The 2017 Election Thread

[Graystone]

I didn't call you a bogan.

I called you bogan.

You may have fooled the others - but not me.

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

[husaberg]

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

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

Don't go letting actual reality cloud your take on events there ocean, you're clearly out of your depth.

[TheDemonLord]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Graystone]

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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

[Katman]

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

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

[Graystone]

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

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

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

[TheDemonLord]

It literally says capital profit in the list,

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

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

Commercial or residential?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Katman]

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

I don't need the hint bogan.

[Graystone]

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



Commercial or residential?

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

[Graystone]

I don't need the hint bogan.

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

[Katman]

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

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

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

[Graystone]

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

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

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

[Katman]

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

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

[TheDemonLord]

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

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

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

Correct.

and any differences were taxed accordingly?

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

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

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

And I'm having none of it.

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

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

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

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

[Graystone]

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



Correct.



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



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

And I'm having none of it.



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



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

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

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

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

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