Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danielle,
This thread now makes me want mashed Southland swede with butter and pepper. So I suppose it was good for something.
Sounds like a market opportunity. I wonder if they could export that along with a self-composting toilet, so that they deal with both ends of the consumption chain.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to BenWilson,
That's quite the collection of mixed vegetables.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Danielle,
I’d just love it if politicians were a little less focussed on those people’s prejudices.
It's what being a conservative is all about. Especially when the population is aging (median age is nearly 37, up 2.2 years in the last decade, according to Granny), and that means more voters who want to jerk their knees and rail about the queers ruining marriage.
To which my favourite response so far has been "Elizabeth Taylor has been married eight times, Britney was married for less than a week, Tiger Woods was fucking anything that moves without his wife knowing, and gays are a threat to the institution of marriage?!"
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to nzlemming,
I’m glad someone else said it first. I had to make do with hinting in a marginally oblique fashion a couple of pages hence.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to DexterX,
I have never said NZ First will wing the election
*sigh* You started the analogy, with
it is like being asked, “Who do you think will wing the 2011 election? An answer is provided and then one is asked to provide proof of the 2011 election, an event which hasn’t happened.
I simply took that analogy and ran with it. I never said you said that NZF would win the election. I just took a minimally-probable outcome of a future event of your choosing (it was you who mentioned the election, not me), and used to analogously as an in-context response to your continued inability to articulate reasons for your assertions around outcomes of future events.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Sacha,
Between his ears? Or are you explaining the cogency of his response relative to the questions to which he was "responding"?
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to BenWilson,
I thought there was a campaign underway to change the first and second rules of PAS to be "You don't talk about copyright"? Or is the Thread of Doooooom[tm] sufficiently historic that we can talk about the "c" word again?
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to DexterX,
It look like you are telluing me what to do.
You're right, I am. Because you don't appear to be considering things beyond a very narrow perspective, and that doesn't help your argument. I'm trying to help you, though goodness only knows why!
If you want some info you could go to budget 2010 fact sheets on the removal of depreciation and the funding that is being allocated to IRD to ensure there is compliance.
And those will tell me what, exactly, that I don't already know and haven't already mentioned here?
With all that is being done to ensure that people (also those who “trade in property”) comply with the law and pay tax on their effective capital gains I can’t see the point of introducing a CGT/Land Tax.
We know you don't see the point, but your reasoning appears to be akin to saying that we don't need to do anything to tackle drunk drivers because there are laws making it a crime and advertising programs about the dangers. Every time you've been asked, you fall back to waving IRD's information booklets to explain why avoidance of tax on capital gains is not a problem.
If you want to see the movement in rents go and search the Dept of Building and Housing.
DBH have investigated the medium- and long-term effects on rents of the implementation of a CGT? That'd be the only analysis that would interest me, since it's the analysis that would explain your determined position that rents will increase at a persistently (as opposed to a short-term jump that then settles down) greater rate with a CGT than without. So far you have provided no analysis to support your assertion.
Some of the things you adamantly ask are inane, it is like being asked, “Who do you think will wing the 2011 election? An answer is provided and then one is asked to provide proof of the 2011 election, an event which hasn’t happened.
You're the one who's stating with great confidence that NZ First will win the 2011 election, if we're going to carry this analogy, but you're not prepared to explain why you're so sure. Saying simply that you believe it is so isn't satisfying us, if you hadn't noticed.
I have said why I hold the opinion as to why I don’t support CGT and asset sales as:
1) they won’t help grow the economy
2) they will increase the costs of living in rents and higher power prices.Can’t you handle that other people hold different opinions.
I can, but in this case I want to understand why your opinion is different because if you can explain it you may, possibly, perhaps, convince me that your position has merit. So far your only explanation is to claim your own authority. That's not how you persuade others, in the absence of some kind of demonstrable authority such as a PhD in economics specialising in taxation effects; authority you have not claimed, and would have to prove were you to try.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Being religious does not give people an exception to that law
Oh, but it does for employment, and there's nothing to stop other exceptions being written into the law.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Discrimination in the provision of goods and services is outlawe dby the Human Rights Act.
Yes, but in the same fashion as there is an employment exception that allows the Catholic Church to only ordain males it would be quite simple to add an exception to allow celebrants who hold the office entirely by way of their position within an established religious organisation to refuse to officiate at marriages that are contrary to the doctrinal rules of their church.
That would probably be pretty close to the wording of the section, in fact.