Random Politics

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Maybe.

I know you might be worried about being embarrassed like you might feel f_t should feel embarrassed... but you don't have to get it right, just have a go.

End your amateur psychoanalysis and actually answer my arguments if you dare. Go on, tell me how Labour's CGT plan ISN'T a big wetdream for tax lawyers and accountants and answer the criticisms of people like John Sherwin, instead of doing some make-belief exercise.

Lightspeed, your intellectual dishonesty knows absolutely no bounds. I am intensely critical of you and F-T because you're both dishonest slimebags. F_T "Referencing" some report by just endless quoting it verbatim isn't an argument -- do you even know what an "argument" is. When I pointed out that F_T was being dishonest or disingenuous by claiming that Berl is independent in relation to that report AND that it didn't even address important issues/considerations in that report, you and your friend just go and dodge this. What are you scared of? That I (and just about everyone here who's breathing) will crush you in any debate without even trying?

Or are you still taking acid and now think that you're God and can manipulate reality?

[Lightspeed]

Straight to devaluing, huh?

[Lightspeed]

And what if we don't want to have arguments? What if critical discussion is more interesting to some people? You know, where you do refer to the knowledge of the wider community, as imperfect as that knowledge might be.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Straight to devaluing, huh?

Well, you don't exactly offer much to encourage anyone to have a high opinion of you. Meanwhile, I notice you're still completely unable to engage in any debate on this issue and instead spent all your last few posts "psychoanalysing" others. So who's devaluing who, idiot?

BTW, notice how I have referred to the knowledge of the wider community, imbecile? And of course you and Fixed_shit are still making arguments -- it's just that your arguments aren't very good. You can't escape the notion of moral autonomy. If you choose to proffer a point of view on a PUBLIC forum and put things up in support of that point of view, you're ultimately responsible for what you put up at least to a certain extent. The exact extent to which you're responsible will depend on the factual context but the idea that constantly just referencing (without further comment or elaboration) others' work -- without criticial analysis or comment -- in favour of one's viewpoint isn't making some kind of argument in favour of that viewpoint, is just nonsense. It's just that kind of argument isn't very effective or intellectually honest.

Are you really asserting F_T is doing that "just because"? Are you really this stupid?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

not independent

Independent in that it's projections are not influenced or controlled by Labour or anyone else. It's pretty obvious but yet another example of why people have trouble communicating with you.

Go on, tell me how Labour's CGT plan ISN'T a big wetdream for tax lawyers and accountants and answer the criticisms of people like John Sherwin

Sherwin is measuring Labours CGT against a theoretical CGT which is highly difficult to implement and one that would also be politically stupid. Globally tax exemptions here are quite routine and yes the exemptions in Labours CGT do create potential loopholes, though as Berl chief economist Dr Ganesh Nana points out, (in his opinion fap fap) there are loopholes but fewer than there used to be.

Nonetheless my point still stand:

from their projections it's reasonable for Labour to claim this as an outcome of their CGT.

But you keep up all the childish name calling and personal insults. They say a lot.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Independent in that it's projections are not influenced or controlled by Labour or anyone else. It's pretty obvious but yet another example of why people have trouble communicating with you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.Have you ever actually engaged people to write reports for you? I have. Do you know WHY the High Court (and all courts of law for that matter), for example, insist on people who give expert evidence in court to swear an oath or affirm that the expert owes a duty to the court notwithstanding the fact that they are paid by the party that puts them on the stand? Are you able to put two and two together?

The idea that a commercial entity "obvious[ly]" isn't influenced or controlled by the people that commissions a report from them is something that only you think is obvious.

Sherwin is measuring Labours CGT against a theoretical CGT which is highly difficult to implement and one that would also be politically stupid.

Politically difficult? Sure. But there's simply no way that a flatter, less-exemptions-based CGT can be more difficult to implement. An assertion isn't an argument.

... though as Berl chief economist Dr Ganesh Nana points out, (in his opinion fap fap) there are loopholes but fewer than there used to be.

I am not aware that Nana possesses the necessary expertise to comment on the interpretation of tax laws. Do you ask doctors for their opinions on aerodynamics (for example) per chance?

[cyc]

Oh and it's nice of you to snip my quoted words and pretend as though I was asserting that Berl at large is not independent, a claim which I never made. Are you always so intellectually dishonest and what makes you such a slimebag generally? Hey keep posting more pictures alluding to animal abuse whilst you are at it!

[SickBo@Work]

That much rage in the edited versions makes you wonder what was in it prior.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by SickBo@Work

That much rage in the edited versions makes you wonder what was in it prior.

Yawn. Go back to pre-school.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

The idea that a commercial entity "obvious[ly]" isn't influenced or controlled by the people that commissions a report from them is something that only you think is obvious.

You agree that Berl at large is independent but it's reports might not be? In the context of 'independent' as I referred to, (although them being biased is a possibility) imo their record says otherwise.

Originally Posted by cyc

Politically difficult? Sure. But there's simply no way that a flatter, less-exemptions-based CGT can be more difficult to implement. An assertion isn't an argument.

Shewan wants to cover all property (no exemption for the family house) and it to be levied continually, not just when the asset is realised. This could get very messy ie, having money there to pay for the gain and determining the true capital gain on your investment property (& the rest) in any given year etc

Originally Posted by cyc

I am not aware that Nana possesses the necessary expertise to comment on the interpretation of tax laws. Do you ask doctors for their opinions on aerodynamics (for example) per chance?

What expertise to you think that he needs to comment on the effects of a CGT? This type of economic policy is hardly new, and he is one of NZs leading economists.

[BloodDonor]

isnt about 85% of NZ's national Debt, actually owed by the Banks

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

This type of economic policy is hardly new, and he is one of NZs leading economists.

How many tax loopholes there will be (which will substantially turn on the interpretation of Labour's amendments to the Tax Administration Act, if enacted) strikes me as more than just an economic policy issue. Have you read the TAA?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

You agree that Berl at large is independent but it's reports might not be? In the context of 'independent' as I referred to, (although them being biased is a possibility) imo their record says otherwise.

Are you really that poor at reading? When have I EVER contended that Berl at large isn't independent? You were the one being intellectually dishonest with your quote sniping.

"Independent"? Not vis-a-vis this report. There's a clear principal-agent relationship between Labour and Berl here.

I don't need to prove any bias on the part of Berl in the writing of this report, nor am I particularly interested in whether they might in fact be so biased. My point is that you can't honestly and sensibly assert that a company commissioned to write a report -- which is in a principal-agent relaionship with its commissioner and in a commercial relationship with the principal -- is an independent entity IN RESPECT OF THE WRITING OF THAT REPORT.

[fixed_truth]

Me poor at reading? You quote me as saying "You agree that Berl at large is independent" - but then challenge me as saying the exact opposite??

Originally Posted by cyc

is an independent entity IN RESPECT OF THE WRITING OF THAT REPORT

They were commissioned so of course. It should be clear by now that my calling them independent is in reference to the impartiality of their report. You know, what we were discussing, the projected revenue from Labours CGT

/sematics

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Me poor at reading? You quote me as saying "You agree that Berl at large is independent" - but then challenge me as saying the exact opposite??

For fuck sake, I was complaining about your selective quoting sniping earlier. Stop dodging.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Straight to devaluing, huh?

Time for the psycholol words, huh?

[chubby]

you cant save him ccs... and theres no need.
cyc will never realise he was just OWNED.

[CCS]

Ban chubby pls.

[chubby]

so you dont get it either.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by chubby

you cant save him ccs... and theres no need.
cyc will never realise he was just OWNED.

Chubby, you're always hours late, wrong, and appear to be completely oblivious to your own stupidity. Have you ever managed to add some kind of value to this world?

[chubby]

did you get that hug yet?

[cyc]

Try and make sense occasionally, Chubz.

[chubby]

8) ive been reading the thread.
how 'bout you?

[CCS]

Ban chubby pls.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

Time for the psycholol words, huh?

It's not the words that are psychological, everyone knows what it is to devalue something or someone. It's observing and identifying cyc's pattern of communication/argumentation that's psychological. If pointing out what is abundantly clear is psychological.

I.E. cyc has no basis for his arguments, he just enjoys raging, and the easiest way to do this is to focus on why others' arguments are not acceptable, as opposed to providing arguments or thoughts of his own.

[Golden Teapot]

Chubby is harmless and is perhaps not yet beyond help. We shouldn't seek to ban people anyway. Instead we should try to help them in our individual ways that we think best. If he keeps posting then every three months or so I can check one of his posts and if he starts being a little more reasonable then I can take him off ignore. That's my way of helping him - he can have a slightly bigger audience for his brand of message but only if he plays sensibly.

Lightspeed of the other hand is on permanent ignore from me for having shown a profound lack of integrity. There's no recovery for this ever in my book.

[Lightspeed]

GT on integrity:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Having a minimum wages stops NZ helping the poor of most of the world, and stops employers offering jobs to those in NZ with limited skills. The social consequences of this are devastating; but the left don't care what they have done here, and given they've spent 60 years breeding-up an underclass (so a new generation of kids every 13 years) to vote for them there's not much hope of this ever being fixed.

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

As for your talk of an underclass - well those are the words of a person willing to look down upon others.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's not the words that are psychological, everyone knows what it is to devalue something or someone. It's observing and identifying cyc's pattern of communication/argumentation that's psychological. If pointing out what is abundantly clear is psychological.

You were using it in a psychological sense, you fucking limp penis. You weren't talking about a car being devalued because some damage to the bodywork, were you? No, you were all like "Look at you devaluing people!" Yes, everyone knows what it is to devalue someone and only psycholol faggots use it in every day conversation when they want everyone to kow they're being a psychofag.

Moral of the story: fuck up lolspeed you fucking faggot.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

fucking limp penis faggots psychofag.

Moral of the story: fuck fucking faggot.

Moral of the story: impotent rage.

[CCS]

No impotent rage here, just telling it how it is. You can't handle the truth.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I.E. cyc has no basis for his arguments, he just enjoys raging, and the easiest way to do this is to focus on why others' arguments are not acceptable, as opposed to providing arguments or thoughts of his own.

Do you think you can just lie daily on a public forum without people calling you out on it?

Moral of the story: impotent rage.

HAHAHAHAHAH who are you trying to kid? Your pathetic projections are getting worse and worse. Stop the drugs and go see a mental health professional. Everything that you've accused others of here you're 10 times more guilty yourself. You say nothing useful, nothing original, you're nothing but a liar, and you spend more time trying to devalue others than vice versa.

What makes you so utterly pathetic that you need to repeatedly construct patheic little lies about other people in a pathetic endeavour in pretending to have some kind of "insight"? This especially when your act never fails to convince anyone who's not a vegetable.

"Devaluing" you? That assumes you have greater value than a sack of shit.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

Do you think you can just lie daily on a public forum without people calling you out on it?

So call me out on a lie, in a way that would stand up in a court of law (seeing as this is your standard.)

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

So call me out on a lie, in a way that would stand up in a court of law (seeing as this is your standard.)

LOLspeed, anyone who can read can see that you were lying, for example, about my not having presented my own arguments against Labour's CGT. Don't going around playing dumb and acting like you are engaging in genuine inquiry. This trick of yours got old about 5 years ago.

Go to fraud school and learn better tricks, fraud.

[Lightspeed]

For my sake, cyc. I am clearly blind to these lies, because I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If the lies are so clear, you won't have any trouble demonstrating my lying.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

For my sake, cyc. I am clearly blind to these lies, because I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If the lies are so clear, you won't have any trouble demonstrating my lying.

You'll just keep denying the truth even when it's square in your face. You never, ever concede anything when caught redhanded. You're shameless and spineless. For proof, let's just remind you of your little stunts.

Originally Posted by LOLshit

cyc has no basis for his arguments, he just enjoys raging, and the easiest way to do this is to focus on why others' arguments are not acceptable, as opposed to providing arguments or thoughts of his own.

What I've said:

Well, your response is fairly ideologically-based too. Whilst National's opposition is lame, it is clear that there are many principled reasons for opposing the CGT AS LABOUR WISHES TO IMPLEMENT IT. I've already given some of those reasons and there are more:

(a) They are STILL favouring capital accumulation. Why should the gain be taxed at a flat 15%?

(b) The CGT is part of an overall tax package that's intended to lower the taxes of Labour's traditional support base whilst remaining (presumably) fiscally neutral or at least not excessively inflating the national debt. But given the number of exemptions and the like, Labour's projections of how much they can make out of it are unlikely to come to fruition. NZ will likely be in more debt if Labour implements its overall tax package, of which the CGT is only a part.

(c) With CGT being taxed at 15%, it'll be a certainty that the lawyers and accountants will be having a field day trying to convert income to capital for taxpayers to help them avoid tax and to be able to claim artificial losses. Labour has shown an absolutely dismal record in terms of being able to close tax loopholes.

I've challenegd you time after time to answer my points and you've ducked, cowered, and weaved. Most importantly, whether you agree with me or not, the notion that I have "no basis" for my arguments is manifestly false. Again, you were arrogantly using absolutes and got proved wrong without even trying. Does this remind you of the following?

Originally Posted by LOLlyingshit

For humans to function effectively (which typically results in "producing" because it's something we inherently like to do), FIRST they must have an experience of being acceptable.

When challenged to prove the 100% causation requirement claimed (see the word "must") vis-a-vis the productivity point, you then backtracked to:

Your surprise does not surprise me. It took decades of research to convince clinicians (and society in general) that infants in wards needed hugs for them not to die.

Today many would consider it fucked up not to give infants and toddlers emotional care in hospitals and orphanages. That it took research to convince us of this says something about us.

But clearly there are some that still aren't sure.

With more backtracking to:

I am trying to convince you that love is an essential need for the developing, growing human and that deprivation of love will lead to social dysfunction. The more severe the deprivation, the more severe the dysfunction (to the point of death for infants).

You think no one else is noticing the subtle slides? First it's a claim to social acceptance being a "must" for productivity, then if you don't accept the first claim you don't believe in hugging babies, then it's claim that "no love=social dysfunction". But the first point was still never proven but anyone who disagrees with Lolspeed hates science.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Lightspeed]

I'm not seeing any lies... you're calling me a liar, but you're demonstrating semantics...

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I'm not seeing any lies... you're calling me a liar, but you're demonstrating semantics...

HAH, this is predictable. Piss off, idiot. You made a absolute claim about me for a start and got proved wrong. Either apologise or accept that you're a piece of shit.

[Lightspeed]

Proved? Hahah, you ain't proved shit. Certainly not in anyway that could be presented in a court of law, that being your standard of evidence.

[IoriDyson]

one of you needs to walk away....

[Ajax]

Just toss a coin to see who wins, then relax for the rest of the day.