Capital Gains Tax finally on a major party's agenda

[rainman]

Really bad example. Mother Theresa, well known Albanian egomaniac, was a Nun. She paid for her "great" works with the wealth of a church that systematically exploited the poor and established a social strata that denied those same poor any upward mobility at all by promising death and an eternal afterlife of being on fire and sodomised if they dared to think for themselves. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on the other hand exploited a system to earn billions and then pour billions back into the poor without setting anyone on fire or sodomising them.

That's a bit simplistic a deconstruction for you to be taken in by, isn't it Jim?

I'm no fan of the Catholic (or any other) church either, but even allocating for the fucked up mentality implicit in the worldview contributing to it, her net contribution to the well-being of the world is doubtless positive and, I suspect, greater than all of ours added together.

And I seriously doubt she either set anyone on fire or sodomised them either.

Buffett and Gates have done good things too, no doubt. Although it'll take a lot to forgive Bill for Clippy.

[James Deuce]

That's a bit simplistic a deconstruction for you to be taken in by, isn't it Jim?

I'm no fan of the Catholic (or any other) church either, but even allocating for the fucked up mentality implicit in the worldview contributing to it, her net contribution to the well-being of the world is doubtless positive and, I suspect, greater than all of ours added together.

Not at all. She created a net negative effect in many of the Indian cities she worked in. There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that she went beyond being a harsh task mitress and well into the abusive end of the spectrum when dealing with both her charity cases and her volunteer workforce, denying care to those who wouldn't convert to Catholicism. I don't think she deserves the veneration accorded her or her subsequent beatification. I think she was simply a colonial hangover in a post-colonial disaster zone and the head of a superb PR agency.

But then I really loathe organised religion and charity. I think both need to be taxed out of existence.

[blue rider]

But then I really loathe organised religion and charity. I think both need to be taxed out of existence.

AMEN AMEN AMEN
praise the bearded sky fairy and all

[rainman]

Not at all. She created a net negative effect in many of the Indian cities she worked in. There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that she went beyond being a harsh task mitress and well into the abusive end of the spectrum when dealing with both her charity cases and her volunteer workforce, denying care to those who wouldn't convert to Catholicism. I don't think she deserves the veneration accorded her or her subsequent beatification. I think she was simply a colonial hangover in a post-colonial disaster zone and the head of a superb PR agency.

But then I really loathe organised religion and charity. I think both need to be taxed out of existence.

Seems a big claim that the places she did work in are worse off for her presence, despite her undoubtedly having a super-sized helping of religious hangups. Certainly the standard of care seems to be less than perfect, but is imperfect care not better than nothing?

Nonetheless, my point stands, just substitute Gandhi, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, or better yet the many others outside of the limelight who work for nothing or next to it in education, welfare, counselling, disaster relief, environmental causes, support for war victims, poverty alleviation, disability.... and all the other places where the market does a particularly terrible job.

I understand the loathing of organised religion (although hold that some people seem to need it, therefore it's merely a market response to demand), but how would you replace charity? More taxes and central distribution and control? Or just fuck'em, their bad luck?

[BoristheBiter]

Seems a big claim that the places she did work in are worse off for her presence, despite her undoubtedly having a super-sized helping of religious hangups. Certainly the standard of care seems to be less than perfect, but is imperfect care not better than nothing?

Nonetheless, my point stands, just substitute Gandhi, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, or better yet the many others outside of the limelight who work for nothing or next to it in education, welfare, counselling, disaster relief, environmental causes, support for war victims, poverty alleviation, disability.... and all the other places where the market does a particularly terrible job.

I understand the loathing of organised religion (although hold that some people seem to need it, therefore it's merely a market response to demand), but how would you replace charity? More taxes and central distribution and control? Or just fuck'em, their bad luck?

And all are paid for by larger organisations that when in a position of power with the ability to change things they remain the same. (except the DL)

[rainman]

And all are paid for by larger organisations that when in a position of power with the ability to change things they remain the same. (except the DL)

And your point is?

[Winston001]

It would be churlish to pick on the word "excellence" as being extremely value-laden;

True, but better than the ephemeral "success" which most interpret as material wealth.

Or, setting the question in a different context: where is the incentive for an individual bee or ant to "excel", using your mindset? You are part of a society. Aggressive individualism is a mental aberration.

Mmm...but ants and bees are extreme examples of a hive mind. Humans do not act and cooperate on such a deep level.

The human animal is primarily selfish which drives the effort to compete and excel. Once the essentials of food/clothing/shelter are obtained, humans cooperate because we are sociable and value the increased security of the group. Nevertheless we continue to compete and can successfully leave the group if we wish.

In 50 years or so you'll be dead. In a hundred, forgotten. Who cares how much tax you pay?

I do. Sorta. My ability to sit here in comfort and debate stems from my grandfather buying a farm in 1908 which is still in the family today. It has sustained three generations. Had my grandfather been too heavily taxed, that would not have been possible.

Similarly I have spent my lifetime trying to build up wealth to pass on to my children and putative grandchildren. A capital gains tax would crush that.

[mashman]

True, but better than the ephemeral "success" which most interpret as material wealth.

If we're splitting hairs... Can you have success without the material wealth these days? and what damage does that success inflict on the community around us?

Mmm...but ants and bees are extreme examples of a hive mind. Humans do not act and cooperate on such a deep level.

Doesn't us all working and paying tax, for the Crown, kinda lump us in that hive mind group?

The human animal is primarily selfish which drives the effort to compete and excel. Once the essentials of food/clothing/shelter are obtained, humans cooperate because we are sociable and value the increased security of the group. Nevertheless we continue to compete and can successfully leave the group if we wish.

I don't believe that it's selfishness that drives competition and excelling. I would have thought that was down to how inquisitive and innovative we are? Unless you were meaning the potential "rewards" from the use of the "product"?

I do. Sorta. My ability to sit here in comfort and debate stems from my grandfather buying a farm in 1908 which is still in the family today. It has sustained three generations. Had my grandfather been too heavily taxed, that would not have been possible.

Similarly I have spent my lifetime trying to build up wealth to pass on to my children and putative grandchildren. A capital gains tax would crush that.

I'm gonna be taxed, same as everyone else (ok, maybe more... hey ho) and if it's going towards helping those who need help (which it does, or at least the smallest portion possible does ) then I'm fine with that, irrespective of level... tis the waste I can't stand, such as pay rises for public servants who already earn twice (if not slightly more) the national average salary, returning 33% of public money because a charitable donation was made, cycleways, politicians life perks, irrelevant infrastructure (transmission gully is a bad joke), lawyers, "compliance" fees etc...

Wouldn't your kids etc... only be hit with CGT if they sell? and as they haven't earned it, they're still gonna come out with more than they started with?... or they'll have enough equity in the asset to borrow and negate the need to sell and therefore bypass the CGT?

[rainman]

Mmm...but ants and bees are extreme examples of a hive mind. Humans do not act and cooperate on such a deep level.

They're not that extreme, just a community at a scale we can easily perceive. We're already a colony species, made up of various biological components that, as per the "selfish gene" logic, can be argued to drive our actions in some measure. How much of a stretch is it to see ourselves as part of a society that is evolving, a grand social organism that acts in ways that can be adjudged within an ethical framework of sorts? And thereby to understand our roles within this entity as not being limited by the boundary of the meatsack we appear to inhabit?

The human animal is primarily selfish which drives the effort to compete and excel. Once the essentials of food/clothing/shelter are obtained, humans cooperate because we are sociable and value the increased security of the group. Nevertheless we continue to compete and can successfully leave the group if we wish.

Too simplistic, I'm afraid. That we are generally self-interested does not mean that we are only self-interested, or that we should only be so. Where does love fit in your world-view? (Not desire, love). Or duty, obligation, compassion...? It would be a truly poor shadow of a life to life without those things.

I do. Sorta. My ability to sit here in comfort and debate stems from my grandfather buying a farm in 1908 which is still in the family today. It has sustained three generations. Had my grandfather been too heavily taxed, that would not have been possible.

Similarly I have spent my lifetime trying to build up wealth to pass on to my children and putative grandchildren. A capital gains tax would crush that.

15% on the capital gain at point of sale would crush that? Poor diddums. Methinks you protest too much.

Along the road from your grandfather's farm (who did he buy it from, by the way, and how are their families doing?) I'm sure there will have been hundreds or thousands of decisions and actions that have led to your present comfortable status. I'd bet tax rates (which have floated up and down over the years) have been a fairly small part of that story.

[BoristheBiter]

I'm gonna be taxed, same as everyone else (ok, maybe more... hey ho) and if it's going towards helping those who need help (which it does, or at least the smallest portion possible does ) then I'm fine with that, irrespective of level... tis the waste I can't stand, such as pay rises for public servants who already earn twice (if not slightly more) the national average salary, returning 33% of public money because a charitable donation was made, cycleways, politicians life perks, irrelevant infrastructure (transmission gully is a bad joke), lawyers, "compliance" fees etc...

Wouldn't your kids etc... only be hit with CGT if they sell? and as they haven't earned it, they're still gonna come out with more than they started with?... or they'll have enough equity in the asset to borrow and negate the need to sell and therefore bypass the CGT?

See that is the problem. We see things the same way, Hate all the wasted spending, But it is what we class as wasted spending that the problems start.
You might hate the amount of public servants that get pay rises, at least they go to work.

[mashman]

See that is the problem. We see things the same way, Hate all the wasted spending, But it is what we class as wasted spending that the problems start.
You might hate the amount of public servants that get pay rises, at least they go to work.

no argument from me... ok maybe a little one re the working bit and you know my solution for removing that bone of contention

[Winston001]

... tis the waste I can't stand, such as ... returning 33% of public money because a charitable donation was made..

Having a problem seeing anything wrong with this.

The rationale is:

• charities provide social services
• government avoids that responsibility, saves money and bureaucracy
• charities by law cannot benefit individuals - must be a group of people
• charities provide employment, and pay PAYE, GST, ACC and other taxes
• the tax deduction for an individual equals 30% of the total donation - not a lot and many people do not bother
• the tax deduction is a small incentive to give a larger donation

As a matter of interest, Roger Douglas (in the Fourth Labour government) proposed that the tax deduction be done away with. I assume you'll now be voting ACT Mash??

And again purely FYI, Roger Douglas also proposed that incorporated societies pay tax. He saw them as an uncontrolled grey-market.

[mashman]

Having a problem seeing anything wrong with this.

The rationale is:

• charities provide social services
• government avoids that responsibility, saves money and bureaucracy
• charities by law cannot benefit individuals - must be a group of people
• charities provide employment, and pay PAYE, GST, ACC and other taxes
• the tax deduction for an individual equals 30% of the total donation - not a lot and many people do not bother
• the tax deduction is a small incentive to give a larger donation

As a matter of interest, Roger Douglas (in the Fourth Labour government) proposed that the tax deduction be done away with. I assume you'll now be voting ACT Mash??

And again purely FYI, Roger Douglas also proposed that incorporated societies pay tax. He saw them as an uncontrolled grey-market.

I understand that it's a penny pinching point of view... it's the incentive side of it that really bothers me.

@voting I'll give it a miss thanks... unless of course someone wants to implement the free local economy .

[Winston001]

We're already a colony species, made up of various biological components that, as per the "selfish gene" logic, can be argued to drive our actions in some measure. How much of a stretch is it to see ourselves as part of a society that is evolving, a grand social organism that acts in ways that can be adjudged within an ethical framework of sorts?

Nazi Germany. Pol Pot. Idi Amin. The Rwandan genocide. Bosnia et seq. Monstrous episodes of human beings simply killed by other human beings. And this all happened during the flowering of our civilisation, vast advances in science, knowledge, and social attitudes.

Evolutionary psychology holds many of the answers for our behaviour. The veneer of modern society is tissue thin. I do not believe that man can cast aside the primal instincts from three million years of wandering in the savannah.

Too simplistic, I'm afraid. That we are generally self-interested does not mean that we are only self-interested, or that we should only be so. Where does love fit in your world-view? (Not desire, love). Or duty, obligation, compassion...? It would be a truly poor shadow of a life to life without those things.

Altruism in a nutshell. Ok, giving to the group (or an individual) appears to be unselfish. However the person giving has a chance of gaining higher status = more security. A concomitant benefit can be safety for one's children even though that may be bought through mortal danger.

Evolutionary psychology does not require judgements to be made as to whether love/loyalty/compassion are right or wrong. Personally I'm all for them. They exist and they are explainable.

[rainman]

Sorry for the slow response, been travelling.

I do not believe that man can cast aside the primal instincts from three million years of wandering in the savannah.

Never? So, what's a sane response to that idea: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? It's OK?

Ok, giving to the group (or an individual) appears to be unselfish. However the person giving has a chance of gaining higher status = more security....

Evolutionary psychology does not require judgements to be made as to whether love/loyalty/compassion are right or wrong. Personally I'm all for them. They exist and they are explainable.

Too mechanistic and cynical for my tastes. Love is not caring for someone in exchange for sex, protection, shelter or some other advantage. Compassion isn't to look good to others. Undoubtedly many do feign these and other "affections" for social advantage but that doesn't mean the real deal does not or can not exist. Believing no only that we are no more than the sum of our parts, but further that we are constrained by our biology to act and think in certain ways is.... unskillful. We can do better than that.

Evolutionary Bio is fascinating but not the last word. A friend risked death repeatedly for the benefit of others. He gained nothing but the knowledge he was helping sick children. He's very quiet about this matter and would want no public accolades or even private praise. He does not know, and will never meet, the people he helped. He gains nothing by this, nor do his descendants. But it was the right thing to do and he is sufficiently enlightened to have made the decision. Explainable? Yes, but not by EvBio. People have been doing this for centuries.

Note this isn't a plea to a higher absolute morality or deity, or even an appeal to the soul. I don't even think I have one of those - and certainly not a permanent one - and I'm definitely not big on deities. But I can tell you it's entirely possible (and fortunately not uncommon) for people to concern themselves the others for no personal gain at all.