Just gonna leave this here
Ben, don't you some kind of written agreement with Uber? Does it describe any indemnity, compensation, or similar language for loss, damage, and legal liability while driving? If not, there's your real problem.
The tax data shows that between January and March 31 2016, three per cent of property (buyers) transfers, involved people who are registered as an overseas tax resident.
Land Information New Zealand began collating tax data last year to get a better picture of the housing market. However it stresses the data does not amount to a foreign buyers register as overseas tax residency doesn't mean the same thing as nationality.
In the three months of data released, there were 45,114 property transfers.
1158 were where at least one of the property buyers provided an overseas tax residency (three per cent).
321 of those were tax residents of China, 312 were from Australia and 99 from the UK.
When the numbers are broken down to look at the Auckland market, the influence of overseas tax residents is slightly higher at four per cent
I don't think this is exactly vindicating, eh. Conversely I'm already seeing lefty nativists on Twitter convinced that the stats must be wrong.
Steve, when I see you posting links from a site called "Wide-awake Gentile" who is a classic antisemite, Jewish Finance type, may I just say: no, fuck YOU.
Oh yeah, the idea that we can have a debate free of politics, that sensible people have no politics, and that ideology makes your viewpoint invalid is precisely the stance and framing co-opted by the National party and their non-politician PM to stifle dissent and claim neutrality and normality.
Another thing to add: yes, I am an ideological thinker. There is nothing wrong with that. Certain things, no matter how effective, efficient, or utility-maximising, are off the table if they conflict with principle. They must be weighed in a context and placed in a hierarchy of value. Health! Freedom! Equality!
If you don't have the ideology of NZI, or authoritarian public health figures, you must still have some other system of thought that you use to balance competing goals. And that's your ideology right there.
Don't banks protect share borrowing via margin calls?
Yes. The thing is that shares are generally easily liquidated the same day (at least the ones you can buy on margin). And when I checked last, you usually couldn't go buy than 60% of a margin.
So yes, you definitely can borrow to invest in shares, you can do it through your broker by setting up a margin account, and actually it might make sense to buy an exchange traded fund or basket of blue chip shares using your revolving credit mortgage.... but the risks for you and the bank are rather different than with houses.
Matthew's goal is make a discussion about UBI started by Labour an unworkable Labour policy. Therefore, it is essential to position the worst possible and most expensive structure as Labour's choice.
Later, National can propose its own, with a different name, to wild applause from the usual suspects.
You can't really accuse people of lying about the likely cost of a policy when you refuse to put any numbers around it yourself.
Of course you can accuse. "This policy is likely to cost $82bn" is a truth claim that can be wrong, and it can be consciously wrong, whether or not worked costings have been provided.
"How much did your car cost Stephen?"
"I refuse to tell you how much my second hand Legacy cost".
"I estimate Stephen's car likely cost a MILLION DOLLARS".
"That is a lie".
And look, I am sorry, genuinely, rudeness got the better of me.