labour long to slide their hand into the pocket of small business again, as usual.

husaberg

1st August 2018, 17:19

Didn't take Labour long to slide their hand into the pocket of small business again, as usual.
I don't think Paula Bennets benefit fraud was a small business?
PS what happened?

sidecar bob

1st August 2018, 20:49

I don't think Paula Bennets benefit fraud was a small business?
PS what happened?
Aren't you paying attention to govt policy?
10days paid leave per year for idiots that can't identify a suitable spouse.
What the fuck, if they want to introduce a policy like that how is it an employer expense?What happened to social welfare.
Typical Labour, having a lolly scramble using someone else's lollies.

husaberg

1st August 2018, 21:15

Aren't you paying attention to govt policy?
10days paid leave per year for idiots that can't identify a suitable spouse.
What the fuck, if they want to introduce a policy like that how is it an employer expense?What happened to social welfare.
Typical Labour, having a lolly scramble using someone else's lollies.

up to I0 days for victims of domestic violence who are seeking refuges from an abusive spouse yeah It should be the initial responsibility of the government rather than the employers.
But likely a good thing in it may de-stigmatise the secret Domestic violence and make sure its reported as it would have to be reported to qualify for the payment.
I see the Philippines has a similar act and Australia is considering the same.
I see several member of National initially pledged support.
Reading the speeches most of the National speakers said National actually supports the bill but they were concerned about some small business.

JAN LOGIE (Green)
What this research has found is that the initial cost of implementing these policies right across the country would be less than an annual wage increase in a bad year. That is rapidly offset from returns from lower staff turnover and increased productivity. So don't buy the lie that this will be a cost. This is a benefit. In Australia, one of the largest advocates of these policies is the Retailers Association who represents many small and medium-sized businesses.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a call on the third reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill in the name of Jan Logie, and I want to add my congratulations to you, Jan. It must be an amazing feeling to have a bill go down in the history of this Parliament, now and into the future, with your name on it. So congratulations.
What many of my colleagues have said in previous contributions—and even the Hon Tracey Martin has also said it—is that National does support the intent of this bill. A lot of the discussion of the impact around businesses has been and will be our concern, and I just want to reiterate the sentiments that my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro shared in this House. I think that domestic violence is one of those things that just cannot be wiped out through one bill. It needs a multiple approach to actually reduce domestic violence in whānau, and I think that this particular bill, with its narrow focus, starts to do that.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180725_20180725_20