Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Amanda Wreckonwith,
Some of us give a sh#t.
You may have a clearer picture, what was that business with the tax on inheritance? David Cunliffe said something like if you sell the house within a month of the family member dying then you will avoid the tax, I may have misunderstood, could you clarify it in any way?
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Amanda Wreckonwith,
Many underestimate Mr Peters but few live to tell the tale.
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to tussock,
You make a book loss on your rental properties, you dump money (often subsidised for insulation and such) into them to improve the value, you flip them on for capital gains, and there’s no tax because you never make money on anything that’s taxable.
Isn’t that one of the pastimes middle New Zealand aspires to? Aren’t there popular TV shows about doing that? I’m not sure if your comment was directed at me. And I’m not so focused on what CGT is designed for as much as voter perception.
Genuine question Tussock. Can you tell me why CGT is good for the me the voter rather than how it cashes in on what someone else is doing? In the first debate I recall John Key mentioning there was already a tax for whatever/property, how does this apply?
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Pete,
That’s definitely my take on it. Ian has some corroboration.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to BenWilson,
Yeah, most of them. Sorry, the context was bills submitted by non-Labour members becoming indelibly associated with the Labour Party, just slipping it across the floor. If there's anything to take the edge off this election result it's the vanilla centrality of successive New Zealand Governments.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Jack Harrison,
apparently committed, mainly a list inspired by simple right wing pundits who love to say “p.c” a lot
Well now they've got one they can pin on National.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to TracyMac,
message that Labour is about a fair go for EVERYONE. Higher minimum wages help everyone, gay, brown, factory workers, service industry. State houses help everyone at the bottom of the pile and take power away from rentier landlords. Gay, straight, brown, factory workers with two jobs, people unable to work…
That’s the one. And I think David Cunliffe deserves a chance to at least try to bring something more like this kind of vision to the table if he can, I’m just not in favour of the kneejerk stuff in the news right now, especially with allegations of corruption flying around the incumbents.
And though I’m not familiar enough with the credentials of the brass. If Cunliffe must be be replaced – please not with another white male, k?
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Tom Semmens,
That approach doesn’t appear much different to 70 pages of policy, some of which I’m still not able to fully get my head around even after the polls have closed. Democracy isn’t about imposing ideas, it’s about listening to and reflecting the will of the people. To find the answer as to why the left lost, much can be learned from how the right won. Those split votes speak volumes. Less is more. K.I.S.S.
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to Rob Stowell,
It’s not radical, but it offers very little obvious benefit for the voter. It’s a case of either having some not too bad idea that’s failed to sell twice, or winning an election. I’ve not observed a NZ election since 2002, but watching this one, despite how I wish things were, the KO occurred a day or so after the Stuff.co.nz debate when it became about the tax on inheritance. Any instance of these two words together is anthrax:
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to BenWilson,
Yeah, I noticed quite early on in the election there was a bit of noise from whoever along the lines of “It doesn’t work in Australia”, possibly at some level attributable to the relative perception following any change like that (I’m assuming based on reputation that Howard made it worse so correct me if not). Even more simply, I’d never underestimate the value of a rebrand when introducing a policy to a new market, if only to offset the kind of easy dismissal as occurs in debates and the like. Ideally though I’d dump it and never look back, 1 election maybe, 2 elections with votes split like that, no way at least not if you want to win in a country where the dream is to own a house and a bach.