The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

Well I suppose that answers the question.
Well if there was a question answered it would be safe to assume based of past history the answer never came from you or Crasher.....


So do you care about this issue or are you just here due to your fixation on me?
.
Narcissistic much.......

[Katman]

Narcissistic much.......

I knew you'd like it.

[husaberg]

I knew you'd like it.
I like this better


Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had said categorically there had never been a Novichok program.
“I want to state with all possible certainty, that there was no sort of program around the development of 'PS' [poisonous substances] under the name 'Novichok,' neither in the USSR, no in the Russian Federation,” Ryabkov told the Russian news agency Interfax. Around the same time Rink’s interview was published Tuesday, Ryabkov was again quoted by Interfax denying a Novichok program had ever existed.

Its especially great when you add Russian News agency RIA Novosti ran a story based on an interview with Leonid Rink,

Where he said he had overseen a team at a Soviet government lab in central Russia developing the nerve agents. Rink said he had worked for 27 years at the state Scientific Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology in the town of Shikhani. In the article, RIA Novosti refers to Rink as “the creator of Novichok.”
“Novichok was worked on by a big group of specialists in Shikhani And Moscow,” Rink told RIA Novosti. “And the end results were very good.”
https://ria.ru/world/20180320/1516727641.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-denial-secret-nerve-agent-program-seemingly-contradicted/story?id=53882997


It been suggested the the official Formal Russian code name is foliant

Another Russian Scientist said this

Vladimir Uglev, developer of Soviet-era chemical weapons, contradicts Russian denials at existence of novichok nerve agents, Uglev worked in the State Scientific Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology in the city of Shikhany, Saratov region, from 1972 until 1993. He said he handled foliant nerve agents for the last time in 1990. They were not on the list of chemical weapons submitted by Russia as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention signed in 1993. Uglev on Friday said he had been questioned by police immediately after the grisly 1995 murders (https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/09/world/moscow-journal-to-the-business-risks-in-russia-add-poisoning.html) of banker Ivan Kivelidi and his secretary in an apparent poisoning, and recognised a nerve agent synthesised by his own working group at a closed state laboratory near the Volga river.

[TheDemonLord]

So do you care about this issue or are you just here due to your fixation on me?

I've outright stated that I find your take on the issue more interesting than the issue itself...


Well I suppose that answers the question.

Clap.
Clap.

Well done, you finally figured out my ever-so-subtle subterfuge....

But to more directly answer the question - Is it Russia or not - I dunno, not enough evidence either way and too much posturing from either side to draw a definitive conclusion. There's some historical precedents to consider and they certainly don't favor Russia.

[Woodman]

If you guys didn't watch, listen, or read any news then none of this would matter.

Mind you the bickering is entertaining.

[Katman]

If you guys didn't watch, listen, or read any news then none of this would matter.

Perhaps you should just stick with the likes of Married At First Sight and The Bachelorette.

[Woodman]

Perhaps you should just stick with the likes of Married At First Sight and The Bachelorette.

Probably about as much use.

[sidecar bob]

Probably about as much use.

At least you can just turn the TV off, put the cat out & forget about it.

[Woodman]

At least you can just turn the TV off, put the cat out & forget about it.

The news or the reality TV?

Note. I don't watch reality TV either.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Narcissistic much.......

Bro. Only one or two people on this site, bother to dig back pages and years ago to try and make their point time and time again. You're one of them. You're a fucking Tossbag. End of story.

[sidecar bob]

22 cents a litre tax increase on petrol, & a 70kmh limit on the open road. You cunts still happy you voted Labour?
Broken promises much?

[Katman]

You cunts still happy you voted Labour?

Yes, thanks for asking.

[Viking01]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-03/uk-authorities-unable-prove-novichok-nerve-agent-came-russia

Latest statement from Porton Downs lab staff in the UK as of 3 April.


https://sputniknews.com/europe/201804011063124557-opcw-russia-uk-skripal-authority/

Outlines some bounds of what OPCW can be expected to rule upon.


http://thesaker.is/were-not-going-to-participate-in-the-madness-zakharova-says-rf-will-retaliate-but-keep-it-sane/

The video clip referenced in the last link is about 26 minutes. Turn subtitles on for
English translation. Gives an overview and a Russian perspective of this whole affair.

The Russians haven't lost their sense of humour (refer 17 minute 30 second mark onwards).


Await the output from the OPCW Executive Council meeting to be held later today.

[Crasherfromwayback]

. You cunts still happy you voted Labour?
Broken promises much?

Very. You still sulking? And how's your memory? Raising the GST rate right after the election ring any bells for ya?

[sidecar bob]

Cool. So these dopey cunts could pretty much do anything & you clowns will find a historic reason why national was worse. Youre pretty much the perfect sheeple.

[RDJ]

Very. You still sulking? And how's your memory? Raising the GST rate right after the election ring any bells for ya?

Yeah. You can ignore reality. But you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. The reality is, the Toothy Commie Pregnancy Role Model can't hack the pace, and the Grey Geriatric Serial Scammer voted for by 3% of the population will be PM. Chickens, meet Roost.

[RDJ]

Cool. So these dopey cunts could pretty much do anything & you clowns will find a historic reason why national was worse. Youre pretty much the perfect sheeple.

That's the summary.

[RDJ]

Very. You still sulking? And how's your memory? Raising the GST rate right after the election ring any bells for ya?

National ain't the Guvvermin right now, buckwheat.

[Crasherfromwayback]

National ain't the Guvvermin right now, buckwheat.

I know right! Awesome news eh. Enjoy it.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yeah. You can ignore reality. But you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. The reality is, the Toothy Commie Pregnancy Role Model can't hack the pace, and the Grey Geriatric Serial Scammer voted for by 3% of the population will be PM. Chickens, meet Roost.

I'll give you a lil tip, just for free (it'll save you a lot of humiliation in the future). People with an IQ of similar numbers to their shoe size, should never try and sound all profound like.

[RDJ]

I'll give you a lil tip, just for free (it'll save you a lot of humiliation in the future). People with an IQ of similar numbers to their shoe size, should never try and sound all profound like.

Wow. Awesome rebuttal. Not.

[Swoop]

22 cents a litre tax increase on petrol, & a 70kmh limit on the open road. You cunts still happy you voted Labour?
Broken promises much?
That's only the beginning...

So much for standing for "the poor, downtrodden sector of society". Fuel taxes will raise the prices of groceries and everyday items because they get applied to transport costs via diesel.



Remember that liarbour LOVE taxes. It is the one and only tool in their "fix it" kit.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Wow. Awesome rebuttal. Not.

Pot-Kettle. Retard.

[Crasherfromwayback]

That's only the beginning...

So much for standing for "the poor, downtrodden sector of society". Fuel taxes will raise the prices of groceries and everyday items because they get applied to transport costs via diesel.



Remember that liarbour LOVE taxes. It is the one and only tool in their "fix it" kit.

You could always raise the GST rate right after being elected! Oh hang on...that was National that did that! :bleh:

[Swoop]

You could always raise the GST rate right after being elected! Oh hang on...that was National that did that! :bleh:

And why was that necessary?
Oh yes, liarbour emptied the coffers by buying a broken train set.

Why? Nobody likes rail* but the unions pull the red puppet strings in the backroom, so ...


* Rail should be used to get trucks off of the roads, but hey...

[Crasherfromwayback]

And why was that necessary?
Oh yes, liarbour emptied the coffers by buying a broken train set.

Lol. Well, we could sell some shit to help us out I guess? Oh hag on, that was National that did that! They sold all the ones making real money. Wicked!

[Swoop]

Lol. Well, we could sell some shit to help us out I guess? Oh hag on, that was National that did that! They sold all the ones making real money. Wicked!
Garage sale out back of Wellington's Circular Wind Tunnel?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Garage sale out back of Wellington's Circular Wind Tunnel?

I'm chuffed. Because the cheaper electricity JK promised is still coming!

[Swoop]

I'm chuffed. Because the cheaper electricity JK promised is still coming!

A windfarm on top of the beehive would generate loads from all the hot air produced!:yes:

[Crasherfromwayback]

A windfarm on top of the beehive would generate loads from all the hot air produced!:yes:

Or just hook up a hose to Paula Bennett's ass and use all the methane.

[Swoop]

Or just hook up a hose to Paula Bennett's ass and use all the methane.

The lunatic-fringe party will want to add a tax on that.
Or sign up to some new UN protocol of environmental "subsidies" which cost the country.

[mashman]

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.". When you vote for the left right seesaw of haven't got a clue, what the hell do you expect. Each government blames the previous government for the current problems, because they know you'll accept it. such has worked for decades and you still get to see the same lolfest "oooo the left did this back on the 90s." v's "yeah but the right did this back on the 80s." v's "oooo the left did this back on the 70s." v's "yeah but the right did this back on the 60s.". Maybe there's a pattern emerging. Maybe not. But, erm. Yeah, just carry on voting for the bigger parties, coz they won't lie to us and sure know how to manage rockstar economies. It'd be funny if it weren't stifling innovation.

[TheDemonLord]

Imma just leave this here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anx4e1i4k5w

[Woodman]

Cool. So these dopey cunts could pretty much do anything & you clowns will find a historic reason why national was worse. Youre pretty much the perfect sheeple.

The cunts are cuntstruck by that cunt they voted for

[sidecar bob]

The cunts are cuntstruck by that cunt they voted for

She doesn't look too hot when she's doing the possum caught in the headlights backpedal.

[husaberg]

Bro. Only one or two people on this site, bother to dig back pages and years ago to try and make their point time and time again. You're one of them. You're a fucking Tossbag. End of story.


Very. You still sulking? And how's your memory? Raising the GST rate right after the election ring any bells for ya?


You could always raise the GST rate right after being elected! Oh hang on...that was National that did that! :bleh:


Lol. Well, we could sell some shit to help us out I guess? Oh hag on, that was National that did that! They sold all the ones making real money. Wicked!


I'm chuffed. Because the cheaper electricity JK promised is still coming!

I guess that makes you the other one.............hypocrite thy name is Pete:facepalm:

[Crasherfromwayback]

I guess that makes you the other one.............hypocrite thy name is Pete:facepalm:

Spot the difference, you docile cunt? How many quotes have I dug up from these people, from years past eh? Ummmm...let's see...exactly none. Do you even have a fucking job? Apart from stalking 17 year old girls that is?

[husaberg]

Spot the difference, you docile cunt? How many quotes have I dug up from these people, from years past eh? Ummmm...let's see...exactly none. Do you even have a fucking job? Apart from stalking 17 year old girls that is?

Hypocrite thy name is Pete.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Hypocrite thy name is Pete.

Prob better that, than a potential paedo, eh Glenn?

[sidecar bob]

Prob better that, than a potential paedo, eh Glenn?

Don't bring up the Labour Party youth camp thingy again. I thought that was dead & buried.

[husaberg]

Prob better that, than a potential paedo, eh Glenn?
Ever wondered what makes you a hypocrite Pete..........
I will give you a clue it the content of your posts

[Crasherfromwayback]

Don't bring up the Labour Party youth camp thingy again. I thought that was dead & buried.

Hahaha..blame it on the alcohol!

[Crasherfromwayback]

Ever wondered what makes you a hypocrite Pete..........


I'll leave your edited bit out (as that's your fav trick). But the day you can show me sexually stalking a 17 year old girl, is the day you can call me a hypocrite when it comes to that particular tag. Until then, you alone own it. Glenn. :msn-wink:

[husaberg]

I'll leave your edited bit out (as that's your fav trick). But the day you can show me sexually stalking a 17 year old girl, is the day you can call me a hypocrite when it comes to that particular tag. Until then, you alone own it. Glenn. :msn-wink:
Makes up as much crap as you want, its your traditional MO that along with your general hypocrisy.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Makes up as much crap as you want, its your traditional MO that along with your general hypocrisy.

I'd dig out the scary posts if I was as a sad a fuck as yourself. But no, I have a life.

[husaberg]

I'd dig out the scary posts if I was as a sad a fuck as yourself. But no, I have a life.

Go for it........No mater what you thought you could drag up wouldn't change the fact that you are an epic hypocrite, it would only prove it further.

[Graystone]

22 cents a litre tax increase on petrol, & a 70kmh limit on the open road. You cunts still happy you voted Labour?
Broken promises much?

Is that all you've got?

Maybe I should have voted labour if that scaremongering drivel is all the detractors have :sunny:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Go for it.........

Nah. I actually have a life outside of KB and Kiddie porn.

[husaberg]

Nah. I actually have a life outside of KB and Kiddie porn.
Your posts today starting at 1PM today suggest otherwise......
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183438-The-2017-Election-Thread?p=1131091996#post1131091996

[Katman]

Your posts today starting at 1PM today suggest otherwise......

Stalker alert.

[husaberg]

Stalker alert.
If it wasn't actually him quoting one of my own post you might have me:bleh:

[sidecar bob]

Is that all you've got?

Maybe I should have voted labour if that scaremongering drivel is all the detractors have :sunny:

No, that was just today's hand in the taxpayers pocket up to the nutsack.
Wait until next month, when they extend the capital gains tax on investment property out to five years.
I'm not guessing on that one, it will happen.
Also, extending paid holiday to five weeks a year, just like Helens govt took it from three weeks to four. Another 2.5% increase in non productive wages that business will have to find, on top of paying more for everything due to the fuel tax.
Do you think the lower socioeconomic pleb that Labour attract are going to be better off somehow?

[_Shrek_]

good to see nothings changed :corn: :laugh:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Your posts today starting at 1PM today suggest otherwise......

Unlike you, Fuck Face, I'm off work due to some pretty serious shoulder surgery. You know...from when racing *motorcycles* goes wrong!? You do ride motorcycles don't you, Glenn?

Maybe not. Too busy stalking under age girls I guess. Mind you, 1PM ain't a great time for that eh? Is 3PM better Glenn?



Stalker alert.

You're not wrong mate. Fucking incredible that Glenn hasn't dug up twenty pages of quotes from twenty years ago!

[husaberg]

No, that was just today's hand in the taxpayers pocket up to the nutsack.
Wait until next month, when they extend the capital gains tax on investment property out to five years.
I'm not guessing on that one, it will happen.
Also, extending paid holiday to five weeks a year, just like Helens govt took it from three weeks to four. Another 2.5% increase in non productive wages that business will have to find, on top of paying more for everything due to the fuel tax.
Do you think the lower socioeconomic pleb that Labour attract are going to be better off somehow?
I must admit was a bit miffed when Helen and Co put the holidays out to 4 weeks, But only because where I work we already had that anyway;)
As for Capital Gains Tax well boohoo its profit ,if its turned over in the short term its clearly income. Thus it should be taxed.
The last farm I sold I made a Capital gain of 50% in 15 months, yet I paid no tax on the income, its loophole that needs tightening.
I understand your point of view as you are still investing in property but you will still have the capital gains you will just need to look at it a long term that's all.
Its not as if you will actually lose money because your capital gains are not realised until its actually sold, Much like gains or loses in share prices

[Crasherfromwayback]

The last farm I sold I made a Capital gain of 50% in 15 months, yet I paid no tax on the income

Fuck Glenn...you're the man!!!!!

[Crasherfromwayback]

Stalker alert.


If it wasn't actually him quoting one of my own post you might have me:bleh:

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/83438-The-2017-Election-Thread/page135

Hey look! Old 17 year old girl stalker is digging up posts from 2008! Ten years worth of digging. Fancy that! What are the odds?

[jasonu]

She doesn't look too hot when she's doing the possum caught in the headlights backpedal.

and of late that is just about a daily occurrence...



Maybe she'll take an early and extended maternity leave. It's not like that will have any effect on her job performance though.....

[Katman]

Do you think the lower socioeconomic pleb that Labour attract are going to be better off somehow?

And we're all well aware of your contempt for 'lower socioeconomic plebs'.

[Voltaire]

We need some real news media, not some talkback host and his wife along with old git Barry and his Missus.:lol:

[sidecar bob]

And we're all well aware of your contempt for 'lower socioeconomic plebs'.

Well yes, they need to pay a bit more tax to prop up all the shit that gets handed to them. I spent my lunchtime yesterday having all the different taxes I need to pay in the next six months explained to me by my accountant, so it's a bit raw at the moment & that didn't include any fuel tax or GST on daily items, just the big lump sum stuff with regard to my personal circumstances. Anyone that has only ever paid PAYE (which your boss collects & pays on your behalf anyway) couldn't even imagine what really goes on once you go much beyond that.
As for CGT on property, I'm fine with paying that, it's just that its going to, in a round about way, come from a non property owning, lower socioeconomic pleb tenants pocket. Having said that, I have tenants that I suspect are far better off than me too.
I can't just pull it out of my arse can I? I take these risks to improve my own quality of life, not to get the bejesus taxed out of me & end up with zero reward so people that are too chicken little to do it can benefit instead.
And wait for the following in the next three years, increased fines for anything that you can be fined for, sold to us as crime disincentive, a rise in GST & a rise in vehicle rego fees, to name a few.
They said no new taxes, but they said nothing about hiking the shit out of existing ones, even though they have introduced a new tax already anyway.

[oldrider]

We need some real news media, not some talkback host and his wife along with old git Barry and his Missus.:lol:

Donald J Trump tweets. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F

[husaberg]

As for CGT on property, I'm fine with paying that, it's just that its going to, in a round about way, come from a non property owning, lower socioeconomic pleb tenants pocket. Having said that, I have tenants that I suspect are far better off than me too.
I can't just pull it out of my arse can I? I take these risks to improve my own quality of life, not to get the bejesus taxed out of me & end up with zero reward so people that are too chicken little to do it can benefit instead.
And wait for the following in the next three years, increased fines for anything that you can be fined for, sold to us as crime disincentive, a rise in GST & a rise in vehicle rego fees, to name a few.
They said no new taxes, but they said nothing about hiking the shit out of existing ones, even though they have introduced a new tax already anyway.

I am a bit puzzled as your comment about capital gains tax.
Because you only need to pay the CGT on property when you sell the property within a defined time frame.
So its not as if you are going to have to pay a tax without getting the income first now is it., what you are referring to do, is too charge your tenants because you are now having to pay a tax on a income that is only realised when a property is actually sold. So that has nothing to do with their property they are renting at all.
As for increased GST it was National that last raised it, They said at the time they raised it in 2010 to pay for tax cuts. Did you moan about that then?
Also as a legitimate business you can claim back the GST you pay or conversely charge the rate higher to cover the cost, so what's the issue with GST its a tax only really paid by people not in business or for non business costs. Poor people on the whole actually pay a higher rate of their income as GST as in their case its spend the necessities of life, Food ,Rent etc yet they have no ability to claim this back.
If Labour was smart about it they would ensure only luxury goods and travel had higher rates of GST plus lower the rates of GST on basic staples of Food, Rates etc.

[Swoop]

I am a bit puzzled as your comment about capital gains tax.
Because you only need to pay the CGT on property when you sell the property within a defined time frame.

That isn't enacted as law yet, so the real behind-the-scenes agenda will come out IF liarbour bring this tax in on property (remember it isn't just "houses" but any investment).
Liarbour love taxes.


A bit like the increase of GST to 15%... If it was soooooooo bad they would have repealed it when they got into government.
No sign of that happening is there...?

[Crasherfromwayback]

A bit like the increase of GST to 15%... If it was soooooooo bad they would have repealed it when they got into government.
No sign of that happening is there...?

That's a lame argument even for you.

[husaberg]

That isn't enacted as law yet, so the real behind-the-scenes agenda will come out IF liarbour bring this tax in on property (remember it isn't just "houses" but any investment).
Liarbour love taxes.


A bit like the increase of GST to 15%... If it was soooooooo bad they would have repealed it when they got into government.
No sign of that happening is there...?

True, but what I was saying was in reply to Bobs doom and gloom analogy.
I think you really need to explain why income in your opinion that is solely derived from short term investments need to be not treated as income?
Especially when you consider that same profit of money placed in a bank earning interest is actually taxed as being income.

[Graystone]

No, that was just today's hand in the taxpayers pocket up to the nutsack.
Wait until next month, when they extend the capital gains tax on investment property out to five years.
I'm not guessing on that one, it will happen.
Also, extending paid holiday to five weeks a year, just like Helens govt took it from three weeks to four. Another 2.5% increase in non productive wages that business will have to find, on top of paying more for everything due to the fuel tax.
Do you think the lower socioeconomic pleb that Labour attract are going to be better off somehow?

In the taxpayers pocket? Tell me, have either of those things been pushed through and legislated?
Here I thought TDL was king of shit analogies...

One can only hope they sort out the investment property bullshit, why not just make it so people pay tax on their investment gains; novel strategy that it may be :facepalm:

[Crasherfromwayback]

One can only hope they sort out the investment property bullshit, why not just make it so people pay tax on their investment gains; novel strategy that it may be :facepalm:

I think I read somewhere that nearly every National politician owned at least two properties? Hardly surprising they don't want to get taxed for doing so eh?

[sidecar bob]

I think I read somewhere that nearly every National politician owned at least two properties? Hardly surprising they don't want to get taxed for doing so eh?

I'd be surprised if it was only two.
Anyway, I was the guy that spent the day running around on an ageing Yamaha Majesty scooter that owes well under a grand, doing his chores today.
I'm not sure how many times I've denied myself the latest Porsche turbo in favour of buying property, but maybe it's time to stop paying tax on property & indulge myself so I look like more of a tool than I do riding my scooter & reduce my tax liability in to the bargain.:msn-wink:

[Ocean1]

why not just make it so people pay tax on their investment gains; novel strategy that it may be :facepalm:

Because taxing capital gains on residential property investments makes it more profitable to stick your money in the bank.

According to a local senior agent the market is already bulging with medium to low end properties as investors move equity elsewhere. And you thought you already had a housing crisis. :laugh:

[Graystone]

Because taxing capital gains on residential property investments makes it more profitable to stick your money in the bank.

According to a local senior agent the market is already bulging with medium to low end properties as investors move equity elsewhere. And you thought you already had a housing crisis. :laugh:

Or invest in local business. I fail to see the problem in making housing speculation unprofitable.

Must be a different market than the one I'm looking at then!

[TheDemonLord]

Here I thought TDL was king

I've only claimed to be a Lord, but now that you mention it....

[TheDemonLord]

Or invest in local business.

Most businesses aren't ready for outside investment, especially smaller, local Businesses.

[Ocean1]

Or invest in local business. I fail to see the problem in making housing speculation unprofitable.

Must be a different market than the one I'm looking at then!

Kiwis invest in their own businesses.

You don't see fewer rental properties available as a problem, then?

Dunno, hereabouts there's a bunch of low value, (read "deferred maintenance") properties for sale. And a lot of boomers buying their kids houses. Get the picture?

[Voltaire]

Kiwi's invest in their own businesses.

You don't see fewer rental properties available as a problem, then?

Dunno, hereabouts there's a bunch of low value, (read "deferred maintenance") properties for sale. And a lot of boomers buying their kids houses. Get the picture?

Whats low value is Wellington?

500K buys you a grotty flat an hours drive ( on the motorway/carpark) in very South Auckland.

I assisted one of my Sons into a nicer than my place house in Rotorua for just over 300 K a couple of years ago.

On $27 an hour as a just out of time sparkie he's living the dream me thinks.

[Voltaire]

I'd be surprised if it was only two.
Anyway, I was the guy that spent the day running around on an ageing Yamaha Majesty scooter that owes well under a grand, doing his chores today.
I'm not sure how many times I've denied myself the latest Porsche turbo in favour of buying property, but maybe it's time to stop paying tax on property & indulge myself so I look like more of a tool than I do riding my scooter & reduce my tax liability in to the bargain.:msn-wink:

Go on ....treat yourself to Porsche.

[husaberg]

Go on ....treat yourself to Porsche.

He should buy a vintage one no depreciation and no CGT.....

[Graystone]

Kiwis invest in their own businesses.

You don't see fewer rental properties available as a problem, then?

Dunno, hereabouts there's a bunch of low value, (read "deferred maintenance") properties for sale. And a lot of boomers buying their kids houses. Get the picture?

It's not 1963 anymore, kiwis should wake up and invest in kiwi businesses to create wealth for the country, not just shift money around from rich to poor and back again. We've had significant foreign investment, so to go the profits...

I don't see why closing the CGT loophole should lead to fewer rentals available.

Not so much round here, we're still seeing prices double what the build price was less than ten years ago. With land an new build prices scaled to match. The only way the kids can afford to buy housing is help from the baby boomers when the purchase price is 5-10 years salary, instead of the 2-3 it was for their generation. How the fuck can you look at that situation, and not see anything wrong with it?

[TheDemonLord]

It's not 1963 anymore, kiwis should wake up and invest in kiwi businesses to create wealth for the country, not just shift money around from rich to poor and back again. We've had significant foreign investment, so to go the profits...

And why do you think that Kiwis don't invest in business?




Not so much round here, we're still seeing prices double what the build price was less than ten years ago. With land an new build prices scaled to match. The only way the kids can afford to buy housing is help from the baby boomers when the purchase price is 5-10 years salary, instead of the 2-3 it was for their generation. How the fuck can you look at that situation, and not see anything wrong with it?

Compare the size of house that was typical for a baby boomer to own as their first house to the size of first house that most people are looking to buy.

I don't think you can lay all the trouble at the feet of those evil investors.

I put forward that there are some social factors to consider - such as more people studying at uni for 3-5 years vs gaining an apprenticeship. Also people are entering into a committed relationship later in life (thus delaying the associated benefits), people are flatting for longer, often under the auspices of saving for a deposit, but yet still finding the time, money and energy to 'party' and generally enjoy life. Not that I'm saying life shouldn't be enjoyed - I'm saying that to play the long game, often has a better net result.

It's interesting cause last week I bought a new car, and on the test drive, the Sales guy (who was only a few months older than me) and he made a glib comment about Auckland housing - and was surprised to know that I owned a house (well, 28.9% of it) and we chatted about it. We talked about the individual choices we had made and where they had taken us in our respective lives. He echoed many statements and situations I've heard from people of my generation and yet as we talked, it always seemed to come back to the choices we made, as opposed to some overarching Boogeyman.

I guess it's easier to blame the fat cat investors, than to take a good look at the parts of yourself you don't want to look at.

[jasonu]

I am very surprised at the number of posters here that are OK, happy and willing to pay more tax, govt fees and higher prices all being proposed by your new leaders.

[Grumph]

I am very surprised at the number of posters here that are OK, happy and willing to pay more tax, govt fees and higher prices all being proposed by your new leaders.

Generally, it's because most here see that we have pretty good health, education and welfare programmes - payment for which comes out of that tax.

You voted with your feet. How much does your health insurance cost you ? Have you a retirement plan ? Is it affordable or will you simply come home and get NZ Super ?
Your current leader is taking you down the trade wars path, wait and see how much the US cost of living rises before throwing stones in this direction.

[jasonu]

Generally, it's because most here see that we have pretty good health, education and welfare programmes - payment for which comes out of that tax.

You voted with your feet. How much does your health insurance cost you ? Have you a retirement plan ? Is it affordable or will you simply come home and get NZ Super ?
Your current leader is taking you down the trade wars path, wait and see how much the US cost of living rises before throwing stones in this direction.

I am referring to the new and increased taxes your leaders promised wouldn’t happen.

As for me, health, dental and vision insurance for me and my wife is covered by my employer, my retirement plan is no different to what my friends in NZ have and when I do retire I will get social security (pension) until I die.
The cost of living in the states would have to dramatically increase to come even close to that of NZ. A dollar goes a LOT further here.

[sidecar bob]

Whats low value is Wellington?

500K buys you a grotty flat an hours drive ( on the motorway/carpark) in very South Auckland.

I assisted one of my Sons into a nicer than my place house in Rotorua for just over 300 K a couple of years ago.

On $27 an hour as a just out of time sparkie he's living the dream me thinks.

Well I would be too if my dad had stumped up a house for me.
Re the public health system. I currently have an injured wife & sick mother & have to say that the public health system is absolutely fucking brilliant compared to ten years ago, thanks to three terms under National.
My view is that currently, paying for additional health insurance is a complete rort & a waste of money, but maybe wait & see how fucked it is under a couple of terms with Labour before you all go chucking your policies away.

[oldrider]

The only income the government has - (is "your" income?) - Tax and borrow tax and borrow tax and borrow - who else is there to pay for that? :scratch:

[Swoop]

That's a lame argument even for you.
But a valid one.
Much like the whining and throwing a paddy, that a fat kid who didn't make it to the pie shop before closing time throws, over the foreshore and seabed bill.
If it was so bad, then now's the time to "do it" while they are the gubbinment.


I think you really need to explain why income in your opinion that is solely derived from short term investments need to be not treated as income?
Especially when you consider that same profit of money placed in a bank earning interest is actually taxed as being income.
The problem is that it is all guesswork because of the lack of policy that the marxists have put out so far.

He should buy a vintage one no depreciation and no CGT.....
And low rego costs!

[husaberg]

The problem is that it is all guesswork because of the lack of policy that the marxists have put out so far.


Its not guess work that currently long term real estate investments are not taxed for the profit while bank deposits are though.

. And low rego costs
Not to mention he can claim all repairs and maintenance, depreciation on it in the interim period.....
Call it a tractor. Would actually work with a Lamborghini.
I might be wrong but pretty sure it was Labour that got rid of stamp duty and death duties.

[Crasherfromwayback]

But a valid one.

If it was so bad, then now's the time to "do it" while they are the gubbinment.


!

Then you'd moan like a stuck cunt about them raising the money elsewhere.

[sidecar bob]

I don't see why closing the CGT loophole should lead to fewer rentals available.



I do. . . . . . .

[husaberg]

I do. . . . . . .
Have you considered that a result of less uncontrolled and tax free speculation in the NZ property market, that people might be able to afford to buy rather than being forced to rent from the property speculators.

[Graystone]

And why do you think that Kiwis don't invest in business?



Compare the size of house that was typical for a baby boomer to own as their first house to the size of first house that most people are looking to buy.

I don't think you can lay all the trouble at the feet of those evil investors.

I put forward that there are some social factors to consider - such as more people studying at uni for 3-5 years vs gaining an apprenticeship. Also people are entering into a committed relationship later in life (thus delaying the associated benefits), people are flatting for longer, often under the auspices of saving for a deposit, but yet still finding the time, money and energy to 'party' and generally enjoy life. Not that I'm saying life shouldn't be enjoyed - I'm saying that to play the long game, often has a better net result.

It's interesting cause last week I bought a new car, and on the test drive, the Sales guy (who was only a few months older than me) and he made a glib comment about Auckland housing - and was surprised to know that I owned a house (well, 28.9% of it) and we chatted about it. We talked about the individual choices we had made and where they had taken us in our respective lives. He echoed many statements and situations I've heard from people of my generation and yet as we talked, it always seemed to come back to the choices we made, as opposed to some overarching Boogeyman.

I guess it's easier to blame the fat cat investors, than to take a good look at the parts of yourself you don't want to look at.

Compare the size of the attached land.
Compare the minimum size you are allowed to build under most covenants.
Compare the cost of the land.
They do not scale well with the mean number of years income required to purchase a house.

I'm looking at the difficulty of crossing the divide between 'fat cat investors' and 'unseemly selves' as you put it. I get that you can still own a house by making the 'right choices', but the number of 'right choices' has plummeted since baby boomers, certianly in part due to property investors/speculation.

[Graystone]

Have you considered that a result of less uncontrolled and tax free speculation in the NZ property market, that people might be able to afford to buy rather than being forced to rent from the property speculators.

Good point, yeh that would reduce the number of rentals available. Sounds like a good thing in that case.

[Ocean1]

It's not 1963 anymore, kiwis should wake up and invest in kiwi businesses to create wealth for the country, not just shift money around from rich to poor and back again. We've had significant foreign investment, so to go the profits...

I don't see why closing the CGT loophole should lead to fewer rentals available.

Not so much round here, we're still seeing prices double what the build price was less than ten years ago. With land an new build prices scaled to match. The only way the kids can afford to buy housing is help from the baby boomers when the purchase price is 5-10 years salary, instead of the 2-3 it was for their generation. How the fuck can you look at that situation, and not see anything wrong with it?

Like I said, Kiwis do invest in Kiwi businesses, their own. Demanding they invest their money where you want is a very socialist thing, though, to be sure.

Increasing taxes in ANY area decreases investment there. Bob's far from the only slumlord flogging off his rundown million dollar shack. If he's got any brains he'll be blowing the lot on hookers, off shore parties and bikes before Juicinda's tax working party notices it's gone.

What's the current build rice expressed as gdp/2M? Or in the old money hrs worked per sqft? I think you'll find it's moved fuck all in the last generation in spite of the proliferation of grasping bureaucrats, rapacious local authorities ratcheting up compliance costs and monopoly materials providers. Which is pretty much all I see wrong with the rice of houses.

I reckon if you arseholed all the rorts involved in building nowadays you could knock up that 900sqft clapboard bungalow you're talking about for about a quarter of the current mean build price.

[Ocean1]

I do. . . . . . .

:laugh: Aye, me too, this time next month they'll all be gone.

I see a nice shiny new boat in my future. Ideally one registered elsewhere.

[husaberg]

Increasing taxes in ANY area decreases investment there. Bob's far from the only slumlord flogging off his rundown million dollar shack. If he's got any brains he'll be blowing the lot on hookers, off shore parties and bikes before Juicinda's tax working party notices it's gone.

.
So why was there not a peep out of you when the Nats increased GST then?
Could it be for the reasons I previously mentioned?
In case you haven't noticed more houses on the north island market is good, as you guys are always going on that the property shortage driving up the price.
Could it be that mass property speculation as a result of their not being a CGT was one of the leading drivers Aucklands property bubble?

[Graystone]

Like I said, Kiwis do invest in Kiwi businesses, their own. Demanding they invest their money where you want is a very socialist thing, though, to be sure.

Increasing taxes in ANY area decreases investment there. Bob's far from the only slumlord flogging off his rundown million dollar shack. If he's got any brains he'll be blowing the lot on hookers, off shore parties and bikes before Juicinda's tax working party notices it's gone.

What's the current build rice expressed as gdp/2M? Or in the old money hrs worked per sqft? I think you'll find it's moved fuck all in the last generation in spite of the proliferation of grasping bureaucrats, rapacious local authorities ratcheting up compliance costs and monopoly materials providers. Which is pretty much all I see wrong with the rice of houses.

I reckon if you arseholed all the rorts involved in building nowadays you could knock up that 900sqft clapboard bungalow you're talking about for about a quarter of the current mean build price.

Should, probably shouldn't be considered a demanding term...

Good, have you not been listening at all? we want to decrease investment and speculation in houses.

Well, income has been rising about 3%, house sizes about 2%, so as long as house prices are only rising about 5% you'd be spot on.

https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/New-Zealand/Price-History

Whopsie daisy, looks like you're short about 2-5%, now 2% may not sound like much, but it only takes 35 years for that 2% to double the purchase price. Admittedly 35 years is longer than a generation, 25 years still results in a most certainly not fuck all, 65% increase.

That's data over the whole country btw, statistically relevant but who the fuck wants to live in Morrinsville.

[husaberg]

Well I would be too if my dad had stumped up a house for me.
Re the public health system. I currently have an injured wife & sick mother & have to say that the public health system is absolutely fucking brilliant compared to ten years ago, thanks to three terms under National.
My view is that currently, paying for additional health insurance is a complete rort & a waste of money, but maybe wait & see how fucked it is under a couple of terms with Labour before you all go chucking your policies away.
Your gut feeling is not really backed by the actual stats though is it. Don't be fooled by the National party subterfuge of calling them elective and then farming them out to the private sector.......

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/90770259/thousands-left-off-surgery-waiting-lists-suffering-indefinitely--study
http://www.coveryours.co.nz/2016/10/04/waiting-for-surgery/
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/301147/thousands-on-hold-over-surgery

[Ocean1]

Should, probably shouldn't be considered a demanding term...

Good, have you not been listening at all? we want to decrease investment and speculation in houses.

Well, income has been rising about 3%, house sizes about 2%, so as long as house prices are only rising about 5% you'd be spot on.

https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/New-Zealand/Price-History

Whopsie daisy, looks like you're short about 2-5%, now 2% may not sound like much, but it only takes 35 years for that 2% to double the purchase price. Admittedly 35 years is longer than a generation, 25 years still results in a most certainly not fuck all, 65% increase.

That's data over the whole country btw, statistically relevant but who the fuck wants to live in Morrinsville.

Oh I'm sure your preferences for how others spend their money is driven by the very best intentions. It always is.

You must have missed my point about less investment resulting in fewer assets.

And your arithmetic fails to describe the fact that while houses may now cost twice as much in terms of family income they are in fact well over twice the size. It also fails to address the fact that interest rates, (y'know, what actually drives housing ownership affordability) are at historic lows.

Again, if you pine for a low spec bungalow on a quarter acre then you might be well served by asking who's stopping you buying one for the same price your dear old dad did.

[Ocean1]

So why was there not a peep out of you when the Nats increased GST then?
Could it be for the reasons I previously mentioned?
In case you haven't noticed more houses on the north island market is good, as you guys are always going on that the property shortage driving up the price.
Could it be that mass property speculation as a result of their not being a CGT was one of the leading drivers Aucklands property bubble?

Seems unlikely I failed to peep like fuck about any increase in GST. I certainly didn't bother taking any notice of whatever reasons you might have mentioned.

More houses on the market aren't actually the same thing as more houses, dude. And as I've just been saying, most economists have predicted that the introduction of a CGT on residential properties would result in less investment, and subsequently fewer available properties. As of right now have zero fucks available to give, I'm out of the market altogether.

[Graystone]

Oh I'm sure your references for how others spend their money is driven by the very best intentions. It always is.

You must have missed my point about less investment resulting in fewer assets.

And your arithmetic fails to describe the fact that while houses may now cost twice as much in terms of family income they are in fact well over twice the size. It also fails to address the fact that interest rates, (y'know, what actually drives housing ownership affordability) are at historic lows.

Again, if you pine for a low spec bungalow on a quarter acre then you might be well served by asking who's stopping you buying one for the same price your dear old dad did.

As is the way it always should be.

Ah right, so less investment could lead to some sort of 'housing crisis', well it's a great thing that could never happen now right :facepalm:

That was the 2% bit of the arithmetic describing it rather well I thought. What fucking reality are you living in? housing affordability is driven by mortgage repayments, which is driven primarily by the price, interest rate is still a big factor, but it is a secondary one.

There are none available for the price my dad paid; do try and keep up with the conversation will you.

[husaberg]

Seems unlikely I failed to peep like fuck about any increase in GST. I certainly didn't bother taking any notice of whatever reasons you might have mentioned.

More houses on the market aren't actually the same thing as more houses, dude. And as I've just been saying, most economists have predicted that the introduction of a CGT on residential properties would result in less investment, and subsequently fewer available properties. As of right now have zero fucks available to give, I'm out of the market altogether.
Point to the posts where you wee outraged about National raising GST then?

Also Congratulations ocean you just invented a whole new form of economics where a heathy supply of goods does not limit the increase in value or lower the value of said commodity.
Because without the competition from the investors in the Auckland housing market driving up prices, some of those renter plebs would have been able to afford to buy said houses rather than rent from property investors.
Sorry Ocean everyone in the world cant make a living selling mcdonalds burgers to each other one day and buying it the next.
Which is the zenith of the right wing free market economy.

<strike></strike>

[pritch]

22 cents a litre tax increase on petrol, & a 70kmh limit on the open road. You cunts still happy you voted Labour?
Broken promises much?

A 70 kph limit? If you're going to worry about something at least worry about something realistic. Another point of view might be that National have ignored Auckland's infrastructure problems for so long that eventually somebody had to do something.

Last I read the southern motorway is still a parking lot. You going to blame that on the current govenment too? :whistle:

[Ocean1]

As is the way it always should be.

Ah right, so less investment could lead to some sort of 'housing crisis', well it's a great thing that could never happen now right :facepalm:

That was the 2% bit of the arithmetic describing it rather well I thought. What fucking reality are you living in? housing affordability is driven by mortgage repayments, which is driven primarily by the price, interest rate is still a big factor, but it is a secondary one.

There are none available for the price my dad paid; do try and keep up with the conversation will you.

Minding one's own knitting is always sound policy.

Obviously.

Actually affordability is driven by the buyer's decision to accept the total ongoing costs. There's a bunch of whiney arsed pricks that figure that choice shouldn't be available to them. See the knitting thing.

Aye, we've spent the last couple of decades convincing ourselves that houses your dad paid for were beneath us, that we deserved better. Welcome to the real world.

[Ocean1]

Point to the posts where you wee outraged about National raising GST then?

Also Congratulations ocean you just invented a whole new form of economics where a heathy supply of goods does not limit the increase in value or lower the value of said commodity.
Because without the competition from the investors in the Auckland housing market driving up prices, some of thosee renter plebs would have been able to afford to buy said houses rather than rent from proprty investors.
Sorry Ocean everyone in the world cant make a living selling mcdonalds burgers to each other one day and buying it the next.
Which is the zenth of the right wing free market economy.

<strike></strike>

Why would I bother?

Where did I suggest supply doesn't affect price?

I think your ideas about what a free market economy is could focus more effectively on things other than exchanging hamburgers.

[husaberg]

Why would I bother?

Where did I suggest supply doesn't affect price?
.
Because you are the one who said any increase in tax results in a decrease in investment

Yet what you meant was any increase by labour in your mind is bad.


"More houses on the market aren't actually the same thing as more houses, dude." Ocean1

What i plainly suggested was less short term property investors (ie speculators)as result of the introduction of a CGT actually leads to more people being able to afford to buy properties rather having to rent them as the tax free incentive stops people buying houses as short term investments.
Less short term property investors in the market lowers the housing price, Plus property investors seeking to exit the market creates a surplus which lowers the price. The CGT is a win for new entrants to the Auckland housing markets.
the Auckland Housing problem is mainly a problem of lack of affordable houses.
Speculators would be better served building "spec" houses to alieviate the shortage of housing rather than trying to tie up the already available housing in the market to rent out.




I think your ideas about what a free market economy is could focus more effectively on things other than exchanging hamburgers.
Maybe when the urbanisation phase of the free market economy is complete your great great grandchildren can aspire to building the burners for the grills Ocean but bare in mind they still end up flipping burgers to be able to afford to eat. As they will be driven out by economies of scale as that will out sourced overseas.....

[Graystone]

Minding one's own knitting is always sound policy.

Obviously.

Actually affordability is driven by the buyer's decision to accept the total ongoing costs. There's a bunch of whiney arsed pricks that figure that choice shouldn't be available to them. See the knitting thing.

Aye, we've spent the last couple of decades convincing ourselves that houses your dad paid for were beneath us, that we deserved better. Welcome to the real world.

Sounds more like there's a bunch of whiny arsed pricks getting up in arms about their gravy train being threatened. Bottom line is profits should be taxed, that's how taxes work, lets close that property speculation/investment loophole eh!

The fuck you on about? The house my dad bought is still there (which is pretty nice for him otherwise he'd get a bit wet some nights), it's just worth 4x what he paid for it, and it sure as shit hasn't gotten any fancier.

[TheDemonLord]

Compare the size of the attached land.
Compare the minimum size you are allowed to build under most covenants.
Compare the cost of the land.
They do not scale well with the mean number of years income required to purchase a house.

There's not a perfect scale I grant you, but I'll use myself as an example - My first house is a 4 bedroom house, Talking with my parents and others of their generation - their first house was typically a 2 bedroom, specifically to allow them to get a foot on the property ladder and to start building up Equity as opposed to renting.

A 2 bedroom house (when I bought and depending on area) were around the $2-300k mark - which is within there acceptable value to earning ratio. My house was mid $4's.

There are many other factors at work - I've heard from those in-trade that building smaller houses is not profitable - I'd hazard a guess that is in part due to buyer preference (Kiwis like big houses) and also the fixed costs of compliance.



I'm looking at the difficulty of crossing the divide between 'fat cat investors' and 'unseemly selves' as you put it. I get that you can still own a house by making the 'right choices', but the number of 'right choices' has plummeted since baby boomers, certianly in part due to property investors/speculation.

But you agree, there still exists the possibility, with the right personal choices, to own a house.

As an example - a friend of mine was on some first home buyers show a while back - his solution was to buy a house with his Siblings and effectively flat together - only they are paying a mortgage instead of Rent.

Perhaps the unwillingness of some to make those choices indicate that they aren't ready for home ownership yet.

Perhaps I'd have a bit more sympathy if I hadn't done it myself - and I can assure you, sacrifices had to be made.

Perhaps if we didn't have a generation that demands that everyone else should fix their problems, without considering the possibility that they have had a part to play in creating the problem in the first place.

As I get older, the more I see this tendancy to blame others first and to abdicate all responsibility for a situation.

I believe it was Aesop who first put forward "The gods help those who help themselves"

[husaberg]

There's not a perfect scale I grant you, but I'll use myself as an example - My first house is a 4 bedroom house, Talking with my parents and others of their generation - their first house was typically a 2 bedroom, specifically to allow them to get a foot on the property ladder and to start building up Equity as opposed to renting.

A 2 bedroom house (when I bought and depending on area) were around the $2-300k mark - which is within there acceptable value to earning ratio. My house was mid $4's.

There are many other factors at work - I've heard from those in-trade that building smaller houses is not profitable - I'd hazard a guess that is in part due to buyer preference (Kiwis like big houses) and also the fixed costs of compliance.



But you agree, there still exists the possibility, with the right personal choices, to own a house.

As an example - a friend of mine was on some first home buyers show a while back - his solution was to buy a house with his Siblings and effectively flat together - only they are paying a mortgage instead of Rent.

Perhaps the unwillingness of some to make those choices indicate that they aren't ready for home ownership yet.

Perhaps I'd have a bit more sympathy if I hadn't done it myself - and I can assure you, sacrifices had to be made.

Perhaps if we didn't have a generation that demands that everyone else should fix their problems, without considering the possibility that they have had a part to play in creating the problem in the first place.

As I get older, the more I see this tendancy to blame others first and to abdicate all responsibility for a situation.

I believe it was Aesop who first put forward "The gods help those who help themselves"
We went without to achieve ownership in my mid twenties. We looked hard sought good advice found a place with potential that would pay its own way (ie farm)brought cheap ie shit house and run down property and spend all our time and money paying off debt and doing it up with hard work , all out of cashflow.
We had 38% deposit on our first farm. Which we were able to translate into mny the equity based on improvements and land price 6 years later.
We then brought our second much larger farm again at about 38% equity. We repeated the process again the same
All though the process both myself and my lady worked full time off farm until the kids arrived. I forgoed the bikes and the flash cars drinking takaways we chose to have kids instead I worked on av 50-60 hours a week off farm. Then about the same on farm. there is no way i could maintain that schedule now i am older with kids so it has to be done when you are young.

While Its harder now but not impossible just as it was harder for me than it was for my parents. In my case we had no handouts only hand me downs.
A young fella i worked with recently brought his house at 21, hes not on huge money but he rents the other two rooms to his mates to pay for his morgage. I wish i had thought of that.
The smartest piece of advice i ever got was from a very sucessful farmer who was former rural banker, which was never borrow money on floating interest as you can not long term budget if you don't know what your payments will be in a years time. its simple but clever.

[sidecar bob]

A 70 kph limit? If you're going to worry about something at least worry about something realistic. Another point of view might be that National have ignored Auckland's infrastructure problems for so long that eventually somebody had to do something.

Last I read the southern motorway is still a parking lot. You going to blame that on the current govenment too? :whistle:

I would have been chuffed to do 70kmh on the motorway last Thursday. I blame the congestion on too many people alone in cars & not enough on small motorcycles. If the govt gave people a huge incentive to get on motorcycles, they could save hundreds of millions on roading infrastructure.

[sidecar bob]

We went without to achieve ownership in my mid twenties. We looked hard sought good advice found a place with potential that would pay its own way (ie farm)brought cheap ie shit house and run down property and spend all our time and money paying off debt and doing it up with hard work , all out of cashflow.
We had 38% deposit on our first farm. Which we were able to translate into mny the equity based on improvements and land price 6 years later.
We then brought our second much larger farm again at about 38% equity. We repeated the process again the same
All though the process both myself and my lady worked full time off farm until the kids arrived. I forgoed the bikes and the flash cars drinking takaways we chose to have kids instead I worked on av 50-60 hours a week off farm. Then about the same on farm. there is no way i could maintain that schedule now i am older with kids so it has to be done when you are young.

While Its harder now but not impossible just as it was harder for me than it was for my parents. In my case we had no handouts only hand me downs.
A young fella i worked with recently brought his house at 21, hes not on huge money but he rents the other two rooms to his mates to pay for his morgage. I wish i had thought of that.
The smartest piece of advice i ever got was from a very sucessful farmer who was former rural banker, which was never borrow money on floating interest as you can not long term budget if you don't know what your payments will be in a years time. its simple but clever.

So essentially you busted your arse & scrimped & saved & made sacrifices & been smart. Are you really happy that the govt takes a slice when you sell it & give it to a someone that's done fuck all of any of that?

[husaberg]

So essentially you busted your arse & scrimped & saved & made sacrifices & been smart. Are you really happy that the govt takes a slice when you sell it & give it to a someone that's done fuck all of any of that?
Plus a lot of luck. farm values have dived since here if someone had continued that sudden increase in equity would have been eroded, Note I wouldn't have had to pay CGT anyway it if it was reinvested in your business. go back a few pages and what’s there.....

As for Capital Gains Tax well boohoo its profit, if its turned over in the short term its clearly income. Thus it should be taxed.
The last farm I sold I made a Capital gain of 50% in 15 months, yet I paid no tax on the income, its loophole that needs tightening.
People don’t actually going farming for the money bob, they go farming because they love it. The challange of it
They get bigger because it the only way to maintain an acceptable level of profit as land prices increase and thus profit margins get squeezed
In the last 8 years if you look most farmers are borrowing money against equity to pay themselves a living wage.

[jasonu]

Plus a lot of luck. farm values have dived since here if someone had continued that sudden increase in equity would have been eroded, Note I wouldn't have had to pay CGT anyway it if it was reinvested in your business. go back a few pages and what’s there.....

People don’t actually going farming for the money bob, they go farming because they love it. The challange of it
They get bigger because it the only way to maintain an acceptable level of profit as land prices increase and thus profit margins get squeezed
In the last 8 years if you look most farmers are borrowing money against equity to pay themselves a living wage.





You didn’t answer bobs question.

[Graystone]

There's not a perfect scale I grant you, but I'll use myself as an example - My first house is a 4 bedroom house, Talking with my parents and others of their generation - their first house was typically a 2 bedroom, specifically to allow them to get a foot on the property ladder and to start building up Equity as opposed to renting.

A 2 bedroom house (when I bought and depending on area) were around the $2-300k mark - which is within there acceptable value to earning ratio. My house was mid $4's.

There are many other factors at work - I've heard from those in-trade that building smaller houses is not profitable - I'd hazard a guess that is in part due to buyer preference (Kiwis like big houses) and also the fixed costs of compliance.



But you agree, there still exists the possibility, with the right personal choices, to own a house.

As an example - a friend of mine was on some first home buyers show a while back - his solution was to buy a house with his Siblings and effectively flat together - only they are paying a mortgage instead of Rent.

Perhaps the unwillingness of some to make those choices indicate that they aren't ready for home ownership yet.

Perhaps I'd have a bit more sympathy if I hadn't done it myself - and I can assure you, sacrifices had to be made.

Perhaps if we didn't have a generation that demands that everyone else should fix their problems, without considering the possibility that they have had a part to play in creating the problem in the first place.

As I get older, the more I see this tendancy to blame others first and to abdicate all responsibility for a situation.

I believe it was Aesop who first put forward "The gods help those who help themselves"

I could use myself as an example too, but it's sometimes nice to think about others as well. So what was that 2-300k house going for back in ye olde times?

You still miss my point, property investment and speculation has narrowed the number of acceptable choices down significantly, as housing prices outstrip wage and house size increases. In addition to that, we made huge advances in technology over the last generation, what other industries have not seen any benefit in terms of features or price point?

Perhaps asking for a tax loophole to be closed is a way to help themselves, perhaps asking for a tax loophole to be closed is part of being a responsible member of a democracy.

Perhaps stop beating you own drum and blaming others, and instead see things from their perspective...

[TheDemonLord]

I could use myself as an example too, but it's sometimes nice to think about others as well. So what was that 2-300k house going for back in ye olde times?

I don't have solid data, but I believe around the $100-150 range, but that was back when a good income was around $40k/annum, which gives around a 3-4 years worth of salary, a $2-300k house now with a good salary (around $65k/annum) is around 4 years worth of Salary.

So whilst there has been some movement, it's not as drastic as it's being portrayed as.


You still miss my point, property investment and speculation has narrowed the number of acceptable choices down significantly, as housing prices outstrip wage and house size increases.

There is a word, in your rebuttal, that betrays your position and validates my critique:

You said 'acceptable choices' - whether the reference is in regard to houses for sale or sacrifices to be made - part of my critique is that those currently whinging have unrealistic expectations and therefore have artificially limited their 'acceptable choices'. That there are those that are prepared to reset their expectations to something realistic and able to achieve it tells me that it is not a problem with the rules of the game, but an unwillingness on the part of the individual to play it properly.


Perhaps asking for a tax loophole to be closed is a way to help themselves, perhaps asking for a tax loophole to be closed is part of being a responsible member of a democracy.

Firstly - it's not a loophole, but on this point I have two issues:

1: I don't see any clear evidence that the change will achieve the stated goal
2: I don't believe that the driver for this legislation is what is said: wanting houses for everyone. I think the underlying motivation for it, is a resentment of those who are perceived as rich land owners.

And there is quite a long and extremely bloody historical precedent in regards to hyper-left wing types feeling they are entitled to a part or the whole of what others have earned...


Perhaps stop beating you own drum and blaming others, and instead see things from their perspective...

You forget - I was in that same perspective - 26, looking to buy a house in Auckland - I've seen it and lived it first hand. I had to move further away than I wanted, I had get a Motorcycle in order to be able to afford the commute to work, I had to make drastic cuts to my expenditure as the difference between Rent and mortgage was just under double, I had fights with the Wife about changes to our lifestyle, I had to deal with banks treating me like crap and charging me fees for Africa because of high LVR and less than 20% equity.

The point here is that I did it, because I knew that in the long run, it would pay off.

There are those that are willing to do what is needed and they reap the benefits of Home ownership, then there are those that want the benefits of being a homeowner without putting the effort in.

If you think it's drum beating - fair enough - I look at more like "I did it, therefore it's possible for you to do it too"

[Crasherfromwayback]

So essentially you busted your arse & scrimped & saved & made sacrifices & been smart. Are you really happy that the govt takes a slice when you sell it & give it to a someone that's done fuck all of any of that?

Would you like to live in a country (or world for that matter) that has no welfare system?

[sidecar bob]

Would you like to live in a country (or world for that matter) that has no welfare system?

I'm not quite sure I see the connection between that & a tax that never existed in NZ until two years ago, but I'm becoming more prepared to put in an average effort & pay average taxes, but still more than the recipients of welfare.

[Graystone]

I don't have solid data, but I believe around the $100-150 range, but that was back when a good income was around $40k/annum, which gives around a 3-4 years worth of salary, a $2-300k house now with a good salary (around $65k/annum) is around 4 years worth of Salary.

So whilst there has been some movement, it's not as drastic as it's being portrayed as.



There is a word, in your rebuttal, that betrays your position and validates my critique:

You said 'acceptable choices' - whether the reference is in regard to houses for sale or sacrifices to be made - part of my critique is that those currently whinging have unrealistic expectations and therefore have artificially limited their 'acceptable choices'. That there are those that are prepared to reset their expectations to something realistic and able to achieve it tells me that it is not a problem with the rules of the game, but an unwillingness on the part of the individual to play it properly.



Firstly - it's not a loophole, but on this point I have two issues:

1: I don't see any clear evidence that the change will achieve the stated goal
2: I don't believe that the driver for this legislation is what is said: wanting houses for everyone. I think the underlying motivation for it, is a resentment of those who are perceived as rich land owners.

And there is quite a long and extremely bloody historical precedent in regards to hyper-left wing types feeling they are entitled to a part or the whole of what others have earned...



You forget - I was in that same perspective - 26, looking to buy a house in Auckland - I've seen it and lived it first hand. I had to move further away than I wanted, I had get a Motorcycle in order to be able to afford the commute to work, I had to make drastic cuts to my expenditure as the difference between Rent and mortgage was just under double, I had fights with the Wife about changes to our lifestyle, I had to deal with banks treating me like crap and charging me fees for Africa because of high LVR and less than 20% equity.

The point here is that I did it, because I knew that in the long run, it would pay off.

There are those that are willing to do what is needed and they reap the benefits of Home ownership, then there are those that want the benefits of being a homeowner without putting the effort in.

If you think it's drum beating - fair enough - I look at more like "I did it, therefore it's possible for you to do it too"

Try get some data then, then draw conclusions... I'd love to see this 100-150k house equivalent to a 200-300k house now...

Choices that are acceptable to the result of owning a house, this has nothing to do with if the people are willing to make those choices/tradeoffs. A generation ago people didn't have to decide to be that as far from work to own a house.

It's not a loophole? How so? people can make investments and not have to pay tax on the income from that. The goal is to tax income, it will acheive that goal; the driver is an even playing field. Stop with the strawman bullshitery again.

Then make a better effort to go back to that perspective, because you sure are not there anymore.

And there are those who want to own investment properties to avoid paying tax on their income, let's at least level the playing field eh!

It's drum beating because you continue to avoid the point about property as an investment to tell us all about how good you are since you own a house. One person doing it doesn't mean it is possible for everyone, nor that it is as easy as it used to be.

[husaberg]

You didn’t answer bobs question.
Yes i did Jason"its a loophole that needs tightening"





As for Capital Gains Tax well boohoo its profit ,if its turned over in the short term its clearly income. Thus it should be taxed.
......., yet I paid no tax on the income, its loophole that needs tightening.
I understand your point of view as you are still investing in property but you will still have the capital gains you will just need to look at it a long term that's all.
Its not as if you will actually lose money because your capital gains are not realised until its actually sold, Much like gains or loses in share prices

[jasonu]

Yes i did Jason"its a loophole that needs tightening"
Income should be taxed.



Thanks for the reply katman oops I mean Glen...

[husaberg]

Thanks for the reply katman oops I mean Glen...
Are you not seeing the quote i made previously?
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183438-The-2017-Election-Thread?p=1131092136#post1131092136
Comparing me to katman thats a low blow even for you as Trump voter, because i actually answer questions.
I said income from shot term investments should be taxed as income and CGT loopholes need tightening.

I'm not quite sure I see the connection between that & a tax that never existed in NZ until two years ago,
Two years ago... did you wine about it then bob? Or just say nothing because it was the Nats that did it?

[Crasherfromwayback]

. Are you really happy that the govt takes a slice when you sell it & give it to a someone that's done fuck all of any of that?


I'm not quite sure I see the connection between that & a tax that never existed in NZ until two years ago,.

This bit perhaps?

[sidecar bob]

Plus a lot of luck. farm values have dived since here if someone had continued that sudden increase in equity would have been eroded, Note I wouldn't have had to pay CGT anyway it if it was reinvested in your business. go back a few pages and what’s there.....

People don’t actually going farming for the money bob, they go farming because they love it. The challange of it
They get bigger because it the only way to maintain an acceptable level of profit as land prices increase and thus profit margins get squeezed
In the last 8 years if you look most farmers are borrowing money against equity to pay themselves a living wage.





You're overthinking it bro, it was just a yes no question.;)

[sidecar bob]

Are you not seeing the quote i made previously?
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183438-The-2017-Election-Thread?p=1131092136#post1131092136
Comparing me to katman thats a low blow even for you as Trump voter, because i actually answer questions.
I said income from shot term investments should be taxed as income and CGT loopholes need tightening.

Two years ago... did you wine about it then bob? Or just say nothing because it was the Nats that did it?





To be perfectly honest, CGT won't affect me at all in the foreseeable future, even though I will be making a few changes to my situation. Just lucky timing at this point. I will be keeping my next two commercial developments for the next generation, so probably won't be hit there either.
I was mildly miffed when national introduced it, & I haven't got my head so far up their arse that I can't say they did their fair share of stupid shit in 9 years.

[husaberg]

You're overthinking it bro, it was just a yes no question.;)
Thus why get asked again and again when I clearly stated without any prompting in the first place what my answer was?



To be perfectly honest, CGT won't affect me at all in the foreseeable future, even though I will be making a few changes to my situation. Just lucky timing at this point. I will be keeping my next two commercial developments for the next generation, so probably won't be hit there either.

I was mildly miffed when national introduced it, & I haven't got my head so far up their arse that I can't say they did their fair share of stupid shit in 9 years.

Like i said there are ways to minimise its effect its introduction is just to tax the short term speculators that are mostly overseas people trying to use our piss poor loophole ridden tax scheme to defer tax and income obligations. The result of this was a driving up of the Auckland housing market to stupid levels that placed it beoyn the means of many kiwis
But these changes should not affect the av Kiwi as primary dwellings are exempt from CGT.

Well I was more thann mildly miffed at doing things like selling off assets for negitive gains or propping up overseas multinationals like Rio Tinto with huge subsidies while letting our SOEs go under. I was more than a little miffed about that.

[Swoop]

...and monopoly materials providers. Which is pretty much all I see wrong with the rice of houses.

I reckon if you arseholed all the rorts involved in building nowadays you could knock up that 900sqft clapboard bungalow you're talking about for about a quarter of the current mean build price.

I've heard many stories of people building their own homes, who import a container of "stuff" to do the job. Plasterboard, ceramic tiles etc. Enough to do their house and whatever is left over they sell.
Works out substantially cheaper than our local prices.


I laugh every time that Te News comes out with "affordable housing is included in this new development" which is stretching the truth a little. "Only 950k when the other houses are 990k" is more realistic.

[Ocean1]

Because you are the one who said any increase in tax results in a decrease in investment

Yet what you meant was any increase by labour in your mind is bad.

What i plainly suggested was less short term property investors (ie speculators)as result of the introduction of a CGT actually leads to more people being able to afford to buy properties rather having to rent them as the tax free incentive stops people buying houses as short term investments.
Less short term property investors in the market lowers the housing price, Plus property investors seeking to exit the market creates a surplus which lowers the price. The CGT is a win for new entrants to the Auckland housing markets.
the Auckland Housing problem is mainly a problem of lack of affordable houses.
Speculators would be better served building "spec" houses to alieviate the shortage of housing rather than trying to tie up the already available housing in the market to rent out.


Maybe when the urbanisation phase of the free market economy is complete your great great grandchildren can aspire to building the burners for the grills Ocean but bare in mind they still end up flipping burgers to be able to afford to eat. As they will be driven out by economies of scale as that will out sourced overseas.....


Nope. What I said was: "most economists have predicted that the introduction of a CGT on residential properties would result in less investment, and subsequently fewer available properties." It's pretty obviously correct, though: remove some of the reward for investing in housing and eventually there'll be less houses built.

And if I'd wanted to blame labour specifically I'd have pointed out that labour spent the last decade castigating national for failing to implement a comprehensive CGT on residential properties and they're now demurring from that same policy for exactly the same above reason.

However, that aside I agree with you re the lack of affordable housing. In a normal market the price of existing housing is largely driven by the price of new stock. Build cookie cutter 60's style railways 100sqM properties for (I suspect) a couple of grand and Bob's your uncle. It's not a normal market in Orks, though, the prices reflect the exclusivity of the location, and you can't reproduce that. Anywhere else: find the constraints to building cheap housing and remove them.

[Ocean1]

Sounds more like there's a bunch of whiny arsed pricks getting up in arms about their gravy train being threatened. Bottom line is profits should be taxed, that's how taxes work, lets close that property speculation/investment loophole eh!

The fuck you on about? The house my dad bought is still there (which is pretty nice for him otherwise he'd get a bit wet some nights), it's just worth 4x what he paid for it, and it sure as shit hasn't gotten any fancier.

I have no problem with paying tax on profits. In spite of the fact that nobody offers to compensate me for any losses I might incur. I'm magnanimous to a fault. I certainly do have a problem with paying tax on inflation, though. And most of the increase in dollar terms for my investments is easily attributable to inflation.

Sounds like he's got fuck all to whinge about then.

[Ocean1]

I've heard many stories of people building their own homes, who import a container of "stuff" to do the job. Plasterboard, ceramic tiles etc. Enough to do their house and whatever is left over they sell.
Works out substantially cheaper than our local prices.


I laugh every time that Te News comes out with "affordable housing is included in this new development" which is stretching the truth a little. "Only 950k when the other houses are 990k" is more realistic.

I did exactly that kitset thing. I threw out the budget notes I made at the time just a few months ago, was interesting how much the fit-out cost compared to the basic shell.

Aye, we need a far more aggressive approach in suppressing monopolies, given US laws the local incumbents would long since be locked up.

[husaberg]

Nope. What I said was: "most economists have predicted that the introduction of a CGT on residential properties would result in less investment, and subsequently fewer available properties." It's pretty obviously correct, though: remove some of the reward for investing in housing and eventually there'll be less houses built.

And if I'd wanted to blame labour specifically I'd have pointed out that labour spent the last decade castigating national for failing to implement a comprehensive CGT on residential properties and they're now demurring from that same policy for exactly the same above reason.

However, that aside I agree with you re the lack of affordable housing. In a normal market the price of existing housing is largely driven by the price of new stock. Build cookie cutter 60's style railways 100sqM properties for (I suspect) a couple of grand and Bob's your uncle. It's not a normal market in Orks, though, the prices reflect the exclusivity of the location, and you can't reproduce that. Anywhere else: find the constraints to building cheap housing and remove them.
Really most ecomomists aye, thats pretty damning evidence.......:blink:
Ask any ecomonist to justify a postion for you, Like national or the BRT did and they will say what ever you want.
Affordability is the problem not number of houses. Decrease the incentives for people moving to auckland and the problems just disappear
Remember National implimented the CGT so are you saying that the ecomonists all thought it was a bad idea.

[sidecar bob]

Something that is not entirely clear to me, is that while there is capital gains tax, does that also translate into capital losses tax rebate?
So if the arse drops out of it & I take a bath to the tune of say 500k when I sell a property on a failing market, do I get a tax rebate equivalent to the same figure as I would have paid if I'd made 500k, or when the ship starts sinking, am I on my own?

[husaberg]

Something that is not entirely clear to me, is that while there is capital gains tax, does that also translate into capital losses tax rebate?
So if the arse drops out of it & I take a bath to the tune of say 500k when I sell a property on a failing market, do I get a tax rebate equivalent to the same figure as I would have paid if I'd made 500k, or when the ship starts sinking, am I on my own?

Trump inc was made bankrupt ages ago, yet acording to popular wisdom hes still reaping the tax benefits of that.... So why not.
There is of course rules regarding how quick you can claim depreciation and the rules regarding accounting for what you depreciated when you do actually sell those same assets though.

[Graystone]

I have no problem with paying tax on profits. In spite of the fact that nobody offers to compensate me for any losses I might incur. I'm magnanimous to a fault. I certainly do have a problem with paying tax on inflation, though. And most of the increase in dollar terms for my investments is easily attributable to inflation.

Sounds like he's got fuck all to whinge about then.

Make better investments then. 'tax on inflation' as you put it is hardly the sole domain of residential property investment, why should it be the only one exempt?

Sounds like your point about being able to buy the same thing for the same money is up to fuck all.

[Ocean1]

Make better investments then. 'tax on inflation' as you put it is hardly the sole domain of residential property investment, why should it be the only one exempt?

Sounds like your point about being able to buy the same thing for the same money is up to fuck all.

I did exactly that. Just like the economist dude predicted.

Basics: Building a house cost twice the relative income it once did, but at 265sqM they're almost three times the size they were then, and with interest rates less than half what they were cost of ownership is fuck all different.

[Graystone]

I did exactly that. Just like the economist dude predicted.

Basics: Building a house cost twice the relative income it once did, but at 265sqM they're almost three times the size they were then, and with interest rates less than half what they were cost of ownership is fuck all different.

Those basics sound a bit suspect, have you got a source for them?

[Ocean1]

Those basics sound a bit suspect, have you got a source for them?

http://dividend.net.au/anz/

Apparently Ork's new homes are a mere 235sqM: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/94686507/Why-do-we-build-such-big-houses

https://www.nzadvicegroup.co.nz/blog/post/20437/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Interest-Rates/

[sidecar bob]

Trump inc was made bankrupt ages ago, yet acording to popular wisdom hes still reaping the tax benefits of that.... So why not.
There is of course rules regarding how quick you can claim depreciation and the rules regarding accounting for what you depreciated when you do actually sell those same assets though.

Could be a bit of a precarious situation for the Govt if there is a sicnificant national "correction" in housing prices.
They had better hope prices continue to rise & put property further out of reach of first home buyers in order to keep their hobby horse safe.

[TheDemonLord]

Try get some data then, then draw conclusions... I'd love to see this 100-150k house equivalent to a 200-300k house now...

I did some googling - it's a bit tricky - the advanced data/filters require an REINZ or similar login - which I don't have (and no longer have access to) but for example - there's a 2 bedroom house in West Auckland valued at $175k in 2004 and $280k in 2014, last sale shows a shade over $300k (which was in the last 2 years).


Choices that are acceptable to the result of owning a house, this has nothing to do with if the people are willing to make those choices/tradeoffs.

If they aren't willing to make them, then clearly those choices aren't acceptable to them...


A generation ago people didn't have to decide to be that as far from work to own a house.

Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

They also didn't have all the advances we have in terms of working remotely either and the options of work that don't require a physical presence.


It's not a loophole? How so? people can make investments and not have to pay tax on the income from that.

A loophole is something like having a rental property, collecting less rent than the mortgage payments, deducting that as a loss against your main income and paying income tax on the difference.

This isn't something like that. It simply doesn't exist for homes that have been owned for more than 2 years - whereas a loophole. by definition uses either vaguary or holes in poor legislation to avoid the purpose of said legislation. There's nothing vague or unintended about a definitive time period.

However - I will grant you, that this is an entirely semantics point. But it irks me because it's a deliberate attempt at a smear, using the negative connotations of the word.


the goal is to tax income, it will acheive that goal; the driver is an even playing field. Stop with the strawman bullshitery again.

How is that a Strawman? I'm saying I don't trust the motives, based on certain historical precedents - that cannot be a Strawman of anything, because it's my opinion of their motives. Not a rebuttal of their arguments for the law...

However - interesting choice of words again - you want an even playing field - one might say that this is a desire for some form of Equity - Now, where have I heard this tune before, desiring equity and demanding some form of penalty for those perceived as 'rich', to bring them inline with the poor oppressed and downtrodden... How well did it go again? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

Here is where you could accuse me of a Strawman (since I'm rebutting one of your points) - but this argument is IMO fundamentally flawed and is rooted in resentment. It's the same reasoning that has been used for expropriation - especially by those of a far-left persuasion. Granted a CGT is rather milder than what we see in history - but even you speak in terms of equity and you definitely seem resentful in your choice of wording against the people this would effect.

And I simply don't trust it.


Then make a better effort to go back to that perspective, because you sure are not there anymore.

How do you know? Did you know me when I bought my house? This is hilarious because your entire argument hinges on your presumption of how I thought and acted several years ago - something which you cannot possibly know.


And there are those who want to own investment properties to avoid paying tax on their income, let's at least level the playing field eh!

Hold up a sec there bud.

You say "Investment Properties" - but I think you are being deliberately vague here - if you are talking about people who buy cheap houses, spend some time and effort to tart them up and sell for a profit (the colloquial "House flippers") they are being taxed by our current Capital Gains Tax.

If you are talking about people that own Investment properties with Renters in - guess what you have to pay on the Rent you receive? I'll give you 2 clues - it begins with T and Jacinda loves it.

Unless you want to imply that someone buys a house, holds onto it for 2 years with no renters in it (which would be costly as fuck with Mortgage repayments - even Interest only) and then sell it the day after the 2 year limit expires - and they live solely on that income.

There may be people that do that, but that's a very expensive gamble and requires a 2 year waiting period - can you afford to wait 2 years to get paid?


It's drum beating because you continue to avoid the point about property as an investment to tell us all about how good you are since you own a house.

No, I'm saying that I was effected by the same set of factors as my peers, and unlike the majority of them who piss and moan and demand someone else fix their problems, I got on with it, sorted what I needed to and now reap the benefits.


One person doing it doesn't mean it is possible for everyone, nor that it is as easy as it used to be.

That's true to an extent, but are you sure it isn't as easy as it used to be? What about the inflation rates in the mid 70s all the way through to the late 80s sometimes peaking to over 20%? My In-laws can attest that at the time, they nearly couldn't afford to keep the house and they struggled to make ends meet. We've had low. relatively stable inflation rates since about the 1990s.

As for one person doing it - unless you want to concede that I'm some form of Financial demi-god/wizard - If I can do it - that means a large proportion of my peers can also do it. To put into perspective - I think I was on $50k a year when I bought - so it's not like I was making extreme amounts of money.

[eldog]

Apparently Ork's new homes are a mere 235sqM: / (https://www.nzadvicegroup.co.nz/blog/post/20437/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Interest-Rates/)
Mines approx 230 m^2 the estate agent reckons double the price in 10 years

Little boxes, cheap n nasty little boxes, quite a few planted on shady ground.
double story tiny garage if any that could only accommodate a mini.

the old state houses, wondered how many squares they were?

its been 30 years since 1987 and several people think the current boom will extend for 2 years then may slow down similarly to back then. Approx 15 year cycles.


yeah I remember people talking about 20+% interest rates. I don’t know how they did it.

[Graystone]

http://dividend.net.au/anz/

Apparently Ork's new homes are a mere 235sqM: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/94686507/Why-do-we-build-such-big-houses

https://www.nzadvicegroup.co.nz/blog/post/20437/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Interest-Rates/

So in only 15 years it has gone up 100%. And in very similar (91-2017) timeframe the size has gone up 37% So I guess per sq/m it has only gone up 63% The interest rates are interesting (pun intended), I had no idea it was 15% back in 1990, you're right in that does make a huge difference, parity is around the 20 year repayment term mark.

Is it part of the same issue though? Or is it corrective behavior which will counter the lack of investment if profits are taxed.

[Graystone]

I did some googling - it's a bit tricky - the advanced data/filters require an REINZ or similar login - which I don't have (and no longer have access to) but for example - there's a 2 bedroom house in West Auckland valued at $175k in 2004 and $280k in 2014, last sale shows a shade over $300k (which was in the last 2 years).



If they aren't willing to make them, then clearly those choices aren't acceptable to them...



Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

They also didn't have all the advances we have in terms of working remotely either and the options of work that don't require a physical presence.



A loophole is something like having a rental property, collecting less rent than the mortgage payments, deducting that as a loss against your main income and paying income tax on the difference.

This isn't something like that. It simply doesn't exist for homes that have been owned for more than 2 years - whereas a loophole. by definition uses either vaguary or holes in poor legislation to avoid the purpose of said legislation. There's nothing vague or unintended about a definitive time period.

However - I will grant you, that this is an entirely semantics point. But it irks me because it's a deliberate attempt at a smear, using the negative connotations of the word.



How is that a Strawman? I'm saying I don't trust the motives, based on certain historical precedents - that cannot be a Strawman of anything, because it's my opinion of their motives. Not a rebuttal of their arguments for the law...

However - interesting choice of words again - you want an even playing field - one might say that this is a desire for some form of Equity - Now, where have I heard this tune before, desiring equity and demanding some form of penalty for those perceived as 'rich', to bring them inline with the poor oppressed and downtrodden... How well did it go again? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

Here is where you could accuse me of a Strawman (since I'm rebutting one of your points) - but this argument is IMO fundamentally flawed and is rooted in resentment. It's the same reasoning that has been used for expropriation - especially by those of a far-left persuasion. Granted a CGT is rather milder than what we see in history - but even you speak in terms of equity and you definitely seem resentful in your choice of wording against the people this would effect.

And I simply don't trust it.



How do you know? Did you know me when I bought my house? This is hilarious because your entire argument hinges on your presumption of how I thought and acted several years ago - something which you cannot possibly know.



Hold up a sec there bud.

You say "Investment Properties" - but I think you are being deliberately vague here - if you are talking about people who buy cheap houses, spend some time and effort to tart them up and sell for a profit (the colloquial "House flippers") they are being taxed by our current Capital Gains Tax.

If you are talking about people that own Investment properties with Renters in - guess what you have to pay on the Rent you receive? I'll give you 2 clues - it begins with T and Jacinda loves it.

Unless you want to imply that someone buys a house, holds onto it for 2 years with no renters in it (which would be costly as fuck with Mortgage repayments - even Interest only) and then sell it the day after the 2 year limit expires - and they live solely on that income.

There may be people that do that, but that's a very expensive gamble and requires a 2 year waiting period - can you afford to wait 2 years to get paid?



No, I'm saying that I was effected by the same set of factors as my peers, and unlike the majority of them who piss and moan and demand someone else fix their problems, I got on with it, sorted what I needed to and now reap the benefits.



That's true to an extent, but are you sure it isn't as easy as it used to be? What about the inflation rates in the mid 70s all the way through to the late 80s sometimes peaking to over 20%? My In-laws can attest that at the time, they nearly couldn't afford to keep the house and they struggled to make ends meet. We've had low. relatively stable inflation rates since about the 1990s.

As for one person doing it - unless you want to concede that I'm some form of Financial demi-god/wizard - If I can do it - that means a large proportion of my peers can also do it. To put into perspective - I think I was on $50k a year when I bought - so it's not like I was making extreme amounts of money.

Oh do fuck off with these long winded posts of drivel, learn the value of a concise counterpoint for fucks sake.

So 60% in ten years. Seems pretty drastic to me.

Choices that are acceptable to the result of owning a house, this has nothing to do with if the people are willing to make those choices/tradeoffs.

It's a strawman since you are applying an assumption about motivations and arguing against that, instead of addressing the point, which is that the goal is to tax income, it will achieve that goal; the driver is an even playing field.

Guess you never had the perspective at all then.

They have income from both the renters, and the capital gains. What is the justification for only taxing one of those?

That's still drum beating anecdotal evidence which fails to address the point that house values are rising far quicker than wages/inflation/sizes can account for.

[Ocean1]

Mines approx 230 m^2
Little boxes, cheap n nasty little boxes, quite a few planted on shady ground.
double story tiny garage if any that could only accommodate a mini.

the old state houses, wondered how many squares they were?

Have just sold mine, at a fucking ridiculous 320sqM. Couldn't find anything suitable any smaller at the time. Spent the last year or so looking for a 3 bedroom low maintenance modern house under 200sqM. Had to settle for 220sqM, there just wasn't anything smaller.

The daughter ownd a typical ex state house, was 90sqM. Probably another 3sqM for the enclosed back porch converted into a laundry. No garage. No driveway. No front fence.

[Ocean1]

So in only 15 years it has gone up 100%. And in very similar (91-2017) timeframe the size has gone up 37% So I guess per sq/m it has only gone up 63% The interest rates are interesting (pun intended), I had no idea it was 15% back in 1990, you're right in that does make a huge difference, parity is around the 20 year repayment term mark.

Is it part of the same issue though? Or is it corrective behavior which will counter the lack of investment if profits are taxed.

I bought a house on 12% interest in '88, a year later I was paying 21% on most of it, (some was fixed.) I got a second job. Tough times.

Is what corrective behaviour? I think people pay what they can afford given how hard they're prepared to work. It's worth considering that maybe the second part is the behaviour that's changed the most. It's certainly presumptuous and frankly doubtful to suggest that our parents and grandparents worked less hard for their homes.

[Graystone]

I bought a house on 12% interest in '88, a year later I was paying 21% on most of it, (some was fixed.) I got a second job. Tough times.

Is what corrective behaviour? I think people pay what they can afford given how hard they're prepared to work. It's worth considering that maybe the second part is the behaviour that's changed the most. It's certainly presumptuous and frankly doubtful that our parents and grandparents worked less hard for their homes.

The way the interest rates adjusted to keep a similar cost of ownership, seem like corrective behaviour.

[Katman]

The daughter ownd a typical ex state house, was 90sqM. Probably another 3sqM for the enclosed back porch converted into a laundry. No garage. No driveway. No front fence.

I imagine it still beat living with you.

[husaberg]

Could be a bit of a precarious situation for the Govt if there is a sicnificant national "correction" in housing prices.
They had better hope prices continue to rise & put property further out of reach of first home buyers in order to keep their hobby horse safe.
I think a few places will see an adjustment in pricing as they are overinflated.
But don't worry about the poor let them eat Steak......:laugh:

336039336040

[AllanB]

the old state houses, wondered how many squares they were?



Would have been approx 100m2.

The EQC cap of $100k plus gst was set when EQC was invented as the standard three bedroom one bathroom family house back then was 100m2

[Ocean1]

The way the interest rates adjusted to keep a similar cost of ownership, seem like corrective behaviour.

It was mostly off shore markets that caused that rates spike, bugger all to do with local behaviour.

Local corrective behaviour is buyers taking advantage of recent historic low rates by buying bigger houses with all the bells and whistles.

[eldog]

But don't worry about the poor let them move south....:laugh:

Fixed it for you.:chase:

[Graystone]

It was mostly off shore markets that caused that rates spike, bugger all to do with local behaviour.

Local corrective behaviour is buyers taking advantage of recent historic low rates by buying bigger houses with all the bells and whistles.

Either way, there's mechanisms to correct it if taxing income drives investors away.

[Ocean1]

I imagine

Of course you do, it's what you always do in lieu of thinking.

[eldog]

Would have been approx 100m2.

The EQC cap of $100k plus gst was set when EQC was invented as the standard three bedroom one bathroom family house back then was 100m2

That’s about what I thought, when I visited people who lived in those houses.
always wondered why so small, when families generally had more kids than nowadays.

shirley the EQC cap was linked to some sort of average house price?:scratch:

[Ocean1]

Either way, there's mechanisms to correct it if taxing income drives investors away.

Yes, we discussed it, house prices go up some more, until they come back.

[sidecar bob]

Either way, there's mechanisms to correct it if taxing income drives investors away.

Please explain these mechanisms.

[sidecar bob]

I think a few places will see an adjustment in pricing as they are overinflated.
But don't worry about the poor let them eat Steak......:laugh:

336039336040

Unfortunately when my brain sees or hears the word poor it translates it into lazy & stupid. I appreciate its my problem & im the one that needs to get help for it, but I am working on it.
To be fair, I don't know any hard working, diligent poor people though.

[eldog]

The daughter ownd a typical ex state house, was 90sqM. Probably another 3sqM for the enclosed back porch converted into a laundry. No garage. No driveway. No front fence.

No internet, no insulation, 1 light bulb, 1 power socket, per room, 1 telephone jack
all on a reasonable sized section. Yes washing machine generally jammed in the back door entry.
front door used for storage. Brought back some good memories, writing this paragraph.

Think of all all of those state houses on Auckland’s foreshore, Tamaki drive etc. imagine the value of them today.:wacko::whistle:

I know of one resident there, value has risen 3x or more.........

[eldog]

To be fair, I don't know any hard working, diligent poor people though.

there are some, generally quiet ones, usually not seen at food queues or travelling far for free food because the Cant afford fuel. But there’s plenty more who come Xmas/party time drop the kids and go for a good time.

there isn’t one size fits all rule.

some are in the wrong location or don’t have the skill set or no jobs to suit.
others can’t be arsed....and make it a lifestyle, move and get free furniture from gubbermint each time, etc.
dont care about society

:wait:

[Graystone]

Please explain these mechanisms.

Interest rates can modify the affordibility in contrast to the purchase price. Plus basic market forces, obviously.

Please explain why this source of investment income should not be taxed.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh do fuck off with these long winded posts of drivel, learn the value of a concise counterpoint for fucks sake.

Click bait-esque responses don't do anything for a having a nuanced conversation - unless you are saying it's all a bit too complex for you?


So 60% in ten years. Seems pretty drastic to me.

Does it? Well, let's do the Numbers, with a 4% interest rate, calculated and paid per-annum:

Year 0 - 100
Year 1 - 104
Year 2 - 108
Year 3 - 112
Year 4 - 116
Year 5 - 121
Year 6 - 126
Year 7 - 131
Year 8 - 136
Year 9 - 142
Year 10 - 148
Year 11 - 153 (for reference)

If I was to re-run the calculation, but using monthly calculations and payments - I'm fairly certain I'd hit pretty close to a 60% increase of 10 years, thanks to the magic of Compound interest.


Choices that are acceptable to the result of owning a house, this has nothing to do with if the people are willing to make those choices/tradeoffs.

If they aren't wiling to make the choice - either the choice isn't acceptable to them (the individual), or they don't really want the result of Owning a house.


It's a strawman since you are applying an assumption about motivations and arguing against that, instead of addressing the point, which is that the goal is to tax income, it will achieve that goal; the driver is an even playing field.

No - I said - I don't believe that the stated goal is the real reason for wanting the tax. My reasons for thinking that are not a Strawman of anything.

And besides, wasn't your first comment about woe-betide those poor first home buyers? Now it's about purely trying to tax what you perceive to be an Income.

Yet, you try and tell me that you aren't resentful of people who you perceive as having ill-gotten wealth and that this personification of you isn't accurate? Maybe try making an argument that doesn't hinge on being unhappy that some people (not you) got ahead in life, then I might retract that statement, but I don't think you can.


Guess you never had the perspective at all then.

Right - I clearly just one day magically owned a house...

But funny how in order to maintain your narrative, you have to resort to such a patently ridiculous statement.


They have income from both the renters, and the capital gains. What is the justification for only taxing one of those?

You are already taxing my source of Income (the rent).

When I sell an asset (and receive a capital gain) I forgo the source of income (the rent).

You only get to tax me on my Income.

Furthermore, if that capital gain goes into a Bank, you tax me on the Interest I earn as Income.


That's still drum beating anecdotal evidence which fails to address the point that house values are rising far quicker than wages/inflation/sizes can account for.

In some cities - such as Auckland, Maybe - but there are other factors - namely Demand outstripping supply (which is a combination of many factors - with investment speculation being a minor one)

[Graystone]

Click bait-esque responses don't do anything for a having a nuanced conversation - unless you are saying it's all a bit too complex for you?



Does it? Well, let's do the Numbers, with a 4% interest rate, calculated and paid per-annum:

Year 0 - 100
Year 1 - 104
Year 2 - 108
Year 3 - 112
Year 4 - 116
Year 5 - 121
Year 6 - 126
Year 7 - 131
Year 8 - 136
Year 9 - 142
Year 10 - 148
Year 11 - 153 (for reference)

If I was to re-run the calculation, but using monthly calculations and payments - I'm fairly certain I'd hit pretty close to a 60% increase of 10 years, thanks to the magic of Compound interest.



If they aren't wiling to make the choice - either the choice isn't acceptable to them (the individual), or they don't really want the result of Owning a house.



No - I said - I don't believe that the stated goal is the real reason for wanting the tax. My reasons for thinking that are not a Strawman of anything.

And besides, wasn't your first comment about woe-betide those poor first home buyers? Now it's about purely trying to tax what you perceive to be an Income.

Yet, you try and tell me that you aren't resentful of people who you perceive as having ill-gotten wealth and that this personification of you isn't accurate? Maybe try making an argument that doesn't hinge on being unhappy that some people (not you) got ahead in life, then I might retract that statement, but I don't think you can.



Right - I clearly just one day magically owned a house...

But funny how in order to maintain your narrative, you have to resort to such a patently ridiculous statement.



You are already taxing my source of Income (the rent).

When I sell an asset (and receive a capital gain) I forgo the source of income (the rent).

You only get to tax me on my Income.

Furthermore, if that capital gain goes into a Bank, you tax me on the Interest I earn as Income.



In some cities - such as Auckland, Maybe - but there are other factors - namely Demand outstripping supply (which is a combination of many factors - with investment speculation being a minor one)

4.8% Around double the inflation rate. Which seems pretty drastic. See how I took less than one line while you took over 10? Concise is good.

The number of lifestyle choices that result in home ownership reduces as the price of home ownership rises. Do you understand that?

Your belief (or lack thereof) in the stated goal is utterly irrelevant.

The perspective to which I refereed was never one of owning a house, please stop with the strawmans.

When you sell an asset, the sale price from the asset is income. Any profits (or lack thereof) that said asset had the potential to make in future are irrelevant.

Investment speculation is still a factor, so lets close the loophole and treat it as a taxable investment.

[husaberg]

Unfortunately when my brain sees or hears the word poor it translates it into lazy & stupid. I appreciate its my problem & im the one that needs to get help for it, but I am working on it.
To be fair, I don't know any hard working, diligent poor people though.
I believe in hand ups rather than handouts. Regardless a society is judged by how they treat the less fortunate and less able.
No child growing up in NZ should be deprived from the basic human right be warm and fed and to feel safe. Children can’t control are smart or hard working their parents are.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Click bait-esque responses don't do anything for a having a nuanced conversation -

Bro. No cunt reads you're ten thousand wanky words responses. Boring as fucking batshit.

[eldog]

No child growing up in NZ should be deprived from the basic human right be warm and fed and to feel safe. Children can’t control are smart or hard working their parents are.

They shouldn’t be deprived, but some parents can’t cope or be bothered.
there are some who abuse the system these people i don’t believe deserve it.

NZ isn’t really a 1st world country, we like to think we are.

its our community conscience which sets us apart from other countries.

children can control their parents, however these are in the minority. These kids are usually trouble later in life. Often cause parental relationship breakdowns, etc.

the above is just what I have observed in the community around me.

[TheDemonLord]

4.8% Around double the inflation rate. Which seems pretty drastic. See how I took less than one line while you took over 10? Concise is good.

Er... picking the number that's the top of the Google Search... Tsk Tsk

https://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/Reports/55d47011-64a2-4bfb-9907-30fe14ac0281/-new-zealand-inflation-rate-y-y-2q_20110823112432.png

Which is more relevent to the time period in question - that's an average of 3% over 4 years, either way, it's not as Drastic as you try and make it sound. Although I think the rate did slow around 2012/2013 which was due to the global recession.


The number of lifestyle choices that result in home ownership reduces as the price of home ownership rises. Do you understand that?

And? Do you want a House? Yes? Then you have to make the lifestyle choice that enables you to get a House. If you don't like the choices you have to make, then either:

The choices aren't acceptable to you
or
You don't really want a house.

The number of choices, so long as they are an integer greater than or equal to 1, is irrelevant.


Your belief (or lack thereof) in the stated goal is utterly irrelevant.

So you agree it wasn't a strawman - good job. You really do love misattributing logical Fallacies...


The perspective to which I refereed was never one of owning a house, please stop with the strawmans.

Lol. Again, so you know what my memory is like on my life, 5+ years ago - when you don't know me. That's the length you are having to go to, to make your narrative fit. I'd never presume to know your perspective on what your life was like 5 years ago.

And again, it's not a strawman. Hell, if there is any strawmanning going on - it's from someone who is attributing to Me what they feel my thoughts and memories must be... That'd be a Strawman right there...


When you sell an asset, the sale price from the asset is income. Any profits (or lack thereof) that said asset had the potential to make in future are irrelevant.

In the strictest sense - no, it's not Income, you've liquidated an asset - you may have gained the dollar value of the item, but you have lost access to that asset. Your net financial position is unchanged.

Consider a Car - if you own a $10,000 Car - you list it as an Asset - assuming it's your only asset - you have a Net Worth of $10,000. If you sell it, you still have a net worth of $10,000 - only in the form of Cash and not the asset (and you forgo the ability to drive the car).

Whereas with an Income: $10,000 Car + $400 Income = net worth of $10,400.

See the difference? There's also a bit of a hint in the names - one is called 'Income' - the other is called 'Capital Gains' - if you look real closely, you'll see they are different.


Investment speculation is still a factor, so lets close the loophole and treat it as a taxable investment.

Let's not.

Let's first find out exactly how much of a factor it is (compared to say, immigration, the RMA, historical undervaluing etc.) and then let's do some case studies on whether any implementations have achieved the desired result.

Could you also clarify exactly what your desired result is? You started with helping the Poor - but the last 3 posts have entirely been about penalizing and Taxing the Rich.

[TheDemonLord]

Bro. No cunt reads you're ten thousand wanky words responses. Boring as fucking batshit.

Actually, Guano is rather interesting....

Besides - it's either this or doing actual work....

[mashman]

its been 30 years since 1987 and several people think the current boom will extend for 2 years then may slow down similarly to back then. Approx 15 year cycles.

“We know that for centuries, the land value cycle has operated on an 18-year basis,” Harrison said in a phone interview. “The fact is, there is a very clear 18-year pattern, which is always intersected with a mid-term recession.” (https://www.theepochtimes.com/economists-explain-why-our-economy-crashes-every-18-years_2000510.html)

[Berries]

You really do love misattributing logical Fallacies...
I had one of those. Complete bastard to start on a cold morning.

[eldog]

“We know that for centuries, the land value cycle has operated on an 18-year basis,” Harrison said in a phone interview. “The fact is, there is a very clear 18-year pattern, which is always intersected with a mid-term recession.” (https://www.theepochtimes.com/economists-explain-why-our-economy-crashes-every-18-years_2000510.html)

I don’t remember the land value changing much(maybe it did? Or the rate of increase just slowed), it was the amount of funding and paying work available that reduced dramatically, as it all seemed to be built on a house of cards.
earlier periods had artificial dampers on the economy. Limited funds movement.

land will almost always go up, There is basically only a finite amount available. The rest depends on weather it is financially viable to develop.
shanty towns are built on areas not ready for development.
Unfortunately a minority own it, unless there is a change of policy or govt.
recently people haven’t wanted to carry on with what their parents did (family business/farm etc) they see selling their assets as a way of realising cash to do other things. The recent boom has amplified these events.

i don’t know what happens in China, but doesn’t the govt there own the land and lease it out?
doesnt it also develop areas for industry etc. some areas flashy new homes/apartments right next to 60s and 70s shanty towns-looked to me it was multi decade cycle for development, but land value?. The people there living out of what we would call garages scrapping a living really made me appreciate how lucky NZ is.

as I said before, these are only my own observations, surprises me how they can be accurate.

there are other cycles that the previous gubbermint missed and now is costing NZ $$$
but it suited the policy at the time, to get rid of an old archaic system.

in a few years this will come back to haunt some people but only a few will know. Thing is to get into a position to be on the ground floor when things start to happen and don’t get caught out or have enough to make it or sacrifice whatever to continue till the next wave.

[eldog]

I had one of those. Complete bastard to start on a cold morning.

You need to get some of that “Start Ya Barstard” from Grumph :niceone:

[eldog]

Actually, Guano is rather interesting....

Besides - it's either this or doing actual work....

There is money and work in Guano don’t you know.:yes:

never heard of anyone fucking batshit.........

well, except for Robin “Holy fucking batshit, Batman”

[jasonu]

some are in the wrong location or don’t have the skill set or no jobs to suit.
others can’t be arsed....and make it a lifestyle, move and get free furniture from gubbermint each time, etc.
dont care about society

:wait:

You mean like up in Northland.

[jasonu]

I believe in hand ups rather than handouts. Regardless a society is judged by how they treat the less fortunate and less able.
No child growing up in NZ should be deprived from the basic human right be warm and fed and to feel safe. Children can’t control are smart or hard working their parents are.

Yes it is tough on the kids.
There should be a way to feed, house, doctor, school ect JUST the kids while providing absolutely no benefit to the bludger parents that breed simply for the free cash they know they will receive from the tax payer.

[Laava]

You mean like up in Northland.
Stop picking on axehole!

[Laava]

There is money and work in Guano don’t you know.:yes:

never heard of anyone fucking batshit.........

I know plenty of people who are fucking batshit crazy!

[Ocean1]

I believe in hand ups rather than handouts. Regardless a society is judged by how they treat the less fortunate and less able.
No child growing up in NZ should be deprived from the basic human right be warm and fed and to feel safe. Children can’t control are smart or hard working their parents are.

You'd have no problem with asking beneficiaries to work for their benefits, then. Personally I judge society by how equal the contribution of it's members are, and we've gone so far down the wealth redistribution trail now that well over half of us are beneficiaries. At the direct expense of the hardest working and most productive of the rest.

Agree entirely. And you'll find the solution among queue of hard working Kiwis wanting to adopt the kids who's parents didn't consider their welfare when they had them.

[sidecar bob]

Interest rates can modify the affordibility in contrast to the purchase price. Plus basic market forces, obviously.

Please explain why this source of investment income should not be taxed.

Thank you.
I have been persuaded that it should be taxed & fairly hard. Thank you for your kind words that have resulted in me becoming a more understanding member of society.

[mashman]

I don’t remember the land value changing much

"He said the problem rests in the land-value cycle, which has a domino effect on the construction cycle, the business cycle, and then the overall economy.". It's not just the land value that changes. Although the Land Value on our place went up this last year. Not sure what happened to it. I guess that's a typical econmic response to a growing scarcity.

The Land-Value cycle may not be the catalyst cycle, but something seems to spook enough people every few years as you've noted yourself.

Don't get me started that this is all over money. Coz even though it is (without doubt), some peeps just ain't ready to accept that. Usually those with a dog in the hunt ;)

Yep, it's all a bit weird that we take what we can when the goings good and hunker down when the bad times come. The irony being that when you spook customers into hunkering down for too long, the economy starts to wobble. Then you need a war and presidents that encourage you to go out and buy in order to help fund the war. It'd be a great comedy sketch if it weren't reality.

Anyhoo, we have cycles. Do you think it will really matter whether we can predict them? What would such knowledge be useful for?

[Graystone]

Er... picking the number that's the top of the Google Search... Tsk Tsk

https://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/Reports/55d47011-64a2-4bfb-9907-30fe14ac0281/-new-zealand-inflation-rate-y-y-2q_20110823112432.png

Which is more relevent to the time period in question - that's an average of 3% over 4 years, either way, it's not as Drastic as you try and make it sound. Although I think the rate did slow around 2012/2013 which was due to the global recession.



And? Do you want a House? Yes? Then you have to make the lifestyle choice that enables you to get a House. If you don't like the choices you have to make, then either:

The choices aren't acceptable to you
or
You don't really want a house.

The number of choices, so long as they are an integer greater than or equal to 1, is irrelevant.



So you agree it wasn't a strawman - good job. You really do love misattributing logical Fallacies...



Lol. Again, so you know what my memory is like on my life, 5+ years ago - when you don't know me. That's the length you are having to go to, to make your narrative fit. I'd never presume to know your perspective on what your life was like 5 years ago.

And again, it's not a strawman. Hell, if there is any strawmanning going on - it's from someone who is attributing to Me what they feel my thoughts and memories must be... That'd be a Strawman right there...



In the strictest sense - no, it's not Income, you've liquidated an asset - you may have gained the dollar value of the item, but you have lost access to that asset. Your net financial position is unchanged.

Consider a Car - if you own a $10,000 Car - you list it as an Asset - assuming it's your only asset - you have a Net Worth of $10,000. If you sell it, you still have a net worth of $10,000 - only in the form of Cash and not the asset (and you forgo the ability to drive the car).

Whereas with an Income: $10,000 Car + $400 Income = net worth of $10,400.

See the difference? There's also a bit of a hint in the names - one is called 'Income' - the other is called 'Capital Gains' - if you look real closely, you'll see they are different.



Let's not.

Let's first find out exactly how much of a factor it is (compared to say, immigration, the RMA, historical undervaluing etc.) and then let's do some case studies on whether any implementations have achieved the desired result.

Could you also clarify exactly what your desired result is? You started with helping the Poor - but the last 3 posts have entirely been about penalizing and Taxing the Rich.

Tsk tsk yourself, 3 years of data is inadequate.

And one of those choices is to pressure the govt to address the tax loophole.

Strawmen arguments are, by definition, irrelevant.

It was you who claimed you knew and had the perspective to which I referred, clearly you did not.

Take an accounting course dude, sale of an asset is income. The capital gains difference is that you don't list the purchase price as an expense, so the income from the total sale price gets the purchase price deducted, then the sales profit is taxed. Just like a car (except they rarely appreciate in value).

Case studies? It's an income, tax it, no case studies required. The thing about financial sector / economists / govt / stats, is that you can make an argument for whatever you like, you just have to add a lot of assumptions. Sometimes you just have to do what is right. "Passive income's" is one of the reasons the divide between rich and poor is what it is, when one side has to work and produce for their money, but the other side simply lets existing money make more of itself (in many cases obtaining it from the poor); seems like taxing the rich (and it is important to note I don't mean taxing them into the ground here, just making sure their sources of income actually are taxed) is helping the poor.

[Graystone]

Thank you.
I have been persuaded that it should be taxed & fairly hard. Thank you for your kind words that have resulted in me becoming a more understanding member of society.

No problem, I'll be here all week :sunny:

[husaberg]

You'd have no problem with asking beneficiaries to work for their benefits, then. Personally I judge society by how equal the contribution of it's members are, and we've gone so far down the wealth redistribution trail now that well over half of us are beneficiaries. At the direct expense of the hardest working and most productive of the rest.
Well i have no problem with some beneficiaries working for the benefit when able remember a lot of those beneficiaries are on the old age pension just as you will be soon.
Any work for the benefit needs to be for non-profit entities as community work. Not for people you wish to profit out of the use of free labour or cheap labour or out of a subsidies of having them work in a profit making entity


Agree entirely. And you'll find the solution among queue of hard working Kiwis wanting to adopt kids who's parents didn't consider their welfare when they had them.
I don't consider taking kids from their parents as the aussie’s did to the aborigines is the answer do you?

<strike></strike>

[Ocean1]

Well i have no problem with some beneficiaries working for the benefit when able remember a lot of those beneficiaries are on the old age pension just as you will be soon.
Any work for the benefit needs to be for non-profit entities as community work. Not for people you wish to profit out of the use of free labour or cheap labour or out of a subsidies of having them work in a profit making entity


I don't consider taking kids from their parents as the aussie’s did to the aborigines is the answer do you?

<strike></strike>

Actually the work just has to be of sufficient value to cover their benefit, it matters fuck all who pays it. I can reassure you, though that no commercial outfit wants beneficiaries on their payrole, even with the taxpayer covering part of the price historically they've generally proven to cost more than they earn.

The answer to what? Giving kids the basic support their parents failed to provide? Hell yes!

[Ocean1]

.........Again, if you pine for a low spec bungalow on a quarter acre then you might be well served by asking who's stopping you buying one for the same price your dear old dad did.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/96484661/waipa-mayor-affordable-housing-problem-remains-unless-attitudes-change

[husaberg]

Actually the work just has to be of sufficient value to cover their benefit, it matters fuck all who pays it. I can reassure you, though that no commercial outfit wants beneficiaries on their payrole, even with the taxpayer covering part of the price historically they've generally proven to cost more than they earn.

Private enties using free labour to compete with existing bussiness paying labour is not the answer to anything ocean other than driving wages down.
I still recall the days when that happened.



The answer to what? Giving kids the basic support their parents failed to provide? Hell yes!
Maybe you should let the less fortunate sell the kids then? that would be the ultimate free market solution then ocean. we could have baby mills instead of puppy mills.:facepalm:

[Grumph]

You need to get some of that “Start Ya Barstard” from Grumph :niceone:

I'm saving what I have here for the local Nat MP. Now she's in opposition she thinks she should oppose the latest local roading upgrades because some fed farmers members don't like them....

[TheDemonLord]

Tsk tsk yourself, 3 years of data is inadequate.

It was a nice graph for the relevant time period. Plus I'd knew you'd quibble regardless what was posted, so I went with the least effort option.


And one of those choices is to pressure the govt to address the tax loophole.

That's not an individual choice, is it?

You are demanding (with the fiat of force) that someone else does something to benefit you. Rather than making changes that only effect you.

This is what my Toddler does.


It was you who claimed you knew and had the perspective to which I referred, clearly you did not.

In order to make that statement - you'd need to know what my perspective was 5 years ago. There is no way you can know that. Yet to make your rebuttal work, that's what you have resort to.


Take an accounting course dude, sale of an asset is income. The capital gains difference is that you don't list the purchase price as an expense, so the income from the total sale price gets the purchase price deducted, then the sales profit is taxed. Just like a car (except they rarely appreciate in value).

I did - It was really helpful when I was house hunting...

There is a key difference, and since I know you love my analogies - assume you own a factory that makes Motorbikes - your income is based on the sale of goods or services (in this case a good) - Each motorbike you sell does not preclude you from making more (unless you are Buell...) - hence it is income and listed as such in your ledger. Your factory however is a capital asset, it's listed elsewhere in your ledger and if you sell it, you can't make more motorbikes. That's why they are called different things and are treated differently.

It's a really weak position when you have to redefine words (with prior established meanings) in order to bolster your argument.


Case studies? It's an income, tax it, no case studies required.

No, it's not. You say it is, but your say-so does not define language, meanings or definition. So absolutely a case study is required.


The thing about financial sector / economists / govt / stats, is that you can make an argument for whatever you like, you just have to add a lot of assumptions.

So you are saying that your argument is made up of a lot of assumptions - glad you admit it.


Sometimes you just have to do what is right.

Thus spake every tyrant ever...



"Passive income's" is one of the reasons the divide between rich and poor is what it is, when one side has to work and produce for their money, but the other side simply lets existing money make more of itself (in many cases obtaining it from the poor); seems like taxing the rich (and it is important to note I don't mean taxing them into the ground here, just making sure their sources of income actually are taxed) is helping the poor.

Wholly Horseshit Batman.

There is so much wrong with that statement.

What happens when you "Let Money make Money" - it doesn't magically happen, there are 2 key things you are deliberately ignoring (cause you are definitely smart enough to know better):

1: In order to let money make money, one has to take a risk - a risk that is absent when you "work and produce for their money". I'm channeling the spirit of Ocean here - but this risk is important to account for - If I make a bad decision at work, I'll never loose hundreds and thousands from my personal wealth.

2: The mechanism by which "Money makes Money" is Investment, The Mortgage you get from a bank is possible because someone richer than you has invested money in the bank (such as a term deposit or savings account or similar). The Small business that you want to start with a business loan - that's because someone decided to either personally (as an investor) or impesonally (via a bank) to give you money to help you get out of poverty and become a productive member of society, it's by helping others become productive, that we gain a proportion of that generation of Wealth.

For more info - see The Little Red Hen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen)

And here comes the rub - those who have that money are under no obligation to keep it in a manner which enables you to receive some of the benefits from it (by allowing you access to finance) - What would happen if they decide that investing in NZ and NZ businesses is no longer worth it - well, we know what happens in that scenario - And guess who suffers to the most - That would be the poor....

[husaberg]

I'm saving what I have here for the local Nat MP. Now she's in opposition she thinks she should oppose the latest local roading upgrades because some fed farmers members don't like them....
I am surprised that in the middle of range rover tweed cap wearing moleskin clad pipe smoking country gentleman that the Feds would consider a womans opinion relevent at all.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cb/c0/b0/cbc0b05cbd5995210fc5e220b4469925.jpg (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj20OmysqnaAhUJO7wKHQJmCg4QjRx6BAgAEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F554927 985307690136%2F&psig=AOvVaw2HHOdX0CRmokYZ9PtJvY1l&ust=1523232766142811)

[Graystone]

It was a nice graph for the relevant time period. Plus I'd knew you'd quibble regardless what was posted, so I went with the least effort option.



That's not an individual choice, is it?

You are demanding (with the fiat of force) that someone else does something to benefit you. Rather than making changes that only effect you.

This is what my Toddler does.



In order to make that statement - you'd need to know what my perspective was 5 years ago. There is no way you can know that. Yet to make your rebuttal work, that's what you have resort to.



I did - It was really helpful when I was house hunting...

There is a key difference, and since I know you love my analogies - assume you own a factory that makes Motorbikes - your income is based on the sale of goods or services (in this case a good) - Each motorbike you sell does not preclude you from making more (unless you are Buell...) - hence it is income and listed as such in your ledger. Your factory however is a capital asset, it's listed elsewhere in your ledger and if you sell it, you can't make more motorbikes. That's why they are called different things and are treated differently.

It's a really weak position when you have to redefine words (with prior established meanings) in order to bolster your argument.



No, it's not. You say it is, but your say-so does not define language, meanings or definition. So absolutely a case study is required.



So you are saying that your argument is made up of a lot of assumptions - glad you admit it.



Thus spake every tyrant ever...




Wholly Horseshit Batman.

There is so much wrong with that statement.

What happens when you "Let Money make Money" - it doesn't magically happen, there are 2 key things you are deliberately ignoring (cause you are definitely smart enough to know better):

1: In order to let money make money, one has to take a risk - a risk that is absent when you "work and produce for their money". I'm channeling the spirit of Ocean here - but this risk is important to account for - If I make a bad decision at work, I'll never loose hundreds and thousands from my personal wealth.

2: The mechanism by which "Money makes Money" is Investment, The Mortgage you get from a bank is possible because someone richer than you has invested money in the bank (such as a term deposit or savings account or similar). The Small business that you want to start with a business loan - that's because someone decided to either personally (as an investor) or impesonally (via a bank) to give you money to help you get out of poverty and become a productive member of society, it's by helping others become productive, that we gain a proportion of that generation of Wealth.

For more info - see The Little Red Hen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen)

And here comes the rub - those who have that money are under no obligation to keep it in a manner which enables you to receive some of the benefits from it (by allowing you access to finance) - What would happen if they decide that investing in NZ and NZ businesses is no longer worth it - well, we know what happens in that scenario - And guess who suffers to the most - That would be the poor....

We were discussing the time period 04 to '14, 3 years doesn't cut it.

Sure it is, it just won't get individual results.

So what happens to the money when the factory is sold? does it not get classified as an income source and taxed accordingly?

Any argument in detail made up of those assumptions and can result in whatever you like. Why not skip that shit and just tax the income/profit, since that is how tax works?

1) So what? Risk is not inherently valuable, nor is it much of a risk to begin with.

2) Fractional reserve banking went away a long time ago, nobody has to deposit money for you to get a mortgage.

Oh look, more assumptions and economist dickery. Taxing an income source which is not taxed is simply closing a loophole, calm down chicken little.

[Grumph]

I am surprised that in the middle of range rover tweed cap wearing moleskin clad pipe smoking country gentleman that the Feds would consider a womans opinion relevent at all.

They don't - she's simply a tool. and ranked somewhere below a shovel in usefulness.

[husaberg]

They don't - she's simply a tool. and ranked somewhere below a shovel in usefulness.
To be fair she should to be ale to whip up a batch of scones for a raffle but seriously I bet she cant quote the differences between a series 1 and 2 Land Rover.

[Ocean1]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Private enties using free labour to compete with existing bussiness paying labour is not the answer to anything ocean other than driving wages down.
I still recall the days when that happened.

[LEFT][COLOR=#FFFFFF][FONT=Verdana]
Maybe you should let the less fortunate sell the kids then? that would be the ultimate free market solution then ocean. we could have baby mills instead of puppy mills.:facepalm:

Here's an idea: How about they just earn enough to pay their own way like everyone else?

Then how about they make sure they earn enough to afford to have kids before they have them, like the rest of us?

[Katman]

Then how about they make sure they earn enough to afford to have kids before they have them, like the rest of us?

I'd include the issue of paid maternity leave in with that.

[sidecar bob]

Here's an idea: How about they just earn enough to pay their own way like everyone else?

Then how about they make sure they earn enough to afford to have kids before they have them, like the rest of us?

Come back to my theory of lazy, stupid & poor being bedfellows.

[husaberg]

Here's an idea: How about they just earn enough to pay their own way like everyone else?

Then how about they make sure they earn enough to afford to have kids before they have them, like the rest of us?
So no room for the poor to be selling of kids in the Ocean plan, Why draw the line at human trafficking its just supply and demand free market economy at its best.;)

[Ocean1]

So no room for the poor to be selling of kids in the Ocean plan, Why draw the line at human trafficking its just supply and demand free market economy at its best.;)

Um, because you can only trade what you own? Y'know, your car, your house, your labour.

And what exactly makes you think anyone other than the guy selling them and the guy buying them should get any say in that?

[Katman]

Come back to my theory of lazy, stupid & poor being bedfellows.

So what's your view on paid parental leave?

It is not another example of the government funding someone's lifestyle choice?

[husaberg]

Um, because you can only trade what you own? Y'know, your car, your house, your labour.
And what exactly makes you think anyone other than the guy selling them and the guy buying them should get any say in that?
So if you do actually draw the line a child trafficking why should it be okay to profit from the use of slave labour like you proposed earlier.
You know your compulsory work for the benefit scheme where the private sector can profit out of there use.

[Ocean1]

So if you do actually draw the line a child trafficking why should it be okay to profit from the use of slave labour like you proposed earlier.
You know your compulsory work for the benefit scheme where the private sector can profit out of there use.

What I proposed was that those receiving a benefit should provide labour to that value. Fuck all to do with slavery in fact.

[husaberg]

What I proposed was that those receiving a benefit should provide labour to that value. Fuck all to do with slavery in fact.
You had no issue with the private sector using them for profit and they don't have any choice about working for them, if that's not indentured servitude what is Ocean.:laugh:

[sidecar bob]

So what's your view on paid parental leave?

It is not another example of the government funding someone's lifestyle choice?

Yep, total cunt of a situation, & I had to hold a job open for some thieving bitch for 12 months at her behest so she could say yeah-nah at the end of it just so she could have the pleasure of fucking me about for the maximum period.
You need to employ a few people so you can get a real grip on how a business really works.

[Katman]

You need to employ a few people so you can get a real grip on how a business really works.

My business works better without them.

[sidecar bob]

My business works better without them.

I'll fucking bet it does.
Unfortunately mine grew to the point where I had to employ piss takers, liars & thieves. Pretty much a standard cross section of society.

[Katman]

I'll fucking bet it does.
Unfortunately mine grew to the point where I had to employ piss takers, liars & thieves. Pretty much a standard cross section of society.

I prefer to be in the position of being able to turn work away that I don't like the look of.

[TheDemonLord]

We were discussing the time period 04 to '14, 3 years doesn't cut it.

Indeed - so why did you quote the 2017-2018 inflation rate again? I picked that graph cause it was in the middle of the time period.


Sure it is, it just won't get individual results.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my wording - When your 'individual choice' places a fiat of force on everyone else, It's not an individual choice - you are making a choice for the group.

I'll make it real simple - Today, I want to the supermarket and bought a Tomato. That's an individual choice a made, that solely effected me.
If Tomorrow, I demand that you go to the Supermarket and buy me a Tomato, and threaten you with force if you don't comply. It may be an "individual choice" - but it's effecting others.


does it not get classified as an income source and taxed accordingly?

No, cause it's not Income - we've been through this:


So what happens to the money when the factory is sold?

Absolutely nothing. I repeat for clarity sake. Absolutely. Nothing.

Now, if I deposit that money in a bank, and it started earning Interest - I get Taxed on that Income, but if I take it home and stuff it in my Mattress - I'm not earning anything with it, ergo, it is not income, ergo, I don't pay income tax on it.



Any argument in detail made up of those assumptions and can result in whatever you like. Why not skip that shit and just tax the income/profit, since that is how tax works?

We already do - See, it's not an Income, therefore it's not taxed as Income Tax. There's no assumption here - It's clear in the use of different words to describe different things - so stop trying to conflate them, aint gonna wash


1) So what? Risk is not inherently valuable,

Risk is intrinsically linked with Reward - which IS inherently valuable. By transitive properties, Risk has an inherent Value.


nor is it much of a risk to begin with.

You sure about that? Unless you are a recent immigrant or are around 18 years old, then you must surely remember Finance company collapses - South Canterbury Finance, Bridgecorp etc. Pretty much an entire generation had life savings wiped out, to the tune of $3 Billion.

I dare you to find someone who lost everything they'd spent their lives working for, and tell them it wasn't much of a Risk...


2) Fractional reserve banking went away a long time ago, nobody has to deposit money for you to get a mortgage.

You also sure about that? We have a Lender of last resort (The reserve bank), which is a bit of a giveaway that we are using a Fractional Reserve system - Plus: "the monetary system in New Zealand is based on fiat and fractional-reserve banking."


nobody has to deposit money for you to get a mortgage.

Are you Really sure about that? It may not seem that way to you, but it is definitely the case - And I'll give you 2 reasons:

1: We've tried having a financial system where you give out Money, with no relation to either deposits or goods produced - Germany 1920 - it Didn't work - And our economy looks nothing like what happened in the Weimar republic.
2: If you do get to own your own home and you have over 20% equity, from time-to-time, you might re-finance your Mortgage - and then you will notice something very interesting - Banks that 3-4 years ago were desperate for your business (offering low interest rates, Cash in hand or Luxury goods to incentivize borrowing with them) are suddenly colder than a Prostitute who's not been paid. You may also notice the reverse - Banks that previously gave you the cold shoulder are now practically begging you to take out a Mortgage with them.

This is usually because those that are giving the cold shoulder have paid out term deposits or people who invested with them have liquidated their investment and they now need to balance the books, whereas those that are desperate have had an influx of investment and now have Cash to lend out to people, so they can charge interest on those loans, which in turn will pay the dividend on those influx of Investment.


Taxing an income source which is not taxed is simply closing a loophole, calm down chicken little.

Except it's not Income. Not in the Economists Definition. Not in the Legal definition. Not in the IRDs definition.

Only in yours. And the reason for that, is because your argument has more holes than my favourite faded Metallica T shirt without you redefining it.

[eldog]

I'll fucking bet it does.
Unfortunately mine grew to the point where I had to employ piss takers, liars & thieves. Pretty much a standard cross section of society.

Yeah, can’t come to work, got a fever, sore back, headache whatever next day arrive like nothing happened, you often know it’s school holidays or the kids playing up. Wife/hubby take alternate days off.

also difficult to get skilled staff so put up with whoever turns up. I don’t plan much ahead now days as who turns up is a lottery. One day I will win it. Amazing to watch angry staff.

dont worry sidecar bob occasionally payback occurs, usually from their own smart actions:nya: when you least expect it.

[Ocean1]

You had no issue with the private sector using them for profit and they don't have any choice about working for them, if that's not indentured servitude what is Ocean.:laugh:

What I proposed was that those receiving a benefit should provide labour to that value. Fuck all to do with slavery in fact.

[Katman]

I'll make it real simple - Today, I want to the supermarket and bought a Tomato. That's an individual choice a made, that solely effected me.
If Tomorrow, I demand that you go to the Supermarket and buy me a Tomato, and threaten you with force if you don't comply. It may be an "individual choice" - but it's effecting others.

Seriously dude, give up on the analogies.

(And learn the difference between affect and effect).

[Crasherfromwayback]

Indeed - so why did you quote the 2017-2018 inflation rate again? I picked that graph cause it was in the middle of the time period.



Perhaps I wasn't clear in my wording - When your 'individual choice' places a fiat of force on everyone else, It's not an individual choice - you are making a choice for the group.

I'll make it real simple - Today, I want to the supermarket and bought a Tomato. That's an individual choice a made, that solely effected me.
If Tomorrow, I demand that you go to the Supermarket and buy me a Tomato, and threaten you with force if you don't comply. It may be an "individual choice" - but it's effecting others.



No, cause it's not Income - we've been through this:



Absolutely nothing. I repeat for clarity sake. Absolutely. Nothing.

Now, if I deposit that money in a bank, and it started earning Interest - I get Taxed on that Income, but if I take it home and stuff it in my Mattress - I'm not earning anything with it, ergo, it is not income, ergo, I don't pay income tax on it.




We already do - See, it's not an Income, therefore it's not taxed as Income Tax. There's no assumption here - It's clear in the use of different words to describe different things - so stop trying to conflate them, aint gonna wash



Risk is intrinsically linked with Reward - which IS inherently valuable. By transitive properties, Risk has an inherent Value.



You sure about that? Unless you are a recent immigrant or are around 18 years old, then you must surely remember Finance company collapses - South Canterbury Finance, Bridgecorp etc. Pretty much an entire generation had life savings wiped out, to the tune of $3 Billion.

I dare you to find someone who lost everything they'd spent their lives working for, and tell them it wasn't much of a Risk...



You also sure about that? We have a Lender of last resort (The reserve bank), which is a bit of a giveaway that we are using a Fractional Reserve system - Plus: "the monetary system in New Zealand is based on fiat and fractional-reserve banking."



Are you Really sure about that? It may not seem that way to you, but it is definitely the case - And I'll give you 2 reasons:

1: We've tried having a financial system where you give out Money, with no relation to either deposits or goods produced - Germany 1920 - it Didn't work - And our economy looks nothing like what happened in the Weimar republic.
2: If you do get to own your own home and you have over 20% equity, from time-to-time, you might re-finance your Mortgage - and then you will notice something very interesting - Banks that 3-4 years ago were desperate for your business (offering low interest rates, Cash in hand or Luxury goods to incentivize borrowing with them) are suddenly colder than a Prostitute who's not been paid. You may also notice the reverse - Banks that previously gave you the cold shoulder are now practically begging you to take out a Mortgage with them.

This is usually because those that are giving the cold shoulder have paid out term deposits or people who invested with them have liquidated their investment and they now need to balance the books, whereas those that are desperate have had an influx of investment and now have Cash to lend out to people, so they can charge interest on those loans, which in turn will pay the dividend on those influx of Investment.



Except it's not Income. Not in the Economists Definition. Not in the Legal definition. Not in the IRDs definition.

Only in yours. And the reason for that, is because your argument has more holes than my favourite faded Metallica T shirt without you redefining it.

Bro. No cunt reads this amount of fucking drivel!

[husaberg]

What I proposed was that those receiving a benefit should provide labour to that value. Fuck all to do with slavery in fact.
but you said you were okay with the private sector profiting out of this free forced labour. How exactly is that not indentured servitude.

[TheDemonLord]

Bro. No cunt reads this amount of fucking drivel!

And yet, here the usual suspects are.

I guess you can't get enough of my wonderful Guff...

[TheDemonLord]

Seriously dude, give up on the analogies.

(And learn the difference between affect and effect).

Cool - I demand you come to Auckland to service my Bike, as opposed to Servicing it myself.

Either I get a free service, or you're a hypocrite (and my Analogy is perfectly valid)...

[Crasherfromwayback]

And yet, here the usual suspects are.

..

Shorten it up, and I'll consider reading it for a change! Then I can give you more shit.

[Katman]

Cool - I demand you come to Auckland to service my Bike, as opposed to Servicing it myself.

Either I get a free service, or you're a hypocrite (and my Analogy is perfectly valid)...

There's that autism again.

[Woodman]

Yep, total cunt of a situation, & I had to hold a job open for some thieving bitch for 12 months at her behest so she could say yeah-nah at the end of it just so she could have the pleasure of fucking me about for the maximum period.
You need to employ a few people so you can get a real grip on how a business really works.

I would love to see some figures on how many say they aren't coming back right at the end of their leave. It just fucks everyone around.

[mashman]

Chances of adults falling for bullshit on April Fools Day, 17%
Chances of adults falling for bullshit on, and leading up to election day, 77%

Yeah, kinda says it all really.

[TheDemonLord]

Shorten it up, and I'll consider reading it for a change! Then I can give you more shit.

Okay - how about this:

I'm right and you're wrong.

[TheDemonLord]

There's that autism again.

And there's that hypocrisy again...

[Crasherfromwayback]

Okay - how about this:

I'm right and you're wrong.

Incorrect. But a much better effort.

[sidecar bob]

Yeah, can’t come to work, got a fever, sore back, headache whatever next day arrive like nothing happened, you often know it’s school holidays or the kids playing up. Wife/hubby take alternate days off.

also difficult to get skilled staff so put up with whoever turns up. I don’t plan much ahead now days as who turns up is a lottery. One day I will win it. Amazing to watch angry staff.

dont worry sidecar bob occasionally payback occurs, usually from their own smart actions:nya: when you least expect it.

I'm talking about the dopey law that requires you to keep a new mothers job open to her for 12 months after giving birth if she so requests, just in case she feels like she might like to return on her whim.
And Katman, I turned away over a third of enquiries just so I could stay on top of quality demand for my services

[husaberg]

I'm talking about the dopey law that requires you to keep a new mothers job open to her for 12 months after giving birth if she so requests, just in case she feels like she might like to return on her whim.
Yeah but you can always hire someone on a fixed term contract as cover.
I also note National MP Amy Adams tried to introduce a bill that allowed both parents to take paid parental leave at the same time.

[Graystone]

Indeed - so why did you quote the 2017-2018 inflation rate again? I picked that graph cause it was in the middle of the time period.



Perhaps I wasn't clear in my wording - When your 'individual choice' places a fiat of force on everyone else, It's not an individual choice - you are making a choice for the group.

I'll make it real simple - Today, I want to the supermarket and bought a Tomato. That's an individual choice a made, that solely effected me.
If Tomorrow, I demand that you go to the Supermarket and buy me a Tomato, and threaten you with force if you don't comply. It may be an "individual choice" - but it's effecting others.



No, cause it's not Income - we've been through this:



Absolutely nothing. I repeat for clarity sake. Absolutely. Nothing.

Now, if I deposit that money in a bank, and it started earning Interest - I get Taxed on that Income, but if I take it home and stuff it in my Mattress - I'm not earning anything with it, ergo, it is not income, ergo, I don't pay income tax on it.




We already do - See, it's not an Income, therefore it's not taxed as Income Tax. There's no assumption here - It's clear in the use of different words to describe different things - so stop trying to conflate them, aint gonna wash



Risk is intrinsically linked with Reward - which IS inherently valuable. By transitive properties, Risk has an inherent Value.



You sure about that? Unless you are a recent immigrant or are around 18 years old, then you must surely remember Finance company collapses - South Canterbury Finance, Bridgecorp etc. Pretty much an entire generation had life savings wiped out, to the tune of $3 Billion.

I dare you to find someone who lost everything they'd spent their lives working for, and tell them it wasn't much of a Risk...



You also sure about that? We have a Lender of last resort (The reserve bank), which is a bit of a giveaway that we are using a Fractional Reserve system - Plus: "the monetary system in New Zealand is based on fiat and fractional-reserve banking."



Are you Really sure about that? It may not seem that way to you, but it is definitely the case - And I'll give you 2 reasons:

1: We've tried having a financial system where you give out Money, with no relation to either deposits or goods produced - Germany 1920 - it Didn't work - And our economy looks nothing like what happened in the Weimar republic.
2: If you do get to own your own home and you have over 20% equity, from time-to-time, you might re-finance your Mortgage - and then you will notice something very interesting - Banks that 3-4 years ago were desperate for your business (offering low interest rates, Cash in hand or Luxury goods to incentivize borrowing with them) are suddenly colder than a Prostitute who's not been paid. You may also notice the reverse - Banks that previously gave you the cold shoulder are now practically begging you to take out a Mortgage with them.

This is usually because those that are giving the cold shoulder have paid out term deposits or people who invested with them have liquidated their investment and they now need to balance the books, whereas those that are desperate have had an influx of investment and now have Cash to lend out to people, so they can charge interest on those loans, which in turn will pay the dividend on those influx of Investment.



Except it's not Income. Not in the Economists Definition. Not in the Legal definition. Not in the IRDs definition.

Only in yours. And the reason for that, is because your argument has more holes than my favourite faded Metallica T shirt without you redefining it.

Is the 2017/2018 inflation rate 2.4% ? I just quoted the rate for the time period in question... In fact the 17/18 rate is not that high either, perhaps just stop making shit up?

That's a fuckload of babble, skimmed what I could be arsed, salient counterpoints are:

Fixed Asset sales do not have absolutely nothing happen to the income generated. Just how shit was your accounting course? If depreciation has been correctly applied, and the book value is the same as the sale value then they cancel out, but it's not nothing. What sort of shit fucking accountant looks at a transaction on a statement and goes, nah, absolutely nothing happens to that; every thing gets coded mate, was your course done at a place with really colorful walls and small chairs? :laugh:

We don't use Fractional Reserve Banking; there's oversight on banks, which is basically as long as they are making profit, they can keep creating money.

Risk is not linked with reward, nor is the rewards strongly linked with risk. For every 1 sob story about the GFC there's 10 people who just rode it out and lost nothing.

Keep the next one under 300 words and I'll read it, the drivelous nature of your writing makes it unworthy of higher word counts than that. And giving you 300 is a fucking charity too...

[Graystone]

Incorrect. But a much better effort.

It's quite an accurate summation of the depth (or lack thereof) of his points and premise though. Cunts talks so much shit because it bamboozels all his dumbarse friends into thinking he is clever I reckon.

[Ocean1]

but you said you were okay with the private sector profiting out of this free forced labour. How exactly is that not indentured servitude.

'Fraid not dude:
What I proposed was that those receiving a benefit should provide labour to that value. Fuck all to do with slavery in fact.

You do realise, don't you, that the the real world doesn't call the free exchange of labour for money "indentured servitude" :laugh::laugh::laugh: We tend to describe it, for reasons having to do with the correct use of the language as "employment". A job.

Now I know there's a fucking big lump of the country that's dead agin' the whole concept of "work", but there's a sight more that are somewhat miffed at having to work extra hard to cover their arse.

[husaberg]

'Fraid not dude:

You do realise, don't you, that the the real world doesn't call the free exchange of labour for money "indentured servitude" :laugh::laugh::laugh: We tend to describe it, for reasons having to do with the correct use of the language as "employment". A job.

Now I know there's a fucking big lump of the country that's dead agin' the whole concept of "work", but there's a sight more that are somewhat miffed at having to work extra hard to cover their arse.
Only as I pointed out the private sector will not have to pay for that labour you want the tax payer to do it. you have also missed the bit where the beneficiaries have no choice in the matter.
If employed people don't like the conditions in under which they are employed they have options, what you propose is allowing the private sector to take further advantage of those that have no options. All the while while profiting out of it and competing against other companies that pay for their labour.

[Crasherfromwayback]

talks so much shit because it bamboozels all his dumbarse friends into thinking he is clever I reckon.

Not too sure how many this particular hombre might have in the real world.

[Woodman]

Yeah but you can always hire someone on a fixed term contract as cover.
I also note National MP Amy Adams tried to introduce a bill that allowed both parents to take paid parental leave at the same time.

Yeah but its hard to get someone on a fixed term contract that is any use. If the new mothers were just honest about it from the start it would be a lot easier.

[Ocean1]

Only as I pointed out the private sector will not have to pay for that labour you want the tax payer to do it. you have also missed the bit where the beneficiaries have no choice in the matter.
If employed people don't like the conditions in under which they are employed they have options, what you propose is allowing the private sector to take further advantage of those that have no options. All the while while profiting out of it and competing against other companies that pay for their labour.

:laugh: Want the tax payer to do it. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

You no read good.


I can reassure you, though that no commercial outfit wants beneficiaries on their payrole, even with the taxpayer covering part of the price historically they've generally proven to cost more than they earn.

So it's hardly any sort of commercial advantage, is it? In fact in the experience of every employer I know who availed themselves of those schemes it was a unmitigated disaster.

And how do you figure beneficiaries might not have less choice than anyone else in any work offered? Nobody else has the option of declining to go to work and still getting paid.

[husaberg]

:laugh: Want the tax payer to do it. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

You no read good

So it's hardly any sort of commercial advantage, is it? In fact in the experience of every employer I know who availed themselves of those schemes it was a unmitigated disaster.

And how do you figure beneficiaries might not have less choice than anyone else in any work offered? Nobody else has the option of declining to go to work and still getting paid.
The thing is Mr right wing free market is you say it wouldn't never actually occur and would in fact be a drain on the private sector.
why is it you refuse to let go of it actually excluding working in the free market for commercial gain then.


Yeah but its hard to get someone on a fixed term contract that is any use. If the new mothers were just honest about it from the start it would be a lot easier.
Yeah I know but its better than no one.
I think the problem is most new mothers don't actually know beforehand if they intend going back to work.I know a few career minded ones that have gone straight back twice now.

[Grumph]

And how do you figure beneficiaries might not have less choice than anyone else in any work offered? Nobody else has the option of declining to go to work and still getting paid.

Not so. On work schemes i've been involved in - on both sides of the fence too - decline the job and benefits stop.

I've arranged the work while working as a contractor for the old WINZ - and been in that position coming back off long term sickness.

Seriously, those schemes are a waste of time. Putting money into training is a far better use for it.

[Swoop]

I note on Te News, the gubbinment is releasing a new road-safety load of bollocks, which intends to point towards "zero harm" nonsense.
An attempt to lower the road toll (apparently to nil). The interesting part of this will be the bike related topics.

This could get interesting.

[TheDemonLord]

then they cancel out, but it's not nothing.

What's 2 - 2?

Cause they cancel out.


We don't use Fractional Reserve Banking; there's oversight on banks, which is basically as long as they are making profit, they can keep creating money.

You're simply wrong here. Look at the Wikipedia page for Fractional Reserve Banking - 2 things:

1: It mentions regulations
2: The Example it uses is the ANZ/National bank - which is in New Zealand...


Risk is not linked with reward, nor is the rewards strongly linked with risk. For every 1 sob story about the GFC there's 10 people who just rode it out and lost nothing.

Not doing anything is also a Risk. And there are a myriad of expressions both in the English Language and others demonstrating the link between Risk and Reward.


Keep the next one under 300 words and I'll read it, the drivelous nature of your writing makes it unworthy of higher word counts than that. And giving you 300 is a fucking charity too...

It's easy to keep it short, when you don't post anything to rebut ;)

[Graystone]

What's 2 - 2?

Cause they cancel out.



You're simply wrong here. Look at the Wikipedia page for Fractional Reserve Banking - 2 things:

1: It mentions regulations
2: The Example it uses is the ANZ/National bank - which is in New Zealand...



Not doing anything is also a Risk. And there are a myriad of expressions both in the English Language and others demonstrating the link between Risk and Reward.



It's easy to keep it short, when you don't post anything to rebut ;)

It's not doing absolutely nothing, and it only cancels out if the book value is accurate, if it's above that, then the difference is taxed; sound familiar? Like CGT perhaps...

You gave me shit for your erroneous presumption that I took numbers from the first google link, then you go and post some wiki shit? Seriously?? :laugh:

Expressions? fuck off with that shit rebuttal.

On the whole, that was much more concise and while you didn't do any better in terms of making a valid point, there was a lot less invalid ones :sunny:

[Ocean1]

The thing is Mr right wing free market is you say it wouldn't never actually occur and would in fact be a drain on the private sector.
why is it you refuse to let go of it actually excluding working in the free market for commercial gain then.

But it did occur. And it was a drain on the private sector. Which is why it was canned, they couldn't get employers interested even at heavily subsidised rates.

Why is it that you repeatedly reinterpret that to read "bogyman wants free labour"? Is it just so you can exercise your people's party justice warrior muscle?

And while we're on the topic of questions how about you stop the katflap impersonations and answer some for a change?


Um, because you can only trade what you own? Y'know, your car, your house, your labour.

And what exactly makes you think anyone other than the guy selling them and the guy buying them should get any say in that?

[TheDemonLord]

It's not doing absolutely nothing, and it only cancels out if the book value is accurate, if it's above that, then the difference is taxed; sound familiar? Like CGT perhaps...

So, you agree it's not Income - That's good. We're making progress. Still got a long way to go I see by the latter part of the sentance, but progress none-the-less.


You gave me shit for your erroneous presumption that I took numbers from the first google link, then you go and post some wiki shit? Seriously??

You've provided nothing to show we aren't using the Fractional Reserve System. Plus you are simply wrong.


Expressions? fuck off with that shit rebuttal.

Language has such a wonderful way of expressing concepts that are universally held to be true, even if they can't be empirically demonstrated to be true.

But if you want to act like an idiot, be my guest - I just thought that you were smarter than that.

[Ocean1]

Not so. On work schemes i've been involved in - on both sides of the fence too - decline the job and benefits stop.

I've arranged the work while working as a contractor for the old WINZ - and been in that position coming back off long term sickness.

Seriously, those schemes are a waste of time. Putting money into training is a far better use for it.

Which is exactly what I said happens with regular jobs.

And yes, of course they're a waste of time, the last time I helped out with transport for one most of the equipment ended up in the river.

And you're right about training, but a lot of them weren't interested the first time free training was offered at school and they're not fucking interested the second, third or fourth time.

[Graystone]

So, you agree it's not Income - That's good. We're making progress. Still got a long way to go I see by the latter part of the sentance, but progress none-the-less.



You've provided nothing to show we aren't using the Fractional Reserve System. Plus you are simply wrong.



Language has such a wonderful way of expressing concepts that are universally held to be true, even if they can't be empirically demonstrated to be true.

But if you want to act like an idiot, be my guest - I just thought that you were smarter than that.

It's money coming in, which is what I tend to term as income. The latter part of the sentence is correct, fixed assets are a pretty simple part of accounting. Please elaborate on your current understanding of them and we can apply appropriate rectification...

You've provided nothing to show we are, the FRB wiki page mentions ANZ twice, both in hypothetical terms.

And their lack of empiricalism is why I told you to fuck off with it.

[husaberg]

But it did occur. And it was a drain on the private sector. Which is why it was canned, they couldn't get employers interested even at heavily subsidised rates.
Why is it that you repeatedly reinterpret that to read "bogyman wants free labour"? Is it just so you can exercise your people's party justice warrior muscle?
And while we're on the topic of questions how about you stop the katflap impersonations and answer some for a change?
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.

[TheDemonLord]

It's money coming in, which is what I tend to term as income.

And you've regressed... Just because you term it as such, doesn't mean it is. Which is why you are consistently wrong on this.


The latter part of the sentence is correct, fixed assets are a pretty simple part of accounting.

Yes, but it's not the book value that's used to calculate a capital gain. Which is also, why you are wrong.


You've provided nothing to show we are, the FRB wiki page mentions ANZ twice, both in hypothetical terms.

So, a page about FRB, uses data from an NZ based bank - and you are trying to say this doesn't show that we use the FRS?

That and we have a Reserve Bank - as I said, you are simply wrong here.


And their lack of empiricalism is why I told you to fuck off with it.

Okay - Empircally prove that love exists, using a method that I can't also use to prove that Risk and Reward are linked.

[Graystone]

And you've regressed... Just because you term it as such, doesn't mean it is. Which is why you are consistently wrong on this.



Yes, but it's not the book value that's used to calculate a capital gain. Which is also, why you are wrong.



So, a page about FRB, uses data from an NZ based bank - and you are trying to say this doesn't show that we use the FRS?

That and we have a Reserve Bank - as I said, you are simply wrong here.



Okay - Empircally prove that love exists, using a method that I can't also use to prove that Risk and Reward are linked.

Which is a semantical difference of opinion, if you'd like to reference a correction I would be happy to change my terminology. Actually, I'll go first http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/income.html as you can see the way I use it fits def #1 (also, see xero codings) and #4, #2 is called profit in common NZ accounting usage (again, see xero), #3 is just a bit weird.

Isn't it? Book value is calculated by depreciating the asset from its purchase price (and coding that depreciation as an expense), no depreciation from a house is counted as an expense (nor appreciation as an income), so the book value remains the purchase/build price, and the capital gain to be taxed is the sales price minus the book value. So why am I wrong? Just what is your understanding of fixed assets?

Look at the date on the data, 2037, so even if you ignore the 'hypothetical' in the fucking title, all it means is we will be using FRB in 20 years, not that we use it now :laugh: Another option, tell me what the NZ bank's fractional reserve must be kept at or above? If we used FRB this would be available.

This is kiwibiker, you can fuck off with any notions about the existence of love, a gobby from katman is the most you can hope for round here.

[eldog]

I'm talking about the dopey law that requires you to keep a new mothers job open to her for 12 months after giving birth if she so requests, just in case she feels like she might like to return on her whim.

Haven’t had that problem, however have heard of others doing just that. I would be interested if you could check with ird? in case they were working elsewhere.... .

[Ocean1]

Yet you are the one who suggested it. 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.

Funny, my memory says you were the one who raised the issue.....


Any work for the benefit needs to be for non-profit entities as community work. Not for people you wish to profit out of the use of free labour or cheap labour or out of a subsidies of having them work in a profit making entity

To which I replied:


I can reassure you, though that no commercial outfit wants beneficiaries on their payrole, even with the taxpayer covering part of the price historically they've generally proven to cost more than they earn.

As I've pointed out to you numerous times since.

Just as we've also discussed how much of a waste of time and money community work schemes were.

What was your problem again?

[TheDemonLord]

Which is a semantical difference of opinion, if you'd like to reference a correction I would be happy to change my terminology. Actually, I'll go first http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/income.html as you can see the way I use it fits def #1 (also, see xero codings) and #4, #2 is called profit in common NZ accounting usage (again, see xero), #3 is just a bit weird.

If you think 3 is weird - that certainly confirms you've never done Accounting/Economics, but to answer your question - #1 does not fit the definition. Hence why you are wrong.


Isn't it? Book value is calculated by depreciating the asset from its purchase price (and coding that depreciation as an expense), no depreciation from a house is counted as an expense (nor appreciation as an income), so the book value remains the purchase/build price, and the capital gain to be taxed is the sales price minus the book value. So why am I wrong? Just what is your understanding of fixed assets?

Simple - in the NZ legislation for the topic we are discussing, there is no book value, there is only the sale price.


Look at the date on the data, 2037, so even if you ignore the 'hypothetical' in the fucking title, all it means is we will be using FRB in 20 years, not that we use it now :laugh: Another option, tell me what the NZ bank's fractional reserve must be kept at or above? If we used FRB this would be available.

And why would they use NZ as a Hypothetical example if we didn't use the system they are talking about.

But more importantly:

"There are three main components of the Reserve Bank's liquidity policy:

- minimum ratio requirements calculated from banks' financial data; " - that they do not specify what it is, is irrelevant.

Again - you are simply wrong on this.


This is kiwibiker, you can fuck off with any notions about the existence of love, a gobby from katman is the most you can hope for round here.

Oooo That clearly hit a nerve... But thanks for proving my point that Risk and Reward are linked.

[husaberg]

Funny, my memory says you were the one who raised the issue.....



To which I replied:

As I've pointed out to you numerous times since.

Just as we've also discussed how much of a waste of time and money community work schemes were.

What was your problem again?

yet you cling to having to unemployed work for private enterprise. even though you suggest it wouldn't ever happen you still cling to the ideal of free labour for private enterprise.
PS your memory is wrong just like most of your opinions

You'd have no problem with asking beneficiaries to work for their benefits, then. Personally I judge society by how equal the contribution of it's members are, and we've gone so far down the wealth redistribution trail now that well over half of us are beneficiaries. At the direct expense of the hardest working and most productive of the rest.

Agree entirely. And you'll find the solution among queue of hard working Kiwis wanting to adopt the kids who's parents didn't consider their welfare when they had them.
To which I replied

Well i have no problem with some beneficiaries working for the benefit when able remember a lot of those beneficiaries are on the old age pension just as you will be soon.
Any work for the benefit needs to be for non-profit entities as community work. Not for people you wish to profit out of the use of free labour or cheap labour or out of a subsidies of having them work in a profit making entity
So you raised the need for having people have to work for their benefit
I said only if they are not making money for private enterprise ,you just keep on talking crap it would never happen yet insisted it would have to be still an option that no one would ever use Yeah right
Enjoy having a goverment you never voted for i am certainly going to enjoy your moaning about it.

[Graystone]

If you think 3 is weird - that certainly confirms you've never done Accounting/Economics, but to answer your question - #1 does not fit the definition. Hence why you are wrong.



Simple - in the NZ legislation for the topic we are discussing, there is no book value, there is only the sale price.



And why would they use NZ as a Hypothetical example if we didn't use the system they are talking about.

But more importantly:

"There are three main components of the Reserve Bank's liquidity policy:

- minimum ratio requirements calculated from banks' financial data; " - that they do not specify what it is, is irrelevant.

Again - you are simply wrong on this.



Oooo That clearly hit a nerve... But thanks for proving my point that Risk and Reward are linked.

#1 is the first part of the definition, what do you mean it doesn't fit?

All fixed assets have a book value. You were attempting to use fixed assets as a way to show the income generating assets were not subject to any sales tax. So when I show that fixed assets are subject to sales tax based on sales price difference to book value, it shows you were wrong.

So what is NZs minimum reserve ratio? You can't honestly expect a hypothetical example on a wiki page to carry the burden of proof here can you...

Not at all, sometimes an absurd demand/question only deserves an absurd answer.

[TheDemonLord]

#1 is the first part of the definition, what do you mean it doesn't fit?

It doesn't fit what you are trying to say it does - hence why no one else (except you) refers to it as Income. Please stop trying to redefine things to fit what you think they should mean.


All fixed assets have a book value. You were attempting to use fixed assets as a way to show the income generating assets were not subject to any sales tax. So when I show that fixed assets are subject to sales tax based on sales price difference to book value, it shows you were wrong.

I'm using NZ law, kinda trumps any interpretation you have. Which is why you're still wrong.


So what is NZs minimum reserve ratio? You can't honestly expect a hypothetical example on a wiki page to carry the burden of proof here can you...

It's greater than 0, less than 1 - as confirmed by the Reserve Bank - I don't need to know WHAT the ratio is, only that there IS a ratio, to know we use FRB. The Hypothetical used NZ because it's the system we use.


Not at all, sometimes an absurd demand/question only deserves an absurd answer.

It wasn't absurd. It plays out like this - you can't measure Love in a classically empirical fashion, yet you can reason that people act as if Love it real - and you can point to a multitude of datapoints to the confirm this. One such datapoint is language.

People act as if Risk is tied to Reward, and whilst you are correct that this can't be measured in the same empirical way as above, it can be measured in the same way as Love - and one such data point is.....

[Graystone]

It doesn't fit what you are trying to say it does - hence why no one else (except you) refers to it as Income. Please stop trying to redefine things to fit what you think they should mean.



I'm using NZ law, kinda trumps any interpretation you have. Which is why you're still wrong.



It's greater than 0, less than 1 - as confirmed by the Reserve Bank - I don't need to know WHAT the ratio is, only that there IS a ratio, to know we use FRB. The Hypothetical used NZ because it's the system we use.



It wasn't absurd. It plays out like this - you can't measure Love in a classically empirical fashion, yet you can reason that people act as if Love it real - and you can point to a multitude of datapoints to the confirm this. One such datapoint is language.

People act as if Risk is tied to Reward, and whilst you are correct that this can't be measured in the same empirical way as above, it can be measured in the same way as Love - and one such data point is.....

Try answering with a few proper references, or at least some demonstrable logic, all the repitions of 'I'm right/you're wrong' with inadequate justification make you look silly.

[TheDemonLord]

Try answering with a few proper references, or at least some demonstrable logic, all the repitions of 'I'm right/you're wrong' with inadequate justification make you look silly.

You asked for brevity, now you are complaining about my shortened answers...

There's plenty of justification for each statement, which is why your entire argument requires you to redefine things to suit. I'm simply refusing to accept your incorrect definitions, showing them as wrong, calling them as such, pointing to the correct meaning, and saying I'm right.

Which is both logical and justified.

[Graystone]

You asked for brevity, now you are complaining about my shortened answers...

There's plenty of justification for each statement, which is why your entire argument requires you to redefine things to suit. I'm simply refusing to accept your incorrect definitions, showing them as wrong, calling them as such, pointing to the correct meaning, and saying I'm right.

Which is both logical and justified.

I asked for a lack of waffle and drivel, succinct logic and reference are still great options.
You do not show which you claim, instead merely overstate your opinion; which is by definition, unjustified.

Have another go at my post a couple back...

[TheDemonLord]

I asked for a lack of waffle and drivel, succinct logic and reference are still great options.
You do not show which you claim, instead merely overstate your opinion; which is by definition, unjustified.

Have another go at my post a couple back...

So, you got nothing but your own made-up definitions then.

That's cool, I'm just disappointed - thought you were better than that.

[Graystone]

So, you got nothing but your own made-up definitions then.

That's cool, I'm just disappointed - thought you were better than that.

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...

[Ocean1]

yet you cling to having to unemployed work for private enterprise. even though you suggest it wouldn't ever happen you still cling to the ideal of free labour for private enterprise.
PS your memory is wrong just like most of your opinions

To which I replied

So you raised the need for having people have to work for their benefit
I said only if they are not making money for private enterprise ,you just keep on talking crap it would never happen yet insisted it would have to be still an option that no one would ever use Yeah right
Enjoy having a goverment you never voted for i am certainly going to enjoy your moaning about it.

So you just agreed, I made no mention whatsoever as to who beneficiaries should work for.

And you also just agreed that it was you that raised the issue about having them work for private enterprise.

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".

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.

[sidecar bob]

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...

But when he does you call it waffle that you can't be bothered reading.
You either have to read the waffle or settle for monosyllabic answers, one or the other.

[Katman]

This is kiwibiker, you can fuck off with any notions about the existence of love, a gobby from katman is the most you can hope for round here.

That's a purdy little mouth you've got there bogan.