The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Katman]

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

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

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

[Katman]

You cannot get reward without Risk.

What about an inheritance?

[Graystone]

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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheDemonLord]

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

3 years of Economics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

Edit: And I'm out.

[Katman]

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

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

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

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

Edit: And I'm out.

That's probably a good idea.

3 years of Economics.

[Swoop]

What about an inheritance?

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

Perhaps "do some research"?

[Katman]

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

Perhaps "do some research"?

I didn't say inheritance tax, shitforbrains.

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

Perhaps learn to fucking read.

[Crasherfromwayback]

3 years of Home Economics.

----

Edit: And I'm out.

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

Bye bye!

[Swoop]

I didn't say...

No surprises there with jumping ships mid tack.

In other words you've got nothing.

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

[Katman]

No surprises there with jumping ships mid tack.

Comprehension's not your strongpoint, is it?

[Graystone]

3 years of Economics.



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



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

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

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

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



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



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



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

----

Edit: And I'm out.

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

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

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

There's no risk of not being rewarded.

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

[Swoop]

Comprehension's not your strongpoint, is it?

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

[Katman]

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

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

Fuck off back and re-read the posts shitforbrains.

[Swoop]

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

Fuck off back and re-read the posts shitforbrains.

Why? You stated something that wasn't true and I pointed that out. We know that you can't handle others doing this to you.

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

Hopefully your counselling is progressing well.