I can feel how “they hadn’t determined” would be a bridge too far for most. During the campaign Cunliffe said ‘a month’ as I recall, but with that it’s still always going to favour those who can sell within the window: slow market-tax!
The one month comment was poorly thought out, that's true. It was something that Labour wanted to leave to their expert advisory panel, which is fine if they had at least a reasonable minimum time they could have put up. Basically they just had to reassure people that there was no intent to get a tax off someone for, as you say, "... inopportunely dying before having liquidated the asset".
I haven’t seen a mention of it but some people I spoke to mentioned the Capital Gains Tax proposal as a reason to not vote Labour
Turkeys and Thanksgiving..
There will always be someone against any given policy. CGT is a ‘no brainer’ for Labour, though. It’s centrist (right-wing parties in other countries have a CGT policy), and one way to increase revenue so they can increase spending in certain areas that need it.
I know people who are in favour of it because they don’t make money from capital gains but see other people doing so, and meanwhile pay tax on every dollar earned in their 9 to 5 job.
I’m sure Labour did not lose this election because of their tax policy, per se.
I am now comfortably dead. That was my family home you’re talking about, I moved into a rest home, there is no CGT on family homes, so I sold my family home before I died so the family member could inherit pure untaxed cash,
but if I had died before selling the home, then the CGT would have had to have been paid when my family sold my (their 2nd) home? So it’s a tax on me inopportunely dying before having liquidated the asset?
They hadn’t determined the exact time frame, but there was always going to be a window to sell such an inherited asset CGT free, to avoid this very problem.
[Posting without having caught up yet.]
"I have been fairly confident that the tangle of Dirty Politics and the more recent, alarming evidence that the official information process is being corrupted would have to be examined in public over the next year. Now, I’m not so sure."
Yeah, without even Peters having any influence, I think they have pretty much gotten away with the dirty politics stuff. The Ombudsman's investigation into the OIA misuse will still take place though.
You mean this statement?
"Mr Key today acknowledged the GCSB had indeed tapped into the cable, but for the purposes of a cybersecurity programme."
I have been wondering if that statement by the Herald is accurate, because David Fisher had earlier reported:
"John Key categorically ruled out any access of internet cables in New Zealand during questions about a visit from an engineer from the United States' National Security Agency."
This seems to be the gotcha Fisher was waiting on, but nothing much has been made of it. What am I missing?
"So, Ben, there’s nothing there that truthfully answers the question of the way to Steve Parks”
The way to me, friend, is through prayer. Prayer or bribery.
“Only if you are an atheist, which is a more irrational position given the number of witnesses who support the idea of theism, and the fundamental difficulty in proving that they are wrong.”
That argument can be reversed to demonstrate the opposite, leaving you with two positions that are “more irrational” than the other. I presume that what you mean is that both positions are irrational and you are an agnostic. Fair enough.
ETA, Moz, I wasn't sure whether UT meant that the crucial point was that more people are theists than atheists, but if so then yeah, what you said.
I thought the argument that morality needs a universal reference point to have absolute meaning (ie, meaning that is not reducible to physical, psychological or social factors) was well understood.
… don’t pretend atheism doesn’t raise questions about life’s meaning.
It does, just not much in regards to morality. Even the argument that morality needs “a universal reference point” isn’t the same as saying it needs God. Over 2000 years ago Socrates (via Plato) asked if something was good because it was holy, or holy because it was good. No one has had a counter to the underlying point ever since. So for example, God (if he exists) is telling us that murder is wrong, because murder is actually wrong, and God, being pretty clued up on these matters, knows to tell us so. This of course means that the wrongness of murder is independent of God per se.
This doesn’t mean that there is necessarily no God, just that he isn’t necessary for morality.
Except that would not be an entirely honest answer to the question Key asked. It wouldn’t necessarily be exempt, that depends on the use of the property.
I didn’t know the exact wording wording of Key’s question (hence, my ‘along the lines of’), but now I’ve seen it I still say that was an awful answer from Cunliffe and it’s a shame as he could have dealt with it so easily. Okay, he first would have needed to ask a question in reply, “is the home your family home?” To which Key would have had to answer yes. Then Cunliffe gives the dismissive answer I suggested above. Key would have had nowhere to go.
That said, now that I have watched (most of) the debate, my first concern is how part of my soul died watching that shit.
[Edited to try and clarify the pluperfect storm in my first paragraph.]
I don’t see why the CGT gaffe has become the most important thing in the news today. We have had a two hour debate and the most important thing was that DC didn’t have a rehearsed answer for a question about family trusts and CGT?
It shouldn’t have to have been ‘rehearsed’ though. I agree with Craig on that part – Cunliffe should have been able to answer that question. CGT is a principal policy for Labour . How could he not know how it would operate?
It’s especially unfortunate because he could have had a rhetorical victory by portraying it in a “dumb question” light. An answer along the lines: “Of course it would be exempt. Why wouldn’t it be exempt, John?” would have completely deflated Key’s attack.