PDA

View Full Version : The Opportunities Party



Banksie
08-12-2016, 08:17 AM
Am I understanding their tax policy correctly http://www.top.org.nz/top1? That they are proposing a tax on the theoretical rate of return on all assets you own including your primary residence?

I am all for greater equality but I don't think this will do it. Isn't it just redistributing wealth from the old (who are living in their own mortgage-free property, drawing little income) to the young (who are drawing income but don't yet own assets)? Sure those with large asset portfolios will have to take on more of the tax burden but so will the average grandmom and grandpop.

I don't think he will get much traction with this.

Aaron
08-12-2016, 09:51 AM
Banksie wouldn’t greater equality mean a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor (or society as a whole).
Details are a bit vague but the idea in theory seems OK to me.

It is a wealth tax as I see it not an old versus young debate. Admittedly the older generation hold most of the wealth. I think we would need to see the levels of income TOP is proposing. I suppose in theory if your return on equity based on an average house came out to about the same as national superannuation then there wouldn't be any additional tax to pay for a superannuitant living in an average house with only national super for income (e.g. $500,000 @ say 5% equals $25,000. Nat Super for a couple is $33,935 so you would need a rate of close to 7% before they had to pay anything).

It sounded like this might not be the case and a debt would accrue against the house (e.g.a $1mill house at 5% is $50,000 less super 33,935 then tax to pay on $16,065 at whatever rate the wealth tax is set at). Gareth has explained that only 20% of the population would be worse off. Maybe as we get some details as to how it would work in practice we can judge better. Your QV might become pretty important but it is already relevant for rates anyway.

Please note I am only guessing how this tax will work in practice.

At least we have a party trying to make the tax system fairer, all the current govt. has done is raise a regressive GST rate to reduce a progressive income tax rate while ignoring capital gains or wealth taxes. Why the majority of fair minded people aren't enraged by the national govt over the last few terms is beyond comprehension. Self interest will always win in the end but we must be getting to a point where even the average home owner can see something is not right and we need change otherwise society starts to become worse for everybody.

peat
08-12-2016, 10:00 AM
Yes the theoretical fairness of the tax proposal would appear to far outweighed by the political considerations. Most people wont understand this and hence it is unlikely to gain electoral traction. Even a PWC tax expert on the radio yesterday thought it was quite a good and equitable idea (devil in the detail of course e.g. 5% imputed return seems a bit high at the moment) but would be burdened by administrative overhead, and lack of understanding by the masses.

It wont happen, but actually it would create a much better environment for productive investment.

blackcap
08-12-2016, 10:18 AM
Its just too difficult to understand. Will not gain any traction whatsoever is my view. Might be nice in theory and equitable but the masses need something easy they can actually understand and this is not it.

Aaron
08-12-2016, 10:18 AM
What is the political consideration? That people will be afraid they will pay more tax so won't go for it. That makes 80% of the population morons and they get what they deserve when they go to the polling booth and vote for the next John Key cause he seems like a nice guy. John Key has done his best to make NZ more unequal without rocking the boat and a job well done I might add. I wonder if the masses are too stupid, lazy or fearful to vote for change or a combination of all three.

As far as being too hard to understand how many people really understand the current tax laws? Not many I would guess otherwise how do accountants get away charging what they do. I don't like change myself but can't help feeling the path NZ is on won't be making our country a better place for the majority in the long run and we need to do something. I guess I am in a minority.

Aaron
08-12-2016, 10:25 AM
Actually I should tone it down as me suggesting anyone is stupid, lazy or fearful is hypocrisy of the highest order.

fungus pudding
08-12-2016, 10:29 AM
Its just too difficult to understand. Will not gain any traction whatsoever is my view. Might be nice in theory and equitable but the masses need something easy they can actually understand and this is not it.

You can add to that the enormous complexity in valuing cars, art, property, shares and various assets every year for your tax return.

blackcap
08-12-2016, 10:43 AM
You can add to that the enormous complexity in valuing cars, art, property, shares and various assets every year for your tax return.

Exactly FP, I already struggle (I have an accounting degree) with the FIF rules on foreign investments. Imagine if every Kiwi had to do this with the added complexity you mention above.

craic
08-12-2016, 11:08 AM
Bring it on! This party will only attract the left of centre voters. The bottom line is that those who made it are not going to want to give back to other who may not have even tried. As to taxing assets, watch the programme Posh Pawn on the box. A simple piece of jewellery can be tossed into a suitcase and transported to the UK or somewhere and converted into cash. If you live an outwardly simple life, then you will not attract the tax gatherers. And gathering such taxes as proposed will require an army of civil servants who just might just cost more than they gather.

Aaron
09-12-2016, 10:12 AM
Too hard to understand is bull****. Just like a capital gains tax is too hard for John Key to implement.
Paul Henry was saying it is like communism or that people won't aspire to anything if we tax wealth. What a load of bull****. We tax income and goods and services, no one has stopped working or buying **** they don't really need.

blackcap
09-12-2016, 11:03 AM
Too hard to understand is bull****. Just like a capital gains tax is too hard for John Key to implement.
Paul Henry was saying it is like communism or that people won't aspire to anything if we tax wealth. What a load of bull****. We tax income and goods and services, no one has stopped working or buying **** they don't really need.

Its not bull **** Aaron. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare and just would not work. Look how he bumbled and fumbled on PH this morning. It reeks of socialism and big brother telling you that a $100k car is better for you than a $500K car. It diminished the chance to choose. His policies would also create huge loopholes and behaviours to hide or minimise wealth.
As an aside, how are the plebs going to be able to value all their assets? Get a valuer in... the costs would be astronomical.
Keep receipts from all purchases and keep a register.... likewise.
It's not a policy that would resonate with voters and I think he has done his dash.

Aaron
09-12-2016, 04:42 PM
I imagine the valuation of your car and furniture would need to be simplified but would be in there to tax people who moved their wealth out of real estate into art or cars to get around paying a wealth tax. I wonder if gold would be considered currency like it is in the GST Act and therefore exempt(I doubt it as it would be an easy loophole.)
Socialism/Communism the definitions are too close. We know communism doesn't work but we have had a watered down version of capitalism long enough now to know that it isn't working either. Anyone like the National government that makes society more unequal is evil in my opinion. I am sure the national MPs are only thinking of improving their own situation and don't set out to hurt the less fortunate but that is what their policies will/are doing.

How about a government trying to make life fairer for everyone. I understand nothing will be perfect for everyone and nothing will ever be perfectly fair but NZ is better in my opinion if we have concern for one another rather than just thinking about ourselves all the time. I know I am too selfish to do it myself so that is why I am happy to let the government do it on my behalf through taxation and redistribution.

The wealth tax does come with the assumption that everything you spend on, you should be considering a return on your investment but isn't that what a good capitalist would do anyway.

Maybe we need to wait for more detail before getting into a debate about it.

fungus pudding
09-12-2016, 06:04 PM
I imagine the valuation of your car and furniture would need to be simplified but would be in there to tax people who moved their wealth out of real estate into art or cars to get around paying a wealth tax. I wonder if gold would be considered currency like it is in the GST Act and therefore exempt(I doubt it as it would be an easy loophole.)
Socialism/Communism the definitions are too close. We know communism doesn't work but we have had a watered down version of capitalism long enough now to know that it isn't working either. Anyone like the National government that makes society more unequal is evil in my opinion.

It is hardly the government that makes society unequal. It is those in society who are risk takers, hard workers, and those lucky enough to be talented/gifted.

Aaron
11-12-2016, 10:42 AM
It is hardly the government that makes society unequal. It is those in society who are risk takers, hard workers, and those lucky enough to be talented/gifted.
Personally I think the issue is about making the tax system fairer. Why is taxing hard earned income more acceptable than taxing wealth. More so when central banks around the world bailed out the "risk takers" in 2007-2008 and continue to bail them out with easy money and low interest rates further pushing up the value of their investments.

fungus pudding
11-12-2016, 11:34 AM
Personally I think the issue is about making the tax system fairer. Why is taxing hard earned income more acceptable than taxing wealth. More so when central banks around the world bailed out the "risk takers" in 2007-2008 and continue to bail them out with easy money and low interest rates further pushing up the value of their investments.

The only fair tax is a levy system where everyone pays the same dollar amount (poll tax) Not acceptable generally, but it is fair. Next to that a percentage based tax, aka flat tax. The unfair taxes start when progressive taxes are enforced. Tax based on ones ability to pay is quite acceptable to the majority of taxpayers, including me, but for Allah's sake - don't ever pretend it's fair. There is NO justification for calling it fair, anymore than basing the price of weetbix, wheelbarrows or whisky on your income or assets.

blackcap
11-12-2016, 11:37 AM
Personally I think the issue is about making the tax system fairer. Why is taxing hard earned income more acceptable than taxing wealth. More so when central banks around the world bailed out the "risk takers" in 2007-2008 and continue to bail them out with easy money and low interest rates further pushing up the value of their investments.

Depends entirely on your definition of fair does it not? I for one do not think taxing wealth is fair at all. Its already been taxed during the income phase and so why should people who are frugal (thus have some wealth) have to pay more than others that fritter it away.

fungus pudding
11-12-2016, 11:51 AM
Depends entirely on your definition of fair does it not? I for one do not think taxing wealth is fair at all. Its already been taxed during the income phase and so why should people who are frugal (thus have some wealth) have to pay more than others that fritter it away.

No. But if you advocate robbing Peter to pay Paul, then you will find a good few Pauls to support you. It's envy politics- quite unworkable and unsaleable, especially when promoted by Morgan who I do not think is a popular character among the hoi-polloi.

Banksie
18-12-2016, 02:14 PM
Tops second policy, immigration, is out http://www.top.org.nz/top2. I like the idea that it makes it easier for skilled migrants to come here. I immigrated to NZ as a skilled migrant 7 years ago, but since then it has gotten harder and harder to do that. With the current points system I probably wouldn't have made it in. (Yeah, yeah, probably a good thing I hear you say ;)).

The current progression, once you have your residency visa, is permanent residency after 2 years and citizenship after 5 years. I think the citizenship ceremony should be when people are tested for an understanding of the constitution and I don't agree with him suggesting that it should be 5 years paid work in New Zealand before permanent residency is allowed. It could stifle entrepreneurship in skilled migrants as they will not be able to risk their businesses struggling and not being able to pay them for a period of time. Also, what about skilled contractors who live here but earn all their money contracting overseas? Surely someone who lives and spends here but earns elsewhere is a good contributor to NZ.

If they do lift the qualifying period for the superannuate it would be nice to give migrants who haven't worked the full 25 years another way to buy in with additional contributions. After all skilled workers arriving here at 45 and working till 65 would be contributing a great deal of tax during what is potentially the earning peak of their careers.

minimoke
18-12-2016, 02:38 PM
Depends entirely on your definition of fair does it not? I for one do not think taxing wealth is fair at all. Its already been taxed during the income phase and so why should people who are frugal (thus have some wealth) have to pay more than others that fritter it away.

I'm still getting my head around the "fairness" part. As I read it I may have $10,000 in the bank or shares and I get taxed taxed on it. And you might have $10,000 in a house or car and not getting taxed. Either way we both got taxed on the journey through to this point.

What we are also forgetting is there is a promised drop in PAYE and GST which woudl affect every one so that seems fair.

minimoke
18-12-2016, 02:57 PM
Tops second policy, immigration, is out http://www.top.org.nz/top2.
Lots of bits to this policy so wont dwell on them all.

- Test for Permanent residence. Presuposes we have a Constitution. Which we dont. As for the Status of the Treaty of Waitangi that ends up being a philosophical answer. And a question that doesnt define being a New Zealander anyway.
- Reform the Points system. Only issue is "contribution to the economy". If that threshold isnt met then move on, you dont get in.
-Exploitation of migrant worker. No amnesty. But name/shame employer,heavy fine and compensate workers. Eg the owners of that company that sold for hundreds of millions this week should be disgusted with themsleves.
- Updating the Skills Shortage list. Morgan gets it. Immigration doesn't. (He really ought to have "fire dept of Immigration workers as they are incompetent" in his policy as well.
- Reform Study to Work regime. Biggest con in town. About time someone suggested tidying it up.

Bjauck
18-12-2016, 03:23 PM
Am I understanding their tax policy correctly http://www.top.org.nz/top1? That they are proposing a tax on the theoretical rate of return on all assets you own including your primary residence?

I am all for greater equality but I don't think this will do it. Isn't it just redistributing wealth from the old (who are living in their own mortgage-free property, drawing little income) to the young (who are drawing income but don't yet own assets)? Sure those with large asset portfolios will have to take on more of the tax burden but so will the average grandmom and grandpop.

I don't think he will get much traction with this.

At the moment owner-occupiers are being subsidised by those who are not. Those who -or who are able to - invest in their own homes receive a tax-free return on the investment - accommodation. Whilst those who cannot invest in their own home or chose to invest in fixed interest or businesses instead are taxed on their return. In addition fixed interest investors are taxed on that part of their return that is due to inflation.

The current tax system encourages ownership of one's own home - and as expensive a home as possible - right through to old age. All net capital gains and net benefits of ownership are not taxable and should a spouse need long-term care the total value of the home is excluded from assessment for a care subsidy. A wealth tax could help remedy this tax advantage by treating all assets equally and actually free up large properties for families as older people may find there are fewer tax disadvantages in owning financial assets in addition to a downsized home.

As Auckland's home ownership rates are now below 50% and the rest of the country may follow suit, the current tax system which includes GST but no CGT, favours those people who invest in their own homes and in assets whose returns are mostly from capital appreciation. In effect this subsidises the wealthier in society.

However such a disruptive change to the tax system will be difficult to introduce as it will be up against vested interests, not least being the older voters who are substantially invested in real estate, which currently bears a low incidence of tax on its total return. The changes probably would benefit those who currently earn taxable income (either from their labour or assets) as opposed to deriving mostly capital gain from assets or owning non-productive assets.

Asset exemption and Valuation of assets could be an issue, although to an extent NZ could draw on the experience of those jurisdictions that have wealth taxes.

Bjauck
18-12-2016, 05:42 PM
... - Test for Permanent residence. Presuposes we have a Constitution. Which we dont. As for the Status of the Treaty of Waitangi that ends up being a philosophical answer. And a question that doesnt define being a New Zealander anyway... This baffled me. We actually do have a constitution which is a mixture of common law convention and various statutes....https://gg.govt.nz/role/constofnz/intro . I think a basic understanding of the structure of government (and perhaps NZ historical development too) is important for all people with permanent residence and voting rights in NZ.

What we do not have is a written constitution in one document written in the C18th with its amendments down the ages as with the USA.

Baa_Baa
18-12-2016, 06:29 PM
This baffled me. We actually do have a constitution which is a mixture of common law convention and various statutes....https://gg.govt.nz/role/constofnz/intro . I think a basic understanding of the structure of government (and perhaps NZ historical development too) is important for all people with permanent residence and voting rights in NZ.

What we do not have is a written constitution in one document written in the C18th with its amendments down the ages as with the USA.

Yes precisely.

This misunderstanding should probably not be surprising, even here on ST with much discussion and debate in the political threads containing statements that confuse the constitutionally separated functions of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, often supported by incorrect statements of the roles of Government, Parliament, Cabinet and Caucus.

Interesting though that so many words are typed with apparently so little understanding of how it all fits together or how it works.

minimoke
18-12-2016, 07:09 PM
This baffled me. We actually do have a constitution which is a mixture of common law convention and various statutes....https://gg.govt.nz/role/constofnz/intro . I think a basic understanding of the structure of government (and perhaps NZ historical development too) is important for all people with permanent residence and voting rights in NZ.

What we do not have is a written constitution in one document written in the C18th with its amendments down the ages as with the USA.What we have is westminster based parliamentary system (and realm) which has a number of laws, subsequently reinterpreted by the Courts which provides a constitutional framework. But we dont have a codified Constitution - the closest perhaps being the Bill of Rights.

Prime example of how we dont have a constitution. Our, arguably, founding document, has been reinterpreted many times and perhaps one of the latest iteration is as a result of the Labour Governments views in the mid 70's and subsequent meddling through various courts and tribunals

Baa_Baa
18-12-2016, 07:29 PM
What we have is westminster based parliamentary system (and realm) which has a number of laws, subsequently reinterpreted by the Courts which provides a constitutional framework. But we dont have a codified Constitution - the closest perhaps being the Bill of Rights.

Prime example of how we dont have a constitution. Our, arguably, founding document, has been reinterpreted many times and perhaps one of the latest iteration is as a result of the Labour Governments views in the mid 70's and subsequent meddling through various courts and tribunals

Your definition of a constitution is convenient to your perception but plainly incorrect, further confused by blurring the basis of the "parliamentary system" [sic] with the NZ constitution. The NZ constitution is clearly defined, it is not a "constitutional framework" as you put it. It is also codified, though not in a single article which presumably you perceive as a superior form.

Bjauck
18-12-2016, 08:17 PM
What we have is westminster based parliamentary system (and realm) which has a number of laws, subsequently reinterpreted by the Courts which provides a constitutional framework. But we dont have a codified Constitution - the closest perhaps being the Bill of Rights.

Prime example of how we dont have a constitution. Our, arguably, founding document, has been reinterpreted many times and perhaps one of the latest iteration is as a result of the Labour Governments views in the mid 70's and subsequent meddling through various courts and tribunals
I agree with you on the point that it is not codified in an all encompassing document but a constitution it is nevertheless. In the same way that many contracts can be enforceable whether verbal or written.

The Treaty of Waitangi....was a treaty between foreign parties...the NZ constitution sprang from the British side to the treaty and is evidenced by NZ government (successor to the British government) settlements with iwi (the other sides to te Tiriti o Waitangi)

jonu
18-12-2016, 08:27 PM
To be blunt BJ and Baa Baa you are both talking nonsense. If we have a constitution please direct me to it. A constitutional framework based on Westminster and the Treaty of Waitangi and more latterly incorporating the Bill of Rights is as close as we have got. One of the reasons Geoff Palmer promoted the Bill of Rights was our lack of a definitive constitution.

minimoke
18-12-2016, 09:01 PM
A constitutional framework based on Westminster and the Treaty of Waitangi.Not forgetting it was the courts in 1987 who defined the Treaty principles - not the People.

Bjauck
18-12-2016, 09:51 PM
To be blunt BJ and Baa Baa you are both talking nonsense. If we have a constitution please direct me to it. A constitutional framework based on Westminster and the Treaty of Waitangi and more latterly incorporating the Bill of Rights is as close as we have got. One of the reasons Geoff Palmer promoted the Bill of Rights was our lack of a definitive constitution.
Perhaps what you want is a fully written constitution in one encompassing document? NZ does not have that. Refer to https://gg.govt.nz/role/constofnz/intro as a start for info on our actual partially written and unwritten constitution.

The American constitution likewise did not have a bill of rights until later amendments. Fully written constitutions can still be deficient and slow to be amended and in some cases ineffective. To wit, the Italian constitution enacted on 2 December 1947 produces weak and ephemeral governments. Their recent failed referendum, will see that state of affairs continue.

The Treaty was originally not part of the constitution as it was between foreign parties in the same way the ANZUS Treaty was neither part of the NZ or US constitutions. Waitangi is only part of NZ law to the extent that it forms part of court decisions and statutes such as the Treaty of Waitangi Acts etc.

Bjauck
18-12-2016, 09:55 PM
Not forgetting it was the courts in 1987 who defined the Treaty principles - not the People.
When the Treaty was signed in the first place, it was entered into via Crown prerogative on the British side and chiefly authority on the Maori side. The "people" were never involved.

jonu
19-12-2016, 06:56 AM
Perhaps what you want is a fully written constitution in one encompassing document? NZ does not have that. Refer to https://gg.govt.nz/role/constofnz/intro as a start for info on our actual partially written and unwritten constitution.

The American constitution likewise did not have a bill of rights until later amendments. Fully written constitutions can still be deficient and slow to be amended and in some cases ineffective. To wit, the Italian constitution enacted on 2 December 1947 produces weak and ephemeral governments. Their recent failed referendum, will see that state of affairs continue.

The Treaty was originally not part of the constitution as it was between foreign parties in the same way the ANZUS Treaty was neither part of the NZ or US constitutions. Waitangi is only part of NZ law to the extent that it forms part of court decisions and statutes such as the Treaty of Waitangi Acts etc.

It's not about what I want BJ, it's about what you said we have, but you have acknowledged the point I made.

Bjauck
19-12-2016, 07:43 AM
It's not about what I want BJ, it's about what you said we have, but you have acknowledged the point I made. NZ has a constitution but not contained in one written document. What did you think of the item on the NZ constitution on the GG's site?

It makes no difference if it is called a constitution or "constitutional framework". They are synonymous, though "constitutional framework" is probably tautologous. NZ has principles, laws and conventions determining the obligations and duties of the government and people - i.e. a constitution.

Like mostly written constitutions (such as the Italian or American) codified in one major document plus amendments, the NZ constitution can be amended by due process (eg letters patent, parliamentary or judicial process)

minimoke
19-12-2016, 09:20 AM
Heres a question for Gareths Consitution test.

How many countries in the world do not have a written constitution? And name one of them

Answer: 3 and New Zealand

minimoke
19-12-2016, 09:46 AM
And heres another question

Give an example of a constitutional principal and how government rides roughshod over this.
Answer. Taxation should be by consent of the people. Government unilaterally removed the peoples elected representatives in Environment Canterbury and still taxes those people without their consent.

Bjauck
19-12-2016, 10:18 AM
And heres another question

Give an example of a constitutional principal and how government rides roughshod over this.
Answer. Taxation should be by consent of the people. Government unilaterally removed the peoples elected representatives in Environment Canterbury and still taxes those people without their consent. I think NZ is a unitary state in tax and other affairs. The representation being in House of Reps.

Similarly the people of Auckland had no direct say on Wellington's decision to abolish local councils and the imposition of the "Super" City.

minimoke
19-12-2016, 11:11 AM
I think NZ is a unitary state in tax and other affairs. The representation being in House of Reps.

Similarly the people of Auckland had no direct say on Wellington's decision to abolish local councils and the imposition of the "Super" City.
At least aucklanders pay their regional council tax and get to elect their representatives. Same with wellingtonians.

No such luck for cantabrians. We just pay our tax and get no say. Which is why we have waterways i used to fish in that are now unswimmable.

Bjauck
19-12-2016, 12:39 PM
At least aucklanders pay their regional council tax and get to elect their representatives. Same with wellingtonians.

No such luck for cantabrians. We just pay our tax and get no say. Which is why we have waterways i used to fish in that are now unswimmable. I agree. If I understand it correctly. It is not satisfactory for Central Government to sack elected councillors as the result of farmers complaining about RMA delays. Would T.O.P. introduce changes to reduce the ability of central government to intervene without a local electorate mandate?

minimoke
19-12-2016, 01:38 PM
It is not satisfactory for Central Government to sack elected councillors as the result of farmers complaining about RMA delays.
Unsatisfactory? I'd call it unconstitutional - if we had a written constitution i could reference. Given i dont we just have to accept politicians can do whatever they like - which has to be unconstitutional.

Bjauck
19-12-2016, 03:35 PM
Unsatisfactory? I'd call it unconstitutional - if we had a written constitution i could reference. Given i dont we just have to accept politicians can do whatever they like - which has to be unconstitutional. NZ scores highly under transparency and corruption tests. A written constitution does not necessarily deliver a political system that acts in the citizens interests as the many dictatorships with written constitutions would indicate. There is a body of public law in NZ to which to refer, including judicial reviews of government actions: http://www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/4.18

minimoke
19-12-2016, 05:15 PM
NZ scores highly under transparency and corruption tests. A written constitution does not necessarily deliver a political system that acts in the citizens interests as the many dictatorships with written constitutions would indicate. There is a body of public law in NZ to which to refer, including judicial reviews of government actions: http://www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/4.18I'm not suggesting having a written constitution is some kind of nirvana. Nor do i think we are that bad in the corruption stakes. However we could do better.

For example
- not turning a blind eye to the exploited foreign workforce now in NZ and working somewhat akin to slave conditions
- wrongly incarcerating people when it is later found there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt to the usual standard and not compensating for that loss
- the award of mega million earthquake repair contracts for a $1m donation
- having a police force acting outside the law (eg Red Devils)
- Having government departments who are unable to be scrutinized by the courts (eg EQC) nor get financially punished (eg MoBIE) when they do wrong
- the sale of major assets, purchased by the taxpayer under a Political "mandate" pretext.

Major von Tempsky
20-12-2016, 09:35 AM
Yawn! Opportunities Party = Internet Party = dead loss. Which jumped up twit with a mightily over inflated ego is next on the block? Sam Pero?

Sgt Pepper
20-12-2016, 03:09 PM
Yawn! Opportunities Party = Internet Party = dead loss. Which jumped up twit with a mightily over inflated ego is next on the block? Sam Pero?

I know what you mean, you really got to watch Economists, dont really live in the real world

minimoke
20-12-2016, 06:35 PM
Yawn! Opportunities Party = Internet Party = dead loss. Which jumped up twit with a mightily over inflated ego is next on the block? Sam Pero?
Indeed - SamPero?

Its easy to bag new ideas and Economists but I'm more interested in the pros and cons of such ideas. I'll probably remember Morgans policy but for the life of me I cant remember any of Internet manas's. Free internet or something ?