Open mike 10/11/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:42 am, November 10th, 2014 - 126 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Labour leadership David Parker Andrew Little Grant Robertson Nanaia MahutaOpen mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

126 comments on “Open mike 10/11/2014”

  1. b waghorn 1

    Quite a good interview just on tv3 with Jane Kelsey (I hope name is right) about tppa

    • Manuka AOR 1.1

      Prof Kelsey has her own blog, focused on the TPPA.
      Can read it at http://thedailyblog.co.nz/category/bloggers/professor-jane-kelsey/

      • fisiani 1.1.1

        Calling Ms Kelsey “Prof”. whilst accurate, does not make her misguided opinions on the TPPA any more valid. That’s just a dirty debating trick to appeal to authority. A professorial title does not make her views accurate. She has been writing rubbish for over 20 years. Her diatribe reads as if she has seen the final text. She has not.
        The sky will not fall if the TPPA passes. All the wild fantasies of disaster will prove untrue.
        Why do the left always exaggerate and claim the end of civilisation with each step of progress? i know, it’s because it’s National driven progress.

        • karol 1.1.1.1

          Why do the right dismiss any research or researcher that provides well researched and argued critiques of the Nats or right wing politics?

          Kelsey is sound researcher. She has been following the TPP negotiations closely. Attended numerous international meetings on it, talked to loads of relevant people, and closely srcutinised all the available material on it.

          Who would anyone believe. Jane kelsey, with a strong publishing and research record,

          or fizzer, with a long record of tr0ll-type spin?

          • Rodel 1.1.1.1.1

            Just read some of Kelsey’s articles. Her evidence and language make more sense than Fizani’s attempt at selective words…”misguided/dirty/diatribe/rubbish/fantasies etc. etc.”

            rhetoric |ˈretərik|
            noun• language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content:

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2

            Why do the right dismiss any research or researcher that provides well researched and argued critiques of the Nats or right wing politics?

            Because they can’t admit that they’re wrong and that the Left are, therefore, right. So they come in with the ad hominems as fisiani just did because they have no argument for their own delusions.

        • Tracey 1.1.1.2

          can you post your copy of the tppa to back your assurances? tia.

        • vto 1.1.1.3

          the sky will not fall if the tppa is tossed into the bin, where it belongs.

          progress it is not

          • Tracey 1.1.1.3.1

            and yet it was going to fall if

            minimum wage brought in
            minimum wage raised
            nz goes nuclear free
            nz adopts homosexual law reform
            nz has maternity leave
            nz has four weeks annual leave

            ….

            • vto 1.1.1.3.1.1

              yes, and the sky did actually fall when right wing policies were enacted such as;

              deregulation and self-regulation – evidence Pike River, GFC, leaky homes..

              free market supply for all things – evidence no supply of affordable housing for the poor..

              tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the poor (GST) – evidence growing inequality and growing food banks..

              placing economy first and environment second – evidence all our polluted rivers..

              so the sky can and has actually fallen, when right wing nutters get to charge around with their shoot-from-the-hip policies and attitudes.

              the right wing need to start proceeding on the basis of evidence

              And on the above evidence to date it is likely that the sky will fall if the tppa is enacted

              • Draco T Bastard

                +1111

                the right wing need to start proceeding on the basis of evidence

                They can’t as there isn’t any as what you mentioned shows. Everything that the RWNJs do is a failure.

              • Tracey

                and today bill english continued the lie that tpp is a free trade agreement like those that went before.

        • framu 1.1.1.4

          “Her diatribe reads as if she has seen the final text. She has not.
          The sky will not fall if the TPPA passes. All the wild fantasies of disaster will prove untrue.”

          which is of course a view not based on having seen the final text

          • Tracey 1.1.1.4.1

            fizzy is overlooking that the USA is a very litigious nation. it is this which makes the tpp different from our other trade agreements. the us is second only to the EU in suing under the investor provisions of trade agreements. tim grosser deliberately sidesteps this.

            • framu 1.1.1.4.1.1

              hes also overlooking whats already happened under nafta

              its not like theres not precedent for everything were warning about

              • Tracey

                thats because fizzy is getin his opinion from someone else or knows exactly what could happen and wants corporate usa to run nz cos he thinks he and his children will be better off.

        • Tracey 1.1.1.5

          so, when phillip morris objected to plain packaging in aussie and decided to sue them under the trade agreement, who hears the case and makes the unappealable decision?

          “… The rules are enforced by panels which have none of the safeguards we expect in our own courts. The hearings are held in secret. The judges are corporate lawyers, many of whom work for companies of the kind whose cases they hear. Citizens and communities affected by their decisions have no legal standing. There is no right of appeal on the merits of the case. Yet they can overthrow the sovereignty of parliaments and the rulings of supreme courts.

          You don’t believe it? Here’s what one of the judges on these tribunals says about his work. “When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all … Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament. …”

          john key will spend 27m on a referendum about the flg that no one requested but no referendum on whether we cede our right to make laws to the kind of panel described above?

          no outraged herald headlines about democracy under attack?

          to date we havent had an agreement involving the most litigious single country on the planet, USA? but the tppa puts us right in their litigious sights, taxpayers and ratepayers.

          “…

          The Australian government, after massive debates in and out of parliament, decided that cigarettes should be sold in plain packets, marked only with shocking health warnings. The decision was validated by the Australian supreme court. But, using a trade agreement Australia struck with Hong Kong, the tobacco company Philip Morris has asked an offshore tribunal to award it a vast sum in compensation for the loss of what it calls its intellectual property.

          During its financial crisis, and in response to public anger over rocketing charges, Argentina imposed a freeze on people’s energy and water bills (does this sound familiar?). It was sued by the international utility companies whose vast bills had prompted the government to act. For this and other such crimes, it has been forced to pay out over a billion dollars in compensation. In El Salvador, local communities managed at great cost (three campaigners were murdered) to persuade the government to refuse permission for a vast gold mine which threatened to contaminate their water supplies. A victory for democracy? Not for long, perhaps. The Canadian company which sought to dig the mine is now suing El Salvador for $315m – for the loss of its anticipated future profits.

          In Canada, the courts revoked two patents owned by the American drugs firm Eli Lilly, on the grounds that the company had not produced enough evidence that they had the beneficial effects it claimed. Eli Lilly is now suing the Canadian government for $500m, and demanding that Canada’s patent laws are changed….”

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy

          NZ cannot afford the TPPA in oh so many ways. send this link to everyone you know.

        • McFlock 1.1.1.6

          🙄

  2. Paul 2

    John Roughan writing the Herald editorial surpasses himself this morning.

    “America’s standing in the world has picked up immeasurably.”

    Unbelievable. This is supported to be the weighted thought of an intelligent person.
    ROFL.

    Just because Key is in love with America, John, doesn’t mean you need to neoli disused to reality.

    Obama has drone bombed several Muslim countries. There would hardly one people in the Arab or Muslim world who feel fond memories for Obama’s America.

    Spied on pretty much everyone else, including his allies. Angela Merkl wasn’t that impressed, was she? Her views would be tame compared to many others in Europe.

    The South American continent distrusts America.

    Immeasurably, John.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11355829

  3. Lanthanide 3

    Very detailed and interesting poll results that break Greens / Labour / National support down into support from the left, the right and the center:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/10717323/The-future-for-Labour

    Conclusion is that National is strongly winning the centre vote, and winning more of the Left vote than Labour is winning the Right vote.

    This clearly shows that Labour needs to win the center in order to win the election. I guess the question is how to do that while still bringing in the left-wing changes that we need.

    • chris73 3.1

      No no no, I think you’ll find Labour needs to be more left and win more of the left vote in order to govern

      Also don’t forget the missing million who didn’t vote, the ones who apparently vote left yet would rather see National were in power rather than a not quite left enough Labour

      • Paul 3.1.1

        Please ignore chris73 standardistas.
        Many of us are so over these tr*** who derail the threads.

        • North 3.1.1.1

          Paul @ 3.1.1 – Chris73’s computer settings are on Autotr***/Shuffle. Latest randomness is 9 of 20.
          The corpus is rumoured to be on the toot somewhere on the Gold Coast.
          Good plan. Ignore.

    • Paul 3.2

      You take the opinion of the editors of Stuff as unbaised and without an agenda?
      ROFL.

      • Lanthanide 3.2.1

        Actually the article is written by Stephen Mills from UMR Research, about the results of the poll they did, not the editors at stuff.

        Furthermore, the parts I highlighted are factual results from the poll: National wins more of the Left vote than Labour wins of the Right, and there isn’t enough votes in the Left block by itself (even if National wasn’t hoovering them up) for Labour to govern without winning the centre. Pretty straightforward and I would have thought uncontroversial analysis.

        • Tracey 3.2.1.1

          what percentage of nats current vote would need to move left to give the collective left, and nzf the treasury benches.

          labour doesnt need to get to 47%.

          secondly, how many of nationals voters are in the “middle” and what is that categorisation based on?

        • weka 3.2.1.2

          750 people polled by phone (doesn’t say what kind of phones).

          What did the research do with the non-vote ie 1/3 of the electorate? Any speculation about Labour and chasing the centre vote that doesn’t take into account the non-vote is not that useful.

          “Actually the article is written by Stephen Mills from UMR Research”

          Yeah, and she references Cameron Slater’s opinion (his is the only opinion referenced in the whole article). What does that tell us? That she either thinks Slater is a reliable source for opinion, or she is incredibly thick when it comes to understanding the implications of such referencing.

          As for conclusions, it depends on whether you think being in power is the most important thing, or whether you think undermining one’s values to gain power is the most important thing, or whether you think that there are bigger things at stake.

          • Tracey 3.2.1.2.1

            slater as source…. hmmmmm. … given his own complete lack of self awareness it doesnt suggest the poll has allowed for this element in subjective political categorisation

    • Manuka AOR 3.3

      Not sure how they divide up “left” from “centre” – If they have defined the precise dividing lines then I missed that. If they have not defined those demarcation lines, then aren’t they just tagging stats onto various parts of an amorphous mass?

      • Lanthanide 3.3.1

        They asked respondents to gauge themselves where they think they best fit. Would be good to see exactly what questions they asked to elicit the responses though.

        • Tracey 3.3.1.1

          ok. thanks, that answers one of my questions above. yes, we need to see the questions asked, i wonde why they arent available. self categorisation depends largely on self awareness and understanding of actual ideological categories.

          for example, if someone thinks being “right” implies wealthy or uncaring, they are less likely to categorise themselves as right if they are not wealthy and consider themselves caring. same goes for the aversion to being labelled hippy or commie as left.

          • Lanthanide 3.3.1.1.1

            “i wonde why they arent available”

            I’ve never once seen the actual questions provided for a political poll.

            • Tracey 3.3.1.1.1.1

              which is odd if they want to consider it reputable or credible research.

              • Colonial Rawshark

                Well, this is what you get in the private sector. They do not need or want the endorsement of academics or public intellectuals. Further, they view their questionnaires and methodology as trade secrets with competitive and commercial implications.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.2

          Yeah and that is what causes the whole poll to be irrelevant. It’d be a whole lot better to use a set of questions designed to get reasonably consistent answers.

        • McFlock 3.3.1.3

          yeah that’s the bit I’d really want to examine before making any decisions based on that survey (if I were even inclined to act based on one survey).

          There’re more than a couple of tory soc1opaths who comment here and self-describe as “centre-right” or even “centre”.

          The devil is in the self-reporting detail, and that’s before one even reaches the “does a short-term compromise of one’s principles really result in a better long-term outcome” question (my perspective is that it merely sets a precedent for an infinitely long series of “short-term” compromises whenever something of principle is difficult or inconvenient).

    • ankerawshark 3.4

      That is why Little might be on to something here. Don’t bring in the policies like the CGT until we are in power. Don’t scare the middle.

      • Tracey 3.4.1

        what policies could labour focus on that will attract the middle and move them fron national?

        • fisiani 3.4.1.1

          What makes anyone think that Labour is relevant in the 21st century. Read the opening of the UMR piece again and read between the lines. The inference is that Labour could well go the way of the Dodo.

          • Tracey 3.4.1.1.1

            as was said about nats in 2002. in your apparently selective view of history you seem to think that labour has always had strong govt presence in their history. they havent which is why your basis for their irrelevancy is fallacious

            • fisiani 3.4.1.1.1.1

              Labour was a product of the trade union movement in the early 20th century. Union numbers are falling dramatically. Automation and technology will further reduce union membership. Labour do not have a right to government or relevancy just as the Liberals, who were powerful in the 19th century do not. History is on my side.
              It is easy for the laptop warriors here to claim that Labour will win in 2017. I made a packet on Ipredict taking money off leftist mugs. I will make even more in 2017.
              Labour have abandoned the centre and unless they become National-lite they are doomed to impotent opposition. Can you explain how a left wing Labour party can possibly win?

              • vto

                your head seems a little more distorted than usual this morning…..

                it is not actual labour that arose in the past and it may not be again in the future….. if you think about it, the issue was ensuring that everyone in society shared in the product of that society. It was about clipping the greed of the capitalists and putting limits on how much they could take for themselves. It was expressed through the labour movement.

                You are a fool if you think that issue of clipping the greed of the capitalists so that everyone can share will disappear. It is not disappearing, it is growing – just in different forms. Issue same.

                No wonder the right wing get so much wrong – their base thinking and understanding is just so shallow and wrong

              • Skinny

                Don’t be too cock sure of collecting in 2017. This election win was only a matter of 3 seats. The dirty little ACT and United Future jack up can and will be mirrored. Very easy to setup a Labour Maori Party offshoot ( like Nats-Act) that will pull enough votes to get the required seats.

                There is another plan that has been warmly viewed by a Labour Head that will create a lot of positive interest runing into the next election. Here is a tip, expect both the Greens and NZF to win electorate seats in 2017. Deals will be done 🙂

              • Tracey

                you are not very good at reading comprehension are you? re read my post…

      • Lanthanide 3.4.2

        Yes, worked for National: no asset sales in the first term.

    • Just a small matter of terminology.

      I suspect that the self-designated ‘centre’ are actually ‘off the scale’. That is, they are largely apolitical, don’t think much about politics, wouldn’t recognise (or be able to articulate) a political principle or ideology but, crucially, dutifully vote.

      The ‘moderation’ response bias is well-known and tends to be when people have no strong views. They may well think on an issue by issue basis, shifting left or right (in practice) more or less unpredictably.

      They may also see themselves as ‘pragmatists’ or making decisions on the basis of ‘common sense’ – and these aren’t principled approaches they’re simply discursive tactics to maintain non-committal ‘wiggle room’.

      I think it’s therefore also a way to avoid being judged when you don’t feel confident that you have a good analysis of the political world. Who can criticise someone ‘in the centre’? There’s nothing to defend.

      Paradoxically, it makes you a ‘small target’ – which is why it’s so popular a choice.

      I think it is inappropriate to put such people on the same continuum as those who are clearly ‘left’ or ‘right’ in their thinking.

      Probably better to call them ‘neither/both’ or ‘undecided’ rather than ‘the centre’.

      Heartening to see that more people identify as ‘left’ than ‘right’.

  4. joe90 4

    Mr. Gorbachev, [did] open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, [did] tear down this wall.
    //

    Most people’s expectations on November 9, 1989 were that the newly-brought capitalism will result in economic convergence with the rest of Europe, moderate increase in inequality, and consolidated democracy. They are fulfilled most likely in only one country (Poland), and at the very most in another, rather small, two. Their total populations are 42 million, or some 10% of all former Communist countries. Thus, 1 out of 10 people living in “transition” countries could be said to have “transitioned” to the capitalism that was promised by the ideologues who waxed about the triumph of liberal democracy and free markets.

    http://glineq.blogspot.ca/2014/11/for-whom-wall-fell-balance-sheet-of.html

  5. Tautoko Mangō Mata 5

    Here we go. This illustrates the problems associated with Mixed Ownership Models as opposed to State Owned Enterprises.

    “The lawyer representing Maori living south of Whangarei Harbour says the hapu will fight hard in court to stop the Crown from striking out its application preventing Mighty River Power selling off its land.

    Prue Kapua said a date has been set for the Crown to make its case in the High Court in Whangarei on 1 December.

    She said the land used to belong to Patuharakeke hapu until it was sold into private hands and then acquired by the Government under the Public Works Act.

    Ms Kapua said the Crown’s argument is that Mighty River Power is not part of the Crown, but a separate entity, and any Treaty obligations cannot be linked to land owned by a state-owned enterprise.”
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/258979/hapu-to-fight-mighty-river-land-selloff

    So much for the assurances given by Bill English and Tony Ryall on 23 Feb 2012.
    “Subject to Cabinet decisions, the Government intends to include a provision in the new legislation reflecting the concepts of the existing section 9 of the SOEs Act. This preference was clearly expressed to us at the consultation hui.”

    Section 9 is a general clause requiring that the Crown does not act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

    Yeah right!

    • Tracey 5.1

      the maori party will be fighting this hard, right?

      • Murray Rawshark 5.1.1

        I predict the Maori Party will fight it harder than Labour will. I can’t see Kelvin Davis being worried at all.

    • RedBaronCV 5.2

      So it is land taken under the public works act put into meridian who now wants to sell it. And this is sufficent to negate the offer back requirements of the Public works Act? – I assume that still exists. Taken like that the Crown should have offered back when it sold Meridian – so can the hapu attack that leg of the transaction? Devious and arrogant aren’t they.

    • Karen 6.1

      Saw that, and my first thought was that having someone like Matt Heath’s support was not really a good thing. I don’t normally read his columns because I find him to be an obnoxious jock, but did this morning to find out why he supported Grant. It seems he mostly likes Grant because he used to drink a lot of beer with him and his mates, but he still wouldn’t vote for Labour if Grant was leader.

      Not a great endorsement.

      • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.1

        Geoffrey Palmer, Michael Cullen and Matt Heath. Grant’s campaign is hitting top gear now. Just need Hooton to give the thumbs up, and the circle will be complete.

  6. mikesh 7

    Last night I watched TV1’s Sunday program on the Auckland housing problem. It showed one couple making a gain of $300,000 on the sale of a property, in Avondale, which had been their home for the last five years. I could see no reason why they should not have been expected to pay capital gains tax on that “profit” had there been a CGT in place; but of course, under Labour’s proposal, the transaction would have been CGT exempt.

    Capital gains tax is nonsense anyway, but it is particularly nonsensical if, for political reasons, one has to exempt homeowners to make it palatable.

    • indiana 7.1

      They should have used the $300k gain as a deposit on a second home and refinanced taking perhaps their existing 25 year mortgage out another 10 years. There would have been no need for them to fear having a mortgage over their heads for 50 years, given that the rental income from their first home would cover the repayments for part of their mortgage. Think like a rich person, to become a rich person.

      • Murray Rawshark 7.1.1

        Think like a rich person, end up living in a dystopia where you need armed guards and a bulletproof car. But you’ll have lots of money hidden away in some tax shelter. Yuck.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1

          +1

        • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1.2

          Think like a rich person, end up living in a dystopia where you need armed guards and a bulletproof car.

          And those “armed guards” will not be on the side of the rich, when it finally comes down to it. That’s how delusional the 0.1% are about their security in our society.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.2

      I think we need to stop calling it Capital Gains Tax and start calling it what it is – income tax.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 7.2.1

        I am all for the capital gains tax. But I agree with mikesh, the home should not be excluded. You never hear of anyone trying to avoid GST for one reason: it’s on everything so you can’t.

        But then I’d cut income tax so that it was revenue neutral.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.1

          I was absolutely disgusted that they excluded the family home. Stupid idea and, as you say, would be used to avoid paying it when it should be.

      • greywarshark 7.2.2

        Too confusing DTB even if it is. Understanding the tax system is hard enough. It’s supposed to be easy – for somebody – but there is tax before you earn for small business, there are marginal taxes on beneficiaries, that after deduction from gross, and deduction of grants calculated on receipt of gross leave you with less than you started. Sort of like the magician that saws the lady in half yet she still looks the same – what’s happened there. And taxpayers union keeping up some charade that there are a bunch of people that don’t give up anything that they get – the beneficiaries – though they pay 15% on practically every $. which they actually need all of. And then there are people getting over $100,000 which is a handy income, still fairly large for most, and they probably get a refund on their GST and discounts on income tax.

        Don’t obfuscate it any more. I can’t cope and I’m just as ordinary as most.

        • Tracey 7.2.2.1

          its not supposed to be simple. people like judith collins made a living driving trucks through loopholes she would have lobbied to create.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.2.2.2

          The point I was making is that capital gain is income and needs to be treated the same as all other income.

          • greywarshark 7.2.2.2.1

            DTB
            Yes all your points are good, but whether they get understood completely by the peoples is the thing.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.2.2.2.1.1

              IMO, it’d be easier to explain CGT as an income tax because everyone already pays income tax and that those people who aren’t paying CGT are dodging paying their income tax.

              • Murray Rawshark

                +1
                I agree. The argument for CGT is that capital gains are income, so why not call it what it is? And build heaps of state houses. Make it hard to rent out homes at exorbitant rates.

      • mikesh 7.2.3

        CGT is not income tax because a capital gain is not income. If it was you would, in all fairness, have to tax all capital gains, both realized and unrealized. Also, no service has been provided for the gain. There is only an exchange of capital, monetary capital on one side and property on the other.

        Given that it can not be shown to be income, a future government could abolish the tax, in which case anyone who had been forced to pay the tax in meantime could quite legitimately feel unfairly treated.

        cgt is not income tax brecause a capital gain

        • Draco T Bastard 7.2.3.1

          CGT is not income tax because a capital gain is not income.

          Yes it is. If I buy a house for $100k and sell it later for $200k I have an income of $100k that I should be paying tax on.

          If it was you would, in all fairness, have to tax all capital gains, both realized and unrealized.

          Correct except for the bit about taxing unrealised gains. Obviously unrealised gains don’t provide an income whereas realised gains do.

          Also, no service has been provided for the gain.

          That is also true. In fact, absolutely nothing has been done to provide that gain. We usually call such gains bludging.

          Given that it can not be shown to be income

          I’ve just shown that it is.

          • mikesh 7.2.3.1.1

            “If I buy a house for $100k and sell it later for $200k I have an income of $100k that I should be paying tax on.”

            There is no income because nothing new has been created, and no service has been provided. It is simply an exchange of one thing for another of equal value. If it was to be considered income then the buyer would have to be deemed to have incurred a deficit, but as it happens he started with $600,000 cash and ended with a $600,000 house, so no deficit.

            Even if one agreed that it was taxable (and as it happens I don’t) it would be taxable as a capital gain not as income.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.2.3.1.1.1

              There is no income because nothing new has been created, and no service has been provided.

              It’s true that nothing new has been created but that doesn’t decrease the extra $100k in my pocket.

              If it was to be considered income then the buyer would have to be deemed to have incurred a deficit, but as it happens he started with $600,000 cash and ended with a $600,000 house, so no deficit.

              What a load of fucken bollocks. No, the buyer wouldn’t have to end up in deficit. All that has to happen to determine if someone has an income is that they have more money afterwards and someone selling a house for $100k more money than they had beforehand. Same as the dairy owner buys a pack of biscuits for $1 and sells them for $2 they have an income of $1.

              Even if one agreed that it was taxable (and as it happens I don’t) it would be taxable as a capital gain not as income.

              Capital gain is income. Nothing you’ve said contradicts that simple truth.

              • mikesh

                “It’s true that nothing new has been created but that doesn’t decrease the extra $100k in my pocket.”

                The fact that the capital gain in your pocket has not been decreased doesn’t make it any the less a capital gain. Nor does it make it income.

                “No, the buyer wouldn’t have to end up in deficit. All that has to happen to determine if someone has an income is that they have more money afterwards and someone selling a house for $100k more money than they had beforehand. Same as the dairy owner buys a pack of biscuits for $1 and sells them for $2 they have an income of $1.”

                The dairy owner provides a service. He saves you from having to visit the biscuit factory, which may be a hundred miles away, to purchase your biscuits. The extra dollar is his reward for that service and therefore counts as income.

                Before the sale you had a property worth $200k. After the sale you had $200k cash, so no income was earned. The capital gain would have occurred over a period of time prior to the sale. As there was obviously no sale during this period the capital gain can’t count as income.

                “Capital gain is income. Nothing you’ve said contradicts that simple truth.”

                What simple truth?

                • Draco T Bastard

                  The fact that the capital gain in your pocket has not been decreased doesn’t make it any the less a capital gain. Nor does it make it income.

                  The fact that you have more money after the transaction makes it income.

                  The dairy owner provides a service.

                  It doesn’t matter if a service was provided or not. What matters is that the person has more money after the transaction. That alone makes it income.

                  Before the sale you had a property worth $200k. After the sale you had $200k cash, so no income was earned.

                  Nope. Before hand you had $100k with which you bought a $100k house. Afterward you have $200k after selling the house you bought for $100k giving you $100k of income.

                  What simple truth?

                  The one that you’re trying very hard to prove doesn’t exist and yet it’s as plain as day that it does.

                  • mikesh

                    “Nope. Before hand you had $100k with which you bought a $100k house. Afterward you have $200k after selling the house you bought for $100k giving you $100k of income.”

                    Nope. Before you bought the house you had $100k. Immediately after the purchase you had a house worth $100k. Before the sale you had a house worth $200k. After the sale you had $200k in cash.
                    In between there occurred a capital gain of $100k. That gain would have existed whether or not the house had been sold. Similar gains would probably have been made in respect of all the other (unsold) houses in your street (rates demands would have told you this) and therefore can’t be counted as income.

                    Precision in terminology is an aid to clarity of thought. If a gain is “income” then of course it should be taxed as such. If it is not “income” then the question remains open as to whether it should be taxed at all. Calling it something which it isn’t only muddies the waters.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Now you’re just going round in circles.

                      Correct except for the bit about taxing unrealised gains. Obviously unrealised gains don’t provide an income whereas realised gains do.

                    • mikesh

                      “Correct except for the bit about taxing unrealised gains. Obviously unrealised gains don’t provide an income whereas realised gains do.”

                      The question is not whether they “provide” income but whether they constitute income. As I said in my previous post precision in language is needed for clarity in thought. You seem to be thinking in terms of what you get from a gain rather than what that actually is. Essentially, if a gain is a return for the provision of a service or from some productive activity then it is income. If it comes from an increase in the value of an asset due to extraneous circumstances and not due to any effort on your part then it is a capital gain. These are two different things.

  7. greywarshark 8

    Apparently the big end of year exams start today.

    Here’s Rimmer’s method from Red Dwarf to tell you what to do. Not.
    Everybody should listen to this – it will bring back vivid memories to many of us.

    and a bit more silliness

  8. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 9

    RICK: That’s all very well! But finally, after years of stagnation, the TV people have woken up to the need for locally-based minority programs! Made by amateurs! And perhaps of interest only to two or three people! It’s important, right? It’s now! And I want to watch!

    [lprent: Banned 4 weeks for diversion commenting. I can’t see *anything* in your comment that relates to the actual content of the post. Moved to openmike ]

    • factchecker4all 9.1

      RICK: “Oh Cliff! / Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if / You really are a cliff / When fascists keep trying to push you over it! / Are they the lemmings, or are you Cliff? Or ARE you, Cliff?

      NEIL: Yeah. That was really pretty bad, Rick.

      RICK: Bad for society when the KIDS start to get into it!

      NEIL: I’m gonna kill myself now.

      RICK: Pretty angry stuff, right? Let them try and ignore that, right?

      [NEIL is putting his head into the oven.]
      RICK: Those clever trousers in the army! And the police, and the government, if they can!

      NEIL: I see things much more clearly now! Bye Rick.

      RICK: Yes, g’bye.

      NEIL: I’ll probably come back as a lentil.

      RICK: I might even be put in prison! And have water DRIPPED on my head! I might even get a personal message from Cliff!

      NEIL: Oh, wow! This is the end, man! Doesn’t anybody ever suss out cleaning this oven except me? Aw, w–this is so dirty, man, uncool! I bet you could look inside all the dirty ovens in the world, right, and you can–even the ones at the bottoms of swamps, and you wouldn’t find one as dirty as this one.

      RICK: Neil! Why don’t you listen to me, Neil? Why don’t you listen to ME? Y–d’you find me boring or something? Look. Look. That’s a saucer. THAT’S boring. Look.

      [RICK holds the saucer up next to his face for comparison, pointing at both for effect.]
      RICK: Pretty different, really, isn’t it? It’s not really the same thing at all, is it Neil? NEIL!

      [RICK breaks the saucer by throwing it on the oven, then goes to do the same with another one.]
      RICK: I will not be associated with saucers!

      [lprent: Banned 4 weeks for diversion commenting. I can’t see *anything* in your comment that relates to the post. Moved to openmike ]

    • Tracey 9.2

      once media was for sale the outcome was probably inevitable. when one of our Ministers proclaims his stance toward voting is that if there is a willing buyer he is a willing seller (paraph), the outcome is inevitable

    • karol 9.3

      Kiwiblog and WO don’t get as many visits as RNZ National does listeners, by a long way – or as many visits as TVNZ7 viewers in its time.

      Yet, KB and WO have had a significant influence over what gets covered in the MSM.

      It’s not the ratings per se, but the ways those blogs have used to play to the corporate media MO that have given them undue influence – plus the covert personal threats to journos, academics and politicians.

      We need a public service media, that puts more critical analyses, and different kind of coverage into circulation from that of the corporate media, and the two-track blogs.

      • Tracey 9.3.1

        yes. a tiny voice can be heard if it ranks high on a media outlets preferred go to sources.

        hence ACT with its 16,000 party voters is represented in the media more than say, the green party, or nzf, or maori party. the idea that the preferences of a very human owner of a media outlet have no influence is tragically naive or self serving. you dont need to make your editor do anything he or she doesnt want to do, just ensure that your hiring processes weed out the ideologies you dont want prominent in your media

        i recall when the ONLY opinion piece in a newspaper was the editorial.

      • factchecker4all 9.3.2

        “Yet, KB and WO have had a significant influence over what gets covered in the MSM.”

        I think you’re going to need some proof to back that up, otherwise it’s just more nonsense pandering to those respective blogs sense of their own importance.

        • Tracey 9.3.2.1

          today in an article on stuff.co.nz only one source was referenced in a story about new polling results. it was cameron slater.

          the taxpayers union, silent post election, had a large number of representations in the press within a short time of creation. mr farrar was a founder.

          • karol 9.3.2.1.1

            Compare the blogs and journals today, with the likes of Tomorrow in the 30s and 40s, for which a number of left wing artists, activists (some using pseudonyms) and intellectuals wrote. Many of them influential, and in contact with Labour MPS.

        • karol 9.3.2.2

          I guess it’s in the Dirty Politics book. There are things like the Len Brown affair, the OIAs to Slater, as influenced by Collins, etc.

  9. Chooky 10

    Ken O’Keefe ( Ex-US Marine, Political Analyst)
    Peter Van Buren ( Former State Department, Author)
    Majid Fafizadeh ( Harvard Scholar, International American Council)

    ….discuss ISIS ( its nature and origins); the ‘War on Terror’; the ‘Greater Israel Project ‘; Regime and/or Regional Change aims for the Middle East: Washington’s Middle East Wars

    …in ‘Stupid Wars’ ……on ‘Cross Talk’ with Peter Lavelle

    http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/201763-islamic-state-us-terror/

    “What is Washington’s strategy against the Islamic State? Is the Islamic State a creation of the United States? Is the war on terror really a war on Islam? Will the US make amends with Iran in order to defeat the jihadist militants? What is Washington’s endgame? CrossTalking with Ken O’Keefe, Majid Rafizadeh, and Peter van Buren.”

    • TE 10.1

      Ken O’keefe has the ability to articulate truth on the stupid wars more than any other person I have listened to. I am so surprised he is still a free man.

      • Chooky 10.1.1

        TE +100…yes he made a lot of sense to me too!…another reason why we should not be buying into this false war

        …in fact all of these commentators made sense

        …but O’Keefe was the most convincing and the most fearless and spoke with the most authority !….a soldier for Truth

  10. vto 11

    This will be good for clouds of asbestos to swoosh across the city… like the ex-TVNZ building did …..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10725763/Implosion-likely-for-central-police-station

  11. weka 12

    This would have to be the 🙄 comment of the day so far,

    Sacha Dylan retweeted
    Philip Matthews ‏@secondzeit 4 hrs4 hours ago

    Matthew Hooton says rescuing the bodies from Pike River would be “the cynical, political thing to do”.

  12. Someone does his civic duty and brings in a grenade with the safety pin right where it should be and all of a sudden they find a piece of steel tube filled with something gunky but no detonators an improvised explosive on the same plot of land? Am I alone in thinking this is just more of the same fear mongering and are we going to take this shit lying down?

    • greywarshark 13.1

      Please travellerev restrain yourself from undue suspicion. The cops always take these things seriously. It’s part of there being very concerned about safety process as seen at Pike River. But seriously, they have to treat a possible grenade as a threat or they would have more than egg on their faces if it exploded. Also packets of white powder in letters, on steps, boxes sitting in odd places, bags that remain for too long unattended etc etc.

      We have had a man blown up in NZ, with a union background, so explosions are not unknown, but unknown is the situation as to the perpetrator and it’s a very cold case, but too hot to handle. As you have thought so often, things are pretty messed up in some people’s heads.

    • Higherstandard 13.2

      Please don’t take a shit lying down.

  13. Ovid 14

    I don’t know whether she should resign so soon into the portfolio, but Anne Tolley needs to issue a mea culpa over Philip Smith’s escape.

  14. Colonial Rawshark 15

    10 Days in North Korea

    Heh. Fascinating, interesting, scary. An RT doco.

    • Clemgeopin 15.1

      Thanks for the link. Interesting, colourful, regimented and seems so soulless. Minds taken over by the regime….Kind of what Key and his spin machine has mildly done to his supporters here with the help of our stupid msm.

    • Paul 16.1

      Yes, the familiar sight of a tr*** on this site.
      Ignore.

    • Olwyn 16.2

      The question I now wish I’d asked at the hustings meeting is “How do you intend to deal with the media?”

      In the “culture and the left” post, Karol said,John Key’s government has been doing everything to close down the options…

      Lessons from the ’30s and 40’s: culture and the left

      Both here and elsewhere, “closing down the options” now seems to include compromising left wing parties from the inside. The alarm bells that began for me when Hooton endorsed Shearer as Labour’s leader have not stopped ringing, and I would like to see the new leader take a firm hand with regard to leaking in particular and relations with the media and right wing PR people in general. You cannot challenge the narrative while simultaneously grovelling to its mouthpiece.

      • chris73 16.2.1

        Assuming so-called dirt politics and big money isn’t a recent phenomena the answer seems straight forward (though the implementation might prove somewhat difficult) and thats to look at what Helen Clark did and replicate it as much as possible

        John Key watched what Helen Clark did and has done pretty much what shes done (albiet with a few tweaks)

        For example

        There is no doubt that in the voters mind that National under John Key is united like Labour was under Helen Clark

        When theres bad news to be given John Key delegates it to someone else again like Helen Clark

        A reporter asks a question John Key doesn’t want to answer he merely bats it away or refuses to answer

        John Key has Bill English and Steven Joyce, Helen Clark had Michael Cullen and Heather Simpson

        I’m not sure why Labour wants to reinvent the wheel when the answers right there in front of them

        • Olwyn 16.2.1.1

          Yes, taking another look at how Helen did it would be a good place to start.

          • chris73 16.2.1.1.1

            Is that a serious reply or sarcasm, its hard to tell sometimes

          • Olwyn 16.2.1.1.2

            Serious.

            • chris73 16.2.1.1.2.1

              Jolly good

              I’m assuming theres some reason why Labour haven’t tried to replicate what worked in the no-so-distant past

              • Anne

                They went down the road of trying new ideas – both at a strategy as well as political level – and they didn’t work. I hope they have learned to stick to tried and true methods in the future and forget the fancy theories.

                • Colonial Rawshark

                  Yes, taking another look at how Helen did it would be a good place to start.

                  And this is the bizarre thing: Grant Robertson was H3. He saw first hand how Helen Clark H1 and Heather Simpson H2 ran that tight, politically capable ship. And yet, he has been unable to successfully demonstrate more than a sliver of that leadership ability himself.

                  • Chooky

                    because Robertson lacks the ability…quite simple

                    Helen Clark was extraordinarily able and she had the NZ electorate and women behind her ….the Nacts knew it and went for her like attack dogs because they knew if the Queen bee went down the hive would be destroyed ….but certain males on the Left and Left commentators did their best to dis Helen Clark …remember “Helengrad” and “Time for a Change” ( well we got it alright !)

      • newsense 16.2.2

        The phrase “unamed MPs”and “senior MPs” and the desire to nobble a leader before an election. The desire to get around a leader selection process by having a parliamentary leader installed just before an election campaign. The idea of hurting a leader with a show of dissension pre-election in order to roll him post election. All these things have a similar ring to them.

        The parallel of it all is….interesting.

  15. chris73 17

    Fair enough but the article I linked to is on the same topic of IQs

    [karol: no need to keep it going. Moving from lessons of the 30s and 40s to open mike]

    • McFlock 17.1

      @c73 10:11pm

      lol

      The Daily Mail you linked to has this wonderful line:

      So a smart person (all else being equal) will probably be in favour of capitalism generally, and free-trade in particular.

      I suspect that this is the article the DM opinion piece refers to.
      The headline doesn’t match the content, and sure as shit doesn’t match the Daily Mail spin.

      It’s all very well saying that a 1 SD change in intelligence = change in mean of 0.26 (1=”Strongly agree”; 2=”Agree”; 3=”Neither agree nor disagree”; 4=”Disagree”; 5=”Strongly disagree”) or -0.07 (1=”Benefits”; 2=”Don’t know”; 3=”Does not benefit”), but when the means are 2.26 and 1.91 respectively, it doesn’t actually say what economists would answer.

      The first question is “America should limit the import of foreign products in order to protect its national economy”. The second is “Generally speaking, would you say that America benefits or does not benefit from being a member of NAFTA?”.

      A smart person, by that study, would be pretty much on the fence regarding free trade. It’s a bit surprising that the authors tried to use “thinking like economists” as a benchmark without bothering to see what economists answering the GSS actually thought. With a sample size in the tens of thousands, they must have had a few. Maybe the authors weren’t quite as smart as they think?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts