Stupid World

[Akzle]

But it's not growing.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]



Absolutely. On the back of off-shore taxes they're thriving.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]



Multinational domestic earnings are whatever they say they are, they just assign material and off-shore overheads until they're happy with the cross border results. Like Aus multinationals charging Head Office overheads to NZ entities until there's fuck all profit in NZ on which to pay tax. You could make rules to limit that, but they'd be so tortuous and convoluted they'd open up far more loopholes than they'd plug. We need to wait for the current international tax law agreement negotiations to come to some sort of unilateral conclusion, if we tried going alone we'd have fuck all industry by lunchtime tomorrow.

We also need to gang up on multinational monopolies to stop them gouging off-shore markets, that's potentially costing us more than any less than optimal tax rules.

the sad bit is, you actually believe (in) this shit. you're not just trolling.

[bogan]

Absolutely. On the back of off-shore taxes they're thriving.

Absolute poverty is pretty much a swear word around here with all the entitlement complexes determined to have as much as the 'neighbors' whether they earn it or not.

But honestly, there's no other metric worth using.

That income equality graph is also interesting, perhaps one of the 'astute' regulars to this thread might note that income is not wealth. But again, income is a far better metric to use, though it also doesn't run to the doom and gloom conclusions the stupid worlders would have you believe.

So, fuck yeh, onwards and upwards I say!

[Ocean1]

I was going to launch into a negative along the lines of

wtf are u on whillis

but them interesting graphs

Prosperity is fading s
and has been since the turn of the century

Here I agree

I would say since the mid to late 1800s

but then wealth of the 1% hmmmmm thats a long bow to draw



Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

No bow pulling whatsoever, them's the unadulterated numbers, like it or not.

And wrong again, prosperity is far from fading. Have a wee scroll through the dates: http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content..._maddison.html

[Ocean1]

the sad bit is, you actually believe (in) this shit. you're not just trolling.

Facts?

Ohyeah, can't beat 'em. You should try.

Oh wait, that's what you do, innit?

[Ocean1]

Absolute poverty is pretty much a swear word around here with all the entitlement complexes determined to have as much as the 'neighbors' whether they earn it or not.

But honestly, there's no other metric worth using.

That income equality graph is also interesting, perhaps one of the 'astute' regulars to this thread might note that income is not wealth. But again, income is a far better metric to use, though it also doesn't run to the doom and gloom conclusions the stupid worlders would have you believe.

So, fuck yeh, onwards and upwards I say!

It's also verboten to observe that in spite of all of the alleged endemic tax avoidance those top 1% pay 34% of the tax take. And that's the US, home of the tax dodge.

Last time I looked, in NZ the top 5% family's contribution was 47%.

[mashman]

Facts?

You have none. What you have produced is a best guess. No more. No less.

[Brian d marge]

No bow pulling whatsoever, them's the unadulterated numbers, like it or not.

And wrong again, prosperity is far from fading. Have a wee scroll through the dates: http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content..._maddison.html

No sorry

but you will have wait until I get home for a answer

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

You have none. What you have produced is a best guess. No more. No less.

No, no, they're facts.

But even if they were utterly outrageous guesses they'd still be closer to solid fact than anything you've got.

[Ocean1]

No sorry

but you will have wait until I get home for a answer

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

You're not actually interested in the facts, then.

Just "no, you're wrong, the facts don't matter and I'll work out why later."

Edit: Actually, don't bother, go argue with these dudes: http://www.rug.nl/search/?searchtext...0-+2010+excel+

[J.A.W.]

No, no, they're facts.
But even if they were utterly outrageous guesses they'd still be closer to solid fact than anything you've got.

& to quote a resident regular Homo Erectus, viz: Bogus.. "Irregardless... citation needed..." L.O.L...

You cannot be seriously defending those parasites..
.. its not even close - to being like the situation George Harrison sang about in 'Tax Man'..

[Ocean1]

& to quote a resident regular Homo Erectus, viz: Bogus.. "Irregardless... citation needed...".

Right there. ^

You cannot be seriously defending those parasites..
.. its not even close - to being like the situation George Harrison sang about in 'Tax Man'..

The world's wealthiest are parasites, now?

Gwarne, fuck the broken old union dogma off eh?

[Katman]

The world's wealthiest are parasites, now?

They always were.

[bogan]

What about Elon Musk?

[mashman]

No, no, they're facts.

But even if they were utterly outrageous guesses they'd still be closer to solid fact than anything you've got.

Not even one of NZ's leading statisticians, when "cornered", had the temerity to claim that the gathering and crunching of data was fact. Have you ever watched statistical calculations as they run? I have. Do you know that as the calculations run they discard anything that breaks the calculation (outliers). So no, you have best guess.

@outrageous guesses. Where's the fat kid when you need someone to cry hyperbole.

[bogan]

Not even one of NZ's leading statisticians, when "cornered", had the temerity to claim that the gathering and crunching of data was fact. Have you ever watched statistical calculations as they run? I have. Do you know that as the calculations run they discard anything that breaks the calculation (outliers). So no, you have best guess.

@outrageous guesses. Where's the fat kid when you need someone to cry hyperbole.

If you read the link Ocean put up, you'll find no outliers were discarded, in fact the very thing being examined is the 1%, by definition, a statistical outlier

The funny thing is, even your rebuttals are just outrageous guesses