Capital Gains Tax finally on a major party's agenda

[Ocean1]

Sorry, I don't buy that.

Winston: Tax assets.

Ocean: Fuck off.

Pay attention.

[Hitcher]

If they can define what they provide then they can cost it and charge accordingly, same as anyone else that wants my money.

Charge whom, and on what basis?

[Winston001]

Winston: Tax assets.

Ocean: Fuck off.

Pay attention.

Ladies and Gentleman we would like to apologise for that last post, we’re sorry, we are really very sorry, we honestly so fucking sorry...

[Ocean1]

Charge whom, and on what basis?

Their customers. On the basis of reasonable value for money. And that's the sticking point, they're a monopoly, they wouldn't know what that means.

I once argued for flexible council boundaries, on the theory that if a majority in any given street / lump of dirt felt the neighbouring council offered a better deal they could simply redraw the map.

Can't think of any other way to introduce fair competition into that particular festering pit of waste that is local govt.

[Hitcher]

Their customers. On the basis of reasonable value for money.

No disagreement in theory, but in principle how? People don't want to pay for water usage, as some nongs believe that that is the first step to "privatisation" (some prats think it's currently "free"). Dog licenses, libraries, no problem. Rubbish collection, doable. Biosecurity (e.g. possum extermination), who pays? Flood protection, who pays? Public transport, who pays? Environmental monitoring, who pays? Economic development, who pays?

[Ocean1]

Biosecurity (e.g. possum extermination), who pays? Flood protection, who pays? Public transport, who pays? Environmental monitoring, who pays? Economic development, who pays?

The only elements not directly attributable to a consumer there are biosecurity and economic development.

Use the money saved from failing to arbitrarilly overcharge everyone for all of those that are.

I'm a tad gun-shy about the term user-pays. However...

[Hitcher]

The only elements not directly attributable to a consumer there are biosecurity and economic development.

What about flood protection? Who is the "beneficiary" of 1-in-440 protection on the Hutt River, for example, and what mechanism would you recommend to extract payment, if not through the blunt instrument of property rating?

[Ocean1]

What about flood protection? Who is the "beneficiary" of 1-in-440 protection on the Hutt River, for example, and what mechanism would you recommend to extract payment, if not through the blunt instrument of property rating?

I'm one of those beneficiaries. Charge me. If I don't like the council-imposed costs of living here then I wouldn't buy the place. Just make sure any changes in the plan are bloody well signalled and agreed by the clients.

Sorta like the real world.

[Hitcher]

I'm one of those beneficiaries. Charge me.

How should we charge you? I thought you were opposed to capital-based property rating? And don't you live on a hill or something?

[Ocean1]

How should we charge you? I thought you were opposed to capital-based property rating? And don't you live on a hill or something?

What's the propensity of my property to flood every 100 years got to do with it's capital value? Just send me an invoice for my share of the agreed work done, it's not difficult.

And no, no hill. Although I wll move to live on a modest hill in a couple of weeks.

[BMWST?]

What's the propensity of my property to flood every 100 years got to do with it's capital value? Just send me an invoice for my share of the agreed work done, it's not difficult.

And no, no hill. Although I wll move to live on a modest hill in a couple of weeks.

its got nothing to do with the capital value,as the propensity of my property to be flooded by the Hutt River is absolutely Zero.The Wellington regional council wants x dollars.It has been customary to divide that figure buy the total property value in the wellington region then apportion that charge directly proportional to the value of each property,probably an attempt to make the charge relative to the ability to pay,,which has some merit,...sorta like a non linear tax system,cos the rich pricks can afford to pay a bit more

[Ocean1]

The Wellington regional council wants x dollars.

That's my money you're talking about, the Wellington regional council can get off it's collective arse and work for it like everyone else.

Fucking customary? Tell you what, if you think there's merit in taxing based on your ability to pay then why isn't that OK in the real world? "The red Corolla Madam? Certainly, if' you'll just show me your payslip I'll work out the price."

Think I'll retire to one of those cruise ships registered as a Soverign nation, purely to avoid all the bullshit.

[avgas]

The marginal value of $1m to almost any 100,000 of the 1.4b people living on $1.25 a day or less is way closer to infinity, and such a windfall would lead to new businesses being created and many lives being improved. Almost nothing at the bottom end gets wasted on pointless consumption. Most is wasted at the top end. And yet many here would aspire to be wealthy. It's just stupid and unbalanced.

(For NZ, you have to scale my story above as our wages are low to start but not $1.25 a day low, so we have a misguided view of the problem).

What a lovely story.

So the big question is big man, would you cut your own pay so that others could live a better life.

Or are you the equivalent of a Labour Conan behind the keyboard. Words and no walk.
Because fact of the matter is you can do this right now......even without our blessing. CCF etc awaits your call.

[avgas]

Because the rich pricks have them. Duhh...!!

Yep.
Bit like the speeding tickets in south auckland........or lack there of.

Turns out asking for money from people who have none is a stupid idea.

[Hitcher]

its got nothing to do with the capital value,as the propensity of my property to be flooded by the Hutt River is absolutely Zero.

If you're not a resident of a flood risk area you don't pay rates for flood protection. A targeted rate is exactly that.