Random Politics - Page 70

Lightspeed · 3rd October 2014, 10:58

I think more money for your work, more access to public services is good for you. I'm so crazy, lolz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Perhaps you are trying to distort my argument?

Shut the fuck up, you have no ground to stand on here.

CCS · 3rd October 2014, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Shut the fuck up, you have no ground to stand on here.

COming from the master in muddying the waters, that's hilarious!

chubby · 3rd October 2014, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spink

what does "more" mean, to you? because it could be taken at least two ways in CCS' sentence, he could mean they pay a larger percentage of the total income tax (or tax in general, incl GST etc) or he could mean they pay more in terms of a percentage of their income.

I guess you probably are talking about some third way in which they (probably, I dunno?) exploit the system to actually pay a smaller percentage of their income using tax lawyers and accountants.

quite the surrealist arn't you.
where exactly does the word 'more' come up in this sentence of ccs's?
he made specific reference to INCOME TAX BRACKETS...this is exactly NOT what i am referring to.
i think you both need to try a little reading,or just not bother with your lame obfuscation.it becomes none of us.

CCS · 3rd October 2014, 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

quite the surrealist arn't you.
where exactly does the word 'more' come up in this sentence of ccs's?
he made specific reference to INCOME TAX BRACKETS...this is exactly NOT what i am referring to.
i think you both need to try a little reading,or just not bother with your lame obfuscation.it becomes none of us.

The word more comes up twice in my original post - the one that you took exception to.

I think you need to try a little reading or just not bother with your lame obfuscation.

chubby · 3rd October 2014, 11:36

b it is then.

pxpx · 3rd October 2014, 11:39

I don't like how people are able to 'hide' income - I think the IRD should be given a little more power/resource to chase this kind of thing up more often.

CCS · 3rd October 2014, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

b it is then.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with your basic maths to show that I'm wrong.

Code:

Income 	            Tax rate
$0 – $14,000 	    10.5%
$14,001 – $48,000   17.5%
$48,001 – $70,000   30%
Over $70,000        33%

The more money you earn, the more tax you pay.

Now, when I said in my original post "the wealthiest", that's obviously a subjective term. I'm going to say that the wealthy cunts are those earning in excess of $100,000 and the povvos are earning less than $40,000.

Povvos: 16%
Rich cunts: 37%

That's not taking in to account the benefits the poor cunts receive like WFF.

The extent of chubby's argument is "you're full of shit." That's his argument. It doesn't get better than that and he hasn't backed himself up. I have.

Spink · 3rd October 2014, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

quite the surrealist arn't you.
where exactly does the word 'more' come up in this sentence of ccs's?
he made specific reference to INCOME TAX BRACKETS...this is exactly NOT what i am referring to.
i think you both need to try a little reading,or just not bother with your lame obfuscation.it becomes none of us.

uhh I was trying to help clarify since you've gone off the deep end, chill out angry little man.

Spink · 3rd October 2014, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think more money for your work, more access to public services is good for you.

I do too. Unfortunately I don't have any precogs to tell me that a labour led government wouldn't have been the catastrophe of epic proportions that it looked like it was going to be.

chubby · 3rd October 2014, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

I'm still waiting for you to come up with your basic maths to show that I'm wrong.

Code:

Income 	            Tax rate
$0 – $14,000 	    10.5%
$14,001 – $48,000   17.5%
$48,001 – $70,000   30%
Over $70,000        33%

The more money you earn, the more tax you pay.

Now, when I said in my original post "the wealthiest", that's obviously a subjective term. I'm going to say that the wealthy cunts are those earning in excess of $100,000 and the povvos are earning less than $40,000.

Povvos: 16%
Rich cunts: 37%

That's not taking in to account the benefits the poor cunts receive like WFF.

The extent of chubby's argument is "you're full of shit." That's his argument. It doesn't get better than that and he hasn't backed himself up. I have.

once again,you are talking about completely different things.according to your silly little numbers,I am one of the 'rich cunts' im supposedly talking about.
i am most assuredly NOT talking about that which is taxed.
i am talking about that which isnt,you dummy. you need to take a close look at where you think your place in society is dood-i think you might have a slightly inflated idea of where you are in the scheme of things.

Spink · 3rd October 2014, 12:39

why didn't you just say so in the first place?

chubby · 3rd October 2014, 12:53

i did.then ccs missed the point..again.

(of course,now leaving myself open to one of his laborious,but still ultimately off the point dissections of my language- whatever.)

pxpx · 3rd October 2014, 13:05

rich cunts \o/

CCS · 3rd October 2014, 13:37

Well I have no damn clue what chubby is on about. Apparently he has in mind a special group of people which he can't really define or show any numbers before. Either way, he's using my post as an opportunity to say I'm full of shit while ignoring what I was trying to say.

If anyone did that to lolspeed he'd have one of his little tantrums about how he never gets a fair deal. Personally, I don't give a fuck about chubby. He's never said anything halfway intelligent and never had a decent point to make. Looks like he's continuing in a fine tradition.

pxpx · 3rd October 2014, 13:42

Chubby are you talking about these guys
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10887756

Ab · 3rd October 2014, 14:26

You have to laugh.

Quote:

In 2010, the IRD Tax Working Group raised concerns about the rich avoiding the top tax rate through sheltering devices such as family trusts.

Labour's revenue spokesman, David Cunliffe, said it appeared the problem here was worsening.

"I am astounded and appalled. The legitimate tax system requires that everyone pays their fair share.

"If people want to [avoid tax] then it will require the Government to be much stricter and crack down on avoidance opportunities. Why should people who are the most privileged sector of society use their position to avoid paying a fair share of tax?

"That is morally wrong and should be illegal."

But

Quote:

Hon David CUNLIFFE (Labour, New Lynn)
Beneficial interests in, and trusteeships of, trusts:
Bozzie Family Trust (discretionary)

and

Quote:

David Cunliffe has admitted a trust was used to take donations for his leadership campaign, allowing him to sidestep the obligation to disclose donations in the MPs’ register of financial interests.

Ab · 3rd October 2014, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

once again,you are talking about completely different things.according to your silly little numbers,I am one of the 'rich cunts' im supposedly talking about.
i am most assuredly NOT talking about that which is taxed.

But if you're talking about a tax on wealth (which is currently not taxed) I still can't see how it could be done in a world where companies and trusts are legal entities.

Rich dude: "I'm not wealthy, I own almost nothing. The Fatcats Family Trust owns this Ferrari and this Viaduct apartment and leases them to me for a small monthly fee, which I am only just able to pay in virtue of my modest income - dividends from Fatcats (II) Family Trust, of which I am a beneficiary, which total no more than $69,999 in any single tax year. I am not a trustee of either Trust, have no visibility of their accounts, and have no idea what assets they may control. Other than this Ferrari and this apartment of course."

fixed_truth · 3rd October 2014, 15:42

Surely a group of good tax lawyers could close some loopholes (if they were paid enough

)

Maybe something like attributing ownership of assets based on beneficial owners, or trustees or who provided the assets to the trust. (anatl)

Lightspeed · 3rd October 2014, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

COming from the master in muddying the waters, that's hilarious!

Acknowledging complex reality is not muddying the waters. Taking moderate viewpoints and making out they're extreme and invalid is your bread and butter. You have no. Fucking. Ground to stand on.

Lightspeed · 3rd October 2014, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

The extent of chubby's argument is "you're full of shit." That's his argument. It doesn't get better than that and he hasn't backed himself up. I have.

You've demonstrated time and time again that you think "you're full of shit" is an acceptable and compelling argument. For fuck sake.

Ab · 3rd October 2014, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Surely a group of good tax lawyers could close some loopholes (if they were paid enough

)

Maybe something like attributing ownership of assets based on beneficial owners, or trustees or who provided the assets to the trust. (anatl)

The thing is, tax lawyers don't make laws. Government MPs make laws. If you're a good tax lawyer, you're not a Government MP.

CCS · 3rd October 2014, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Acknowledging complex reality is not muddying the waters. Taking moderate viewpoints and making out they're extreme and invalid is your bread and butter. You have no. Fucking. Ground to stand on.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that people have no idea what your argument actually is because you make vague statements and whenever someone asks probing questions, you get shitty. If someone tries to frame it in a certain way and then asks "Is this what you're saying?" you get even shittier.

Moan all you want, but you're the king of muddying the waters.

CCS · 3rd October 2014, 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You've demonstrated time and time again that you think "you're full of shit" is an acceptable and compelling argument. For fuck sake.

I've said that people are full of shit but I've also backed it up. Your problem is you have selection vision and you only read the things that you like the look of.

Evoke · 5th October 2014, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

You don't have to be the same as everybody else. In fact if the top 1% are targeted then it won't even affect you.

Re: working hard the problem is that if you have wealth you don't need to work hard and also these days it's not uncommon for someone to work hard and still just scrape by. Want to own a house? Good luck with that. Want kids? We're gonna need both parents to work while you pay someone else to raise your kids.

my entire goal in life is to be in the top 1% so if I am to get there, then it will affect me. And I don't mean work hard as in toiling at the mines for minimum wage and coming home with a sore back, I mean work hard at getting rich. Seems like our definitions of work vary.

[Malks] Pixie · 5th October 2014, 12:06

Work, as a concept, is full of issues when you're talking about ideas of wealth and society. The idea of "working hard" is actually lifted from religion (in particular the Protestant movement) and has been worked (pun intended) into the narrative of capitalism in our modern age. From there it's a short step to look at how these ideas have also been rationalised into the narrative of democracy.

A better framework to think about these things is the labour/capital relationship.

Pixie

StN · 5th October 2014, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

A better framework to think about these things is the labour/capital relationship.

I'm sure there is a Grant Robertston electorate vote joke in there somewhere...

[Malks] Pixie · 5th October 2014, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by StN

I'm sure there is a Grant Robertston electorate vote joke in there somewhere...

Well that got a giggle out of me :-)

Pixie

Lightspeed · 6th October 2014, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

What I'm trying to explain to you is that people have no idea what your argument actually is because you make vague statements and whenever someone asks probing questions, you get shitty. If someone tries to frame it in a certain way and then asks "Is this what you're saying?" you get even shittier.

Moan all you want, but you're the king of muddying the waters.

I argue like a grown-up, which is to say I recognise complex reality (the context of this forum being a part of this reality.) You on the other hand throw your toys and shit your pants the moment the world is presented in a way that isn't black & white. And then you cry when people won't play nice with you any more.

In simple discussions like this where it's not possible to present complex ideas, and reality being complex, the waters are inevitably going to muddy and one must have patience if you want to engage in the discussion. Which you don't.

Spink · 6th October 2014, 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I argue like a grown-up

xor · 6th October 2014, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Work, as a concept, is full of issues when you're talking about ideas of wealth and society. The idea of "working hard" is actually lifted from religion (in particular the Protestant movement) and has been worked (pun intended) into the narrative of capitalism in our modern age. From there it's a short step to look at how these ideas have also been rationalised into the narrative of democracy.

A better framework to think about these things is the labour/capital relationship.

Pixie

Very much so which is quite sad. People get caught up with chasing the American dream or some other unquenchable hedonic thirst.

There are some wicked books that discuss work and stoicism that i'd recommend reading

if more people shared that view then the world would be a very different place.

CCS · 6th October 2014, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I argue like a grown-up, which is to say I recognise complex reality (the context of this forum being a part of this reality.)

This is a complete lie and you need to stop bullshitting everyone with this excuse as a way to never make a point. Everyone else knows you're a liar, why do you continue the charade that you're not?

fixed_truth · 6th October 2014, 13:31

Quote:

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

crocos · 6th October 2014, 15:19

I blame John Key for the earthquake just now.

Second thoughts, it was probably Gerry Brownlee barging through another airport checkpoint.

Ab · 6th October 2014, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

Exactly, we should instantly reject any political manifesto or belief structure that contains rubbish like "all men are created equal", that's obviously not true

fixed_truth · 6th October 2014, 15:49

Well obviously. People weren't created, everybody knows that.

pxpx · 6th October 2014, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Well obviously. People weren't created, everybody knows that.

Hi Lightspeed.

Lightspeed · 6th October 2014, 15:59

Hi pxpx. What's up? Telling us about how you equate fantasy with reality again? Like your whimsical imaginings about what I believe?

Spink · 6th October 2014, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

This is a complete lie and you need to stop bullshitting everyone with this excuse as a way to never make a point. Everyone else knows you're a liar, why do you continue the charade that you're not?

I don't think lightspeed is a bull, or bovine in nature, so this post when taken literally is in error.

Lightspeed · 6th October 2014, 16:03

Indeed, I don't take it literally. For example when CCS says "everyone" I assume he is referring to himself, rather than every single person. It's possible CCS doesn't even know the difference between the two.

pxpx · 6th October 2014, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Hi pxpx. What's up? Telling us about how you equate fantasy with reality again? Like your whimsical imaginings about what I believe?

Wow, CCS was right, you do get shitty.

3rd October 2014, 13:37	#2774
CCS Stunt Pants	Well I have no damn clue what chubby is on about. Apparently he has in mind a special group of people which he can't really define or show any numbers before. Either way, he's using my post as an opportunity to say I'm full of shit while ignoring what I was trying to say. If anyone did that to lolspeed he'd have one of his little tantrums about how he never gets a fair deal. Personally, I don't give a fuck about chubby. He's never said anything halfway intelligent and never had a decent point to make. Looks like he's continuing in a fine tradition. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

3rd October 2014, 11:36	#2765
chubby	b it is then. __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."

3rd October 2014, 11:39	#2766
pxpx	I don't like how people are able to 'hide' income - I think the IRD should be given a little more power/resource to chase this kind of thing up more often.

3rd October 2014, 12:39	#2771
Spink	why didn't you just say so in the first place? __________________ Weak hearts I rip.

3rd October 2014, 12:53	#2772
chubby	i did.then ccs missed the point..again. (of course,now leaving myself open to one of his laborious,but still ultimately off the point dissections of my language- whatever.) __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." Last edited by chubby : 3rd October 2014 at 12:54.

3rd October 2014, 13:42	#2775
pxpx	Chubby are you talking about these guys http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10887756

3rd October 2014, 15:42	#2778
fixed_truth	Surely a group of good tax lawyers could close some loopholes (if they were paid enough ) Maybe something like attributing ownership of assets based on beneficial owners, or trustees or who provided the assets to the trust. (anatl) __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

5th October 2014, 12:06	#2785
[Malks] Pixie	Work, as a concept, is full of issues when you're talking about ideas of wealth and society. The idea of "working hard" is actually lifted from religion (in particular the Protestant movement) and has been worked (pun intended) into the narrative of capitalism in our modern age. From there it's a short step to look at how these ideas have also been rationalised into the narrative of democracy. A better framework to think about these things is the labour/capital relationship. Pixie __________________ Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us.

6th October 2014, 15:19	#2793
crocos	I blame John Key for the earthquake just now. Second thoughts, it was probably Gerry Brownlee barging through another airport checkpoint. __________________ Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية

6th October 2014, 15:49	#2795
fixed_truth	Well obviously. People weren't created, everybody knows that. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

6th October 2014, 15:59	#2797
Lightspeed	Hi pxpx. What's up? Telling us about how you equate fantasy with reality again? Like your whimsical imaginings about what I believe? __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

6th October 2014, 16:03	#2799
Lightspeed	Indeed, I don't take it literally. For example when CCS says "everyone" I assume he is referring to himself, rather than every single person. It's possible CCS doesn't even know the difference between the two. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.