The 2017 Election Thread

[Graystone]

Er... picking the number that's the top of the Google Search... Tsk Tsk



Which is more relevent to the time period in question - that's an average of 3% over 4 years, either way, it's not as Drastic as you try and make it sound. Although I think the rate did slow around 2012/2013 which was due to the global recession.



And? Do you want a House? Yes? Then you have to make the lifestyle choice that enables you to get a House. If you don't like the choices you have to make, then either:

The choices aren't acceptable to you
or
You don't really want a house.

The number of choices, so long as they are an integer greater than or equal to 1, is irrelevant.



So you agree it wasn't a strawman - good job. You really do love misattributing logical Fallacies...



Lol. Again, so you know what my memory is like on my life, 5+ years ago - when you don't know me. That's the length you are having to go to, to make your narrative fit. I'd never presume to know your perspective on what your life was like 5 years ago.

And again, it's not a strawman. Hell, if there is any strawmanning going on - it's from someone who is attributing to Me what they feel my thoughts and memories must be... That'd be a Strawman right there...



In the strictest sense - no, it's not Income, you've liquidated an asset - you may have gained the dollar value of the item, but you have lost access to that asset. Your net financial position is unchanged.

Consider a Car - if you own a $10,000 Car - you list it as an Asset - assuming it's your only asset - you have a Net Worth of $10,000. If you sell it, you still have a net worth of $10,000 - only in the form of Cash and not the asset (and you forgo the ability to drive the car).

Whereas with an Income: $10,000 Car + $400 Income = net worth of $10,400.

See the difference? There's also a bit of a hint in the names - one is called 'Income' - the other is called 'Capital Gains' - if you look real closely, you'll see they are different.



Let's not.

Let's first find out exactly how much of a factor it is (compared to say, immigration, the RMA, historical undervaluing etc.) and then let's do some case studies on whether any implementations have achieved the desired result.

Could you also clarify exactly what your desired result is? You started with helping the Poor - but the last 3 posts have entirely been about penalizing and Taxing the Rich.

Tsk tsk yourself, 3 years of data is inadequate.

And one of those choices is to pressure the govt to address the tax loophole.

Strawmen arguments are, by definition, irrelevant.

It was you who claimed you knew and had the perspective to which I referred, clearly you did not.

Take an accounting course dude, sale of an asset is income. The capital gains difference is that you don't list the purchase price as an expense, so the income from the total sale price gets the purchase price deducted, then the sales profit is taxed. Just like a car (except they rarely appreciate in value).

Case studies? It's an income, tax it, no case studies required. The thing about financial sector / economists / govt / stats, is that you can make an argument for whatever you like, you just have to add a lot of assumptions. Sometimes you just have to do what is right. "Passive income's" is one of the reasons the divide between rich and poor is what it is, when one side has to work and produce for their money, but the other side simply lets existing money make more of itself (in many cases obtaining it from the poor); seems like taxing the rich (and it is important to note I don't mean taxing them into the ground here, just making sure their sources of income actually are taxed) is helping the poor.

[Graystone]

Thank you.
I have been persuaded that it should be taxed & fairly hard. Thank you for your kind words that have resulted in me becoming a more understanding member of society.

No problem, I'll be here all week

[husaberg]

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.

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

Agree entirely. And you'll find the solution among queue of hard working Kiwis wanting to adopt kids who's parents didn't consider their welfare when they had them.

I don't consider taking kids from their parents as the aussie’s did to the aborigines is the answer do you?

[Ocean1]

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


I don't consider taking kids from their parents as the aussie’s did to the aborigines is the answer do you?

Actually the work just has to be of sufficient value to cover their benefit, it matters fuck all who pays it. 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.

The answer to what? Giving kids the basic support their parents failed to provide? Hell yes!

[Ocean1]

.........Again, if you pine for a low spec bungalow on a quarter acre then you might be well served by asking who's stopping you buying one for the same price your dear old dad did.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pro...titudes-change

[husaberg]

Actually the work just has to be of sufficient value to cover their benefit, it matters fuck all who pays it. 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.

Private enties using free labour to compete with existing bussiness paying labour is not the answer to anything ocean other than driving wages down.
I still recall the days when that happened.

The answer to what? Giving kids the basic support their parents failed to provide? Hell yes!

Maybe you should let the less fortunate sell the kids then? that would be the ultimate free market solution then ocean. we could have baby mills instead of puppy mills.

[Grumph]

You need to get some of that “Start Ya Barstard” from Grumph

I'm saving what I have here for the local Nat MP. Now she's in opposition she thinks she should oppose the latest local roading upgrades because some fed farmers members don't like them....

[TheDemonLord]

Tsk tsk yourself, 3 years of data is inadequate.

It was a nice graph for the relevant time period. Plus I'd knew you'd quibble regardless what was posted, so I went with the least effort option.

And one of those choices is to pressure the govt to address the tax loophole.

That's not an individual choice, is it?

You are demanding (with the fiat of force) that someone else does something to benefit you. Rather than making changes that only effect you.

This is what my Toddler does.

It was you who claimed you knew and had the perspective to which I referred, clearly you did not.

In order to make that statement - you'd need to know what my perspective was 5 years ago. There is no way you can know that. Yet to make your rebuttal work, that's what you have resort to.

Take an accounting course dude, sale of an asset is income. The capital gains difference is that you don't list the purchase price as an expense, so the income from the total sale price gets the purchase price deducted, then the sales profit is taxed. Just like a car (except they rarely appreciate in value).

I did - It was really helpful when I was house hunting...

There is a key difference, and since I know you love my analogies - assume you own a factory that makes Motorbikes - your income is based on the sale of goods or services (in this case a good) - Each motorbike you sell does not preclude you from making more (unless you are Buell...) - hence it is income and listed as such in your ledger. Your factory however is a capital asset, it's listed elsewhere in your ledger and if you sell it, you can't make more motorbikes. That's why they are called different things and are treated differently.

It's a really weak position when you have to redefine words (with prior established meanings) in order to bolster your argument.

Case studies? It's an income, tax it, no case studies required.

No, it's not. You say it is, but your say-so does not define language, meanings or definition. So absolutely a case study is required.

The thing about financial sector / economists / govt / stats, is that you can make an argument for whatever you like, you just have to add a lot of assumptions.

So you are saying that your argument is made up of a lot of assumptions - glad you admit it.

Sometimes you just have to do what is right.

Thus spake every tyrant ever...

"Passive income's" is one of the reasons the divide between rich and poor is what it is, when one side has to work and produce for their money, but the other side simply lets existing money make more of itself (in many cases obtaining it from the poor); seems like taxing the rich (and it is important to note I don't mean taxing them into the ground here, just making sure their sources of income actually are taxed) is helping the poor.

Wholly Horseshit Batman.

There is so much wrong with that statement.

What happens when you "Let Money make Money" - it doesn't magically happen, there are 2 key things you are deliberately ignoring (cause you are definitely smart enough to know better):

1: In order to let money make money, one has to take a risk - a risk that is absent when you "work and produce for their money". I'm channeling the spirit of Ocean here - but this risk is important to account for - If I make a bad decision at work, I'll never loose hundreds and thousands from my personal wealth.

2: The mechanism by which "Money makes Money" is Investment, The Mortgage you get from a bank is possible because someone richer than you has invested money in the bank (such as a term deposit or savings account or similar). The Small business that you want to start with a business loan - that's because someone decided to either personally (as an investor) or impesonally (via a bank) to give you money to help you get out of poverty and become a productive member of society, it's by helping others become productive, that we gain a proportion of that generation of Wealth.

For more info - see The Little Red Hen

And here comes the rub - those who have that money are under no obligation to keep it in a manner which enables you to receive some of the benefits from it (by allowing you access to finance) - What would happen if they decide that investing in NZ and NZ businesses is no longer worth it - well, we know what happens in that scenario - And guess who suffers to the most - That would be the poor....

[husaberg]

I'm saving what I have here for the local Nat MP. Now she's in opposition she thinks she should oppose the latest local roading upgrades because some fed farmers members don't like them....

I am surprised that in the middle of range rover tweed cap wearing moleskin clad pipe smoking country gentleman that the Feds would consider a womans opinion relevent at all.

[Graystone]

It was a nice graph for the relevant time period. Plus I'd knew you'd quibble regardless what was posted, so I went with the least effort option.



That's not an individual choice, is it?

You are demanding (with the fiat of force) that someone else does something to benefit you. Rather than making changes that only effect you.

This is what my Toddler does.



In order to make that statement - you'd need to know what my perspective was 5 years ago. There is no way you can know that. Yet to make your rebuttal work, that's what you have resort to.



I did - It was really helpful when I was house hunting...

There is a key difference, and since I know you love my analogies - assume you own a factory that makes Motorbikes - your income is based on the sale of goods or services (in this case a good) - Each motorbike you sell does not preclude you from making more (unless you are Buell...) - hence it is income and listed as such in your ledger. Your factory however is a capital asset, it's listed elsewhere in your ledger and if you sell it, you can't make more motorbikes. That's why they are called different things and are treated differently.

It's a really weak position when you have to redefine words (with prior established meanings) in order to bolster your argument.



No, it's not. You say it is, but your say-so does not define language, meanings or definition. So absolutely a case study is required.



So you are saying that your argument is made up of a lot of assumptions - glad you admit it.



Thus spake every tyrant ever...




Wholly Horseshit Batman.

There is so much wrong with that statement.

What happens when you "Let Money make Money" - it doesn't magically happen, there are 2 key things you are deliberately ignoring (cause you are definitely smart enough to know better):

1: In order to let money make money, one has to take a risk - a risk that is absent when you "work and produce for their money". I'm channeling the spirit of Ocean here - but this risk is important to account for - If I make a bad decision at work, I'll never loose hundreds and thousands from my personal wealth.

2: The mechanism by which "Money makes Money" is Investment, The Mortgage you get from a bank is possible because someone richer than you has invested money in the bank (such as a term deposit or savings account or similar). The Small business that you want to start with a business loan - that's because someone decided to either personally (as an investor) or impesonally (via a bank) to give you money to help you get out of poverty and become a productive member of society, it's by helping others become productive, that we gain a proportion of that generation of Wealth.

For more info - see The Little Red Hen

And here comes the rub - those who have that money are under no obligation to keep it in a manner which enables you to receive some of the benefits from it (by allowing you access to finance) - What would happen if they decide that investing in NZ and NZ businesses is no longer worth it - well, we know what happens in that scenario - And guess who suffers to the most - That would be the poor....

We were discussing the time period 04 to '14, 3 years doesn't cut it.

Sure it is, it just won't get individual results.

So what happens to the money when the factory is sold? does it not get classified as an income source and taxed accordingly?

Any argument in detail made up of those assumptions and can result in whatever you like. Why not skip that shit and just tax the income/profit, since that is how tax works?

1) So what? Risk is not inherently valuable, nor is it much of a risk to begin with.

2) Fractional reserve banking went away a long time ago, nobody has to deposit money for you to get a mortgage.

Oh look, more assumptions and economist dickery. Taxing an income source which is not taxed is simply closing a loophole, calm down chicken little.

[Grumph]

I am surprised that in the middle of range rover tweed cap wearing moleskin clad pipe smoking country gentleman that the Feds would consider a womans opinion relevent at all.

They don't - she's simply a tool. and ranked somewhere below a shovel in usefulness.

[husaberg]

They don't - she's simply a tool. and ranked somewhere below a shovel in usefulness.

To be fair she should to be ale to whip up a batch of scones for a raffle but seriously I bet she cant quote the differences between a series 1 and 2 Land Rover.

[Ocean1]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Private enties using free labour to compete with existing bussiness paying labour is not the answer to anything ocean other than driving wages down.
I still recall the days when that happened.
[LEFT][COLOR=#FFFFFF][FONT=Verdana]Maybe you should let the less fortunate sell the kids then? that would be the ultimate free market solution then ocean. we could have baby mills instead of puppy mills.

Here's an idea: How about they just earn enough to pay their own way like everyone else?

Then how about they make sure they earn enough to afford to have kids before they have them, like the rest of us?

[Katman]

Then how about they make sure they earn enough to afford to have kids before they have them, like the rest of us?

I'd include the issue of paid maternity leave in with that.

[sidecar bob]

Here's an idea: How about they just earn enough to pay their own way like everyone else?

Then how about they make sure they earn enough to afford to have kids before they have them, like the rest of us?

Come back to my theory of lazy, stupid & poor being bedfellows.