The 2017 Election Thread

[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/de...on/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 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/de...on/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 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.