Random Politics

[GRiM ReeFer]

Easy solution, don't pay low wages,

thought exercise,

double all wages in nz, tax subsides/payment for all exports to exactly compensate.

whats the result?

[ZoSo]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

You think that Key purposely avoiding answering questions about his own comments is a good thing?

After the VSM tactics it's dodge, weave, jab and outmaneuver all the way to the election afaic. Leaving the delusional ideal of an upstanding parliament to you, the greens, and faux outrage from Mallard & Labour.

Avoidance seems to be the way to go. Odds of this going anywhere this time?
http://www.elections.org.nz/study/ne...-act-1993.html

[fixed_truth]

I'm actually more concerned with the declining welfare of youth under National than Key's comical sidesteps.

But yeah, let's hold an 'anything goes' standard for the next few months eh?

[ZoSo]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

But yeah, let's hold an 'anything goes' standard for the next few months eh?

The Speaker has already kicked out the "'anything goes'"

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

You think that Key purposely avoiding answering questions about his own comments is a good thing?

Politicians have been doing that since the dawn of time

[Ab]

Originally Posted by ZoSo

http://www.elections.org.nz/study/ne...-act-1993.html

This isn't rocket science. The requirement for a promoter statement has been a core part of our electoral law since 1977, and something every party should be complying with out of habit. Failing to do so is a basic failure of political competence. After all, if you can't publish a fucking ad properly, how do you expect us to believe you can run the country?

Sadly, I don't think Labour will acknowledge that failure and commit to fixing it. Based on their past performance, we'll be treated to more arrogant whining instead.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

You think that Key purposely avoiding answering questions about his own comments is a good thing?

Typical leftie response. Yeah, we are all so impressed that Phil Goff got some one-upmanship going in the debating chamber. National isn't doing a good job but at least it's not completely dead in the polls and offering almost nothing whilst in opposition.

[Ab]

Chauvel said he believed someone in the Prime Minister's office made the complaint.

It's the duty of every NZ citizen to lay complaints when you dirty fuckers repeatedly break the law, you whiny little bitch.

[cyc]

Clearly you hate gay people!!

Response of a leftie moron

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Typical leftie response.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by cyc

National isn't doing a good job but at least it's not completely dead in the polls and offering almost nothing whilst in opposition.

A fairer tax system & a plan to pay off debt without selling assets isn't "almost nothing". And btw the last Herald-DigiPoll survey showed that Labours policy was preferred over Nationals but nobody likes Goff.

National were in opposition for 9 years and in Govt. for 3 and in all that time they haven't come up with much more than asset sales.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Thank you.

A fairer tax system & a plan to pay off debt without selling assets isn't "almost nothing". And btw the last Herald-DigiPoll survey showed that Labours policy was preferred over Nationals but nobody likes Goff.

You mean a "fairer" tax system that destroys our one and only almost undodgeable tax, would make people like me giddy with joy in terms of escalating the demand for tax avoidance "services" and manipulation by having staggered tax rates, and all that administered by people who -- when in power -- showed themselves to be utterly unable to create laws that maintained an effective tax system?

SUUUUUUURRREEE. Let's not get started on how Labour's CGT would raise shit fuck all for a significant period.

[chubby]

^^or nats 'food stamp' nonsense would do more than waste millions pandering to baseless prejudice.
oh yeah... and how do you feel about nacts "mad legislation skillz" re. copyright infringment act.
busy time for an apologist.

[xor]

Food stamps will just create a black market for people to buy their booze n shit right?

I mean, if Pedro is unemployed and wants a drank. He's gonna get that drank one way or another.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by cyc

SUUUUUUURRREEE. Let's not get started on how Labour's CGT would raise shit fuck all for a significant period.

Am I to understand that f_t's argument is that CGT is going to pay off the national debt? I'm skeptical that it would even offset the GST exceptions and the first $5000 tax free, let alone even make a start on debt.

Originally Posted by chubby

oh yeah... and how do you feel about nacts "mad legislation skillz" re. copyright infringment act.

Labour was just as guilty on that one.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

Am I to understand that f_t's argument is that CGT is going to pay off the national debt? I'm skeptical that it would even offset the GST exceptions and the first $5000 tax free, let alone even make a start on debt.



Labour was just as guilty on that one.

riiight... but asset sales WILL pay off national(heh) debt?
c'mon.wheres the beef?

and ive never defended them- but you seem to think that it's ok for your boys.
but yet again...... "the other guys did it".............YAWN

[fixed_truth]

@cyc - BERL, an independent and reputable group of economists projected that Labours CGT would raise $78 million in its first year and more than $2.2 billion a year by 2013. And btw Labours package would return to surpluses and retire debt in the same time frames as National.

But you're right, their CGT will kill us all

[CCS]

Originally Posted by chubby

riiight... but asset sales WILL pay off national(heh) debt?
c'mon.wheres the beef?

I think it's nothing better than a temporary solution. Still, retaining a majority share will at least mean that some profit continues coming in.

and ive never defended them- but you seem to think that it's ok for your boys.
but yet again...... "the other guys did it".............YAWN

Is that what I think? That it's okay? Are you talking to me or someone else here? If you're trying to claim that I'm defending the copyright act, then you're even more of a retard than I thought.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

OMG dont tell me what i think/said.. i just disagree derp derp

[CCS]

Yeah, you really are that stupid. Perhaps living in a fantasy world where you just make shit up and pretend that people have said it. Back on ignore list I guess.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

Back on ignore list I guess.

make my day, D-bag.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth
But you're right, their CGT will [url=http://www.imperatorfish.com/2011/07/why-capital-gains-taxes-will-kill-us.html

kill us all[/url]

Get with the times, imbecile. I'm a supporter of a properly implemented CGT, which excludes exceptions for so called "small businesses" and isn't full of holes/room for tax dodging.

http://www.nzgames.com/forums/showpo...1&postcount=55

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.

There are very valid reasons for opposing Labour's tax plans but this dumbarse "aspirational society" and "providing for my retirement" narrative is getting very boring. In fact, it's worse than boring. Most people would like to provide for their retirement -- the question is why should gains arising from capital accural should not be taxed when almost all income is taxed?

Secondly, it's becoming clear that we DON'T want a society of idiots aspiring to get rich VIA SPECULATING ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. This market is between 5 to 6 times larger than the worth of every single share on the NZX combined. Anyone who can't see a problem is plain ignorant.

Finally, for as long as we have no means-tested pension, very few people are purely funding their own retirement. Is this guy trying to tell me he won't try and collect the pension? By the way, have people noticed how the number of those having private health insurance in this country is dropping? Most people in real businesses actually support a CGT -- Labour's just poorly implemented.

Had enough eating shit yet, fixed_truth?

[cyc]

Fixed_truth is being his usual disgraceful, intellectually dishonest self again. I guess once a fraud, always a fraud. If you oppose Labour's CGT plan, you must believe that all CGT is evil and hate the poor!

Were you, err, oxygen poor at birth??

[chubby]

Originally Posted by cyc

I'm a supporter of a properly implemented CGT, which excludes exceptions for so called "small businesses" and isn't full of holes/room for tax dodging.

http://www.nzgames.com/forums/showpo...1&postcount=55

so do you have any way of communicating to your cock buddies that the policies they say are nonsense aren't?

or will you continue to swallow the semen of people that you say you often disagree with beacuse they enrich you?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by chubby

so do you have any way of communicating to your cock buddies that the policies they say are nonsense aren't?

or will you continue to swallow the semen of people that you say you often disagree with beacuse they enrich you?

Can you occasionally try to make sense and write coherently? Or have your final remaining brain cells been fried from processing too much of your gay gangbanging fantasies?

Or is it that you are having PTSD from remembering all those times when you sucked off other men to make a living because you were too dumb to do anything else?

Either way, you're pitiful.

[chubby]

so i take it thats a no.

please.
for the love of god can you stop trying to be the 'wackey lefty' foil to all your buddies down at the legal coalface.
it is pitiful.either mean it or shut the fuck up.

[CCS]

Ban chubby pls.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Fixed_truth is being his usual disgraceful, intellectually dishonest self again. I guess once a fraud, always a fraud. If you oppose Labour's CGT plan, you must believe that all CGT is evil and hate the poor!

Were you, err, oxygen poor at birth??

Poor reading comprehension emoticons everywhere ad hominem attacks - classic cyc.

I didn't say that you were against a CGT all together, I said clearly "their CGT". Of course it's not the the best form of a CGT, I prefer the Greens version too. Nevertheless:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

BERL, an independent and reputable group of economists projected that Labours CGT would raise $78 million in its first year and more than $2.2 billion a year by 2013. And btw Labours package would return to surpluses and retire debt in the same time frames as National.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Hehe, chubby is crazy.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Poor reading comprehension emoticons everywhere ad hominem attacks - classic cyc.

I didn't say that you were against a CGT all together, I said clearly "their CGT". Of course it's not the the best form of a CGT, I prefer the Greens version too. Nevertheless:

Fixed_truth can do graphics!!! Am I correct in assuming you will give the presumptively equally credible economists at the Treasury -- whose forecast of likely economic growth has been substantially the basis on which National has proposed their "balanced budget by 2014-15" -- the same unbending respect? It's the same shit as usual -- Fixed_liar goes and fucking quotes one study or one link that favours his viewpoint and ignore everything else and then pretend that the debate is settled.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by CCS

Ban chubby pls.

ignore me douche.

[CCS]

Ban chubby pls.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

It's the same shit as usual -- Fixed_liar goes and fucking quotes one study or one link that favours his viewpoint and ignore everything else and then pretend that the debate is settled.

I'm sure you can easily provide an alternative study that favours your viewpoint? Why don't you post that instead of raging, I'd be interested in what the alternative perspective is.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I'm sure you can easily provide an alternative study that favours your viewpoint? Why don't you post that instead of raging, I'd be interested in what the alternative perspective is.

No, Fixed_shit has just provided the CONCLUSION/ASSERTION of a study. It's a blind appeal to authority.

Furthermore, I've already stated my fucking viewpoint based on my qualified, professional opinion as a lawyer. The issue about CGT isn't just about whether the Labour morons can collect enough money. The CGT supposedly is being created to cure economic inefficiencies and it is very likely to fail in that regard, if not MUCH worse.

Whether the Labour useless CGT can recover as much as Berl contends, it doesn't change the fundamental fact that it's a tax lawyer's wetdream by perpetuating a stupidly differentiated treatment (15% versus up to 33%) in terms of tax consequences depending on whether something is classified as capital or income. There is a massive stream of case law over the IRD's interpretation of what constitutes income or capital in structured finance cases and having this kind of regime just creates more uncertainty.

In addition, this CGT is part of an overall incompetent tax package where Labour will again reverse the trend towards equalising tax rates for personal income, trust income, and corporate tax. Another scenario where tax lawyers and accountants will get very rich by creating ludicrously complex structures for every commercial operation. All this from a bunch of people who showed zero competence in terms of tackling tax avoidance whilst in power. A tax system containing all sorts of loopholes will have the following likely consequences: (1) the projected intakes will likely be less, (2) it will create inefficiencies that incentivise (on an individual level) economically inefficient tax-avoidance behaviour, (3) the CGT will end up undermining at least some of its raison d'tre, i.e. to end unwarranted market distortions and favourable tax treatment of capital, by introducing its own issues.

Get with the times, understand the issues, and post something useful, instead of your shitty usual one-liners.

[cyc]

Let's see what some of the top tax accountants in this country has to say (remember, these guys will benefit from the tax system being made stupidly complex and open to gaming) when asked to honestly evaluate whether the proposed CGT scheme from Labour is any good:

PricewaterhouseCoopers chairman John Shewan said he was not opposed to a capital gains tax but all the exemptions would give rise to boundary issues.

"I'm still with the Inland Revenue view that the costs outweigh the benefits, because of all the carve-outs," he said.

"And the approach of valuing all assets on V-day is fantastic for firms like ours, but hugely complex."

Deloitte tax partner Patrick McCalman said if it was a move to a broad base, low rate tax system that would be one thing. "But it is a move to a broad base, high rate one, which creates a lack of coherence in the
system."

The proposed ring-fencing of losses from investment properties is seen as an ad hoc departure from normal tax principles.

Cantin said it had been tried in the 1980s and was difficult to design in a way that made it effective.

In Australia capital gains are part of the income tax system but it sounded as if the New Zealand version would be a separate tax, because of its flat 15 per cent rate, he said.

"So we wind up with a separate set of returns to be filed. Can the IRD's systems cope with it? And how will the two taxes relate to one another?

"For example, can ring-fenced losses [from property investments] be used to offset capital gains tax when those properties are sold? You would expect so."

To narrow the gap between the cost of tax cuts and the revenue yield of the capital gains tax, which takes years to build up, Labour is relying in part on increased revenue from anti-avoidance measures, building to $300 million a year.

It says that is a "target based on one-third of a per cent of tax revenue".

Shewan dismisses the figure.

"It is just a stab in the dark. That fruit has been picked heavily," he said, referring to the increased funding IRD received in last year's Budget to step up its compliance activities, which the Government is already counting on to deliver around $200 million a year in additional revenue.

Oppsie for Labour! Now this is just an article that took me 5 seconds to find on the Herald's website. Unlike F_t, I won't pretend that this concludes the debate but it clearly shows the issue is far more complex than he cares to admit.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by cyc

Whether the Labour useless CGT can recover as much as Berl contends, it doesn't change the fundamental fact that it's a tax lawyer's wetdream by perpetuating a stupidly differentiated treatment (15% versus up to 33%) in terms of tax consequences depending on whether something is classified as capital or income.

Correction: 15% versus up to 39% under Labour's plans.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

@cyc - BERL, an independent and reputable group of economists projected that Labours CGT would raise $78 million in its first year and more than $2.2 billion a year by 2013. And btw Labours package would return to surpluses and retire debt in the same time frames as National.

Did you even read the FIRST page of your precious report?

"REPORT TO OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION".

It's a Labour commissioned report by a private sector company. Now, no reports in this world write themselves but one would take such a thing a bit more seriously if it were, for example, written by (say) the Treasury, with a legal duty under the State Sector Act to be politically neutral.*

Let's take a look at the disclaimer:

All work is done, and services rendered at the request of, and for the purposes of the client only. Neither BERL nor any of its employees accepts any responsibility on any grounds whatsoever, including negligence, to any other person.

"Independent"? Not vis-a-vis this report. There's a clear principal-agent relationship between Labour and Berl here. More importantly, Berl didn't even bother to discuss/concern itself with the risk/costs of tax avoidance in that wonderful report.

Do you still wanna play?

* Of course, it's that very Act of parliament that prevents the Treasury from undertaking such work. But if one truly wanted a greater degree of independence, one would seek a report from, for a example, a committee of economists of opposing views and get them to peer review each other's work and present opposing viewpoints. Or, heck, at a minimum find some academic economist who doesn't have a commercial incentive to play nice on behalf of the principal. None of this is to say that Berl was per se swung by bias or commercial considerations. It may well be that they were not but the notion that their independence (in the true sense of the word) is indisputable here is manifest nonsense.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Unlike F_t, I won't pretend that this concludes the debate but it clearly shows the issue is far more complex than he cares to admit.

Reading comprehension fail, again. You seem to have a problem with this . . No one has said that it "concludes the debate" or it's "indisputable". Sorry to spoil the basis of your wee rant, you probably has some tough issues to vent. Want a hug instead buddy?

BERL is hardly a partisan organisation, it's been around for 50 years and has an extensive client base. Does that make it's projections indisputable? Of course not. But from their projections it's reasonable for Labour to claim this as an outcome of their CGT.
BTW Steven Joyce got his CGT numbers by downloading a publicly available spreadsheet and punching some numbers into it. That's it. And even his difference here is trivial.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Reading comprehension fail, again. You seem to have a problem with this . .

Nice dodge, idiot. NOT. Your practice of constantly posting links or cut out bits and pieces from things that favour your viewpoint without elaboration is absolutely a sign that you prefer to just appeal to some external authority in an attempt to answer to opposition to your views or to "shut down" debates, as oppose to actually defending your own viewpoint.

Why do two posts of yours here, for example, substantially contain references to the Berl report without elaboration thereafter? What other reasonable interpretation can there be other than "Berl said so, so it must or might be true but I won't bother defending my viewpoint with my own reasons?". I notice, for example, you have nothing to say about the fact that Berl didn't concern itself with the risks and costs of avoidance, nor have you got anything to say about the fact that I shot down your bullshit that Berl was an "independent" entity here.

Speaking of reading comprehension, who's talking here dipstick:

BERL is hardly a partisan organisation

We are arguing whether it's INDEPENDENT of Labour in relation to this report, dishonest vermin. Don't try changing the subject -- lack of general partisanship does not equate to independence vis-a-vis one's commercial client.

[pxpx]

Everytime someone says vis a vis all I can think of is:

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

No, Fixed_shit has just provided the CONCLUSION/ASSERTION of a study. It's a blind appeal to authority.

Maybe.

I guess I am hoping that one day you'll be able to refute someone's argument by providing one of your own, instead of going straight to devaluation. I mean, I know devaluation is easy, anyone can do it, so I can understand why you go there... but perhaps you could have a go at forming an argument of your own, with references to how you formed your perspective.

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.