ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minimoke

Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"

---

He's dead right about that. I thought Winston had forgotten about that one. Prosser has probably just heard about it.

I hear tonight Winston says richard is abit confused about the policy. Bodes well for the future

I concur. What an idiotic policy from NZ First or just a big boo-boo from MP Richard Prosser. But not my party vote for them then :t_down:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11909463

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minimoke

I hear tonight Winston says richard is abit confused about the policy. Bodes well for the future

---

Winston usually keeps his MPs out of the public eye - for a damn good reason. Occasionally he lets Ron Mark out, and I daresay Shane Jones will be allowed out a bit.

"The Act leader has frequently clashed with NZ First leader Winston Peters, including on Twitter recently when Peters likened him to a chihuahua."

lol, thumbs up from me too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

Winston usually keeps his MPs out of the public eye - for a damn good reason. Occasionally he lets Ron Mark out, and I daresay Shane Jones will be allowed out a bit.

---

Surprised he let this guy out ...he has form ... Now about that Financial advice ...anyone looking into that ...?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/chr...after-Wogistan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minimoke

Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"

---

Might be the first time I agree with David Seymour but I think he hit the nail on the head. More so after skim reading stop/losses link. How many more turkeys will Winston drag into parliament with him. Had a quick look at where Prosser is on the NZ First list number 3 previously. No way I would vote for dicks like that, surprised NZ First is polling so well.

Mind you, that said I am keen to vote for the TOP party and have no idea of whose involved there other than Gareth Morgan. I didn't see a BullishBear on the list at Wikipedia.

After the Metiria admissions and the fact she stood for Mcgillicudy Serious party as well as having no issue with lying, you have to wonder about the quality of MPs. maybe they are not that different to me. Admittedly I say a lot of dumb, racist, sexist things at home like Prosser but would expect better things from the leaders of our country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

Might be the first time I agree with David Seymour but I think he hit the nail on the head. More so after skim reading stop/losses link. How many more turkeys will Winston drag into parliament with him. Had a quick look at where Prosser is on the NZ First list number 3 previously. No way I would vote for dicks like that, surprised NZ First is polling so well.

---

I would like the combination of Seymour leading TOP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bjauck

I would like the combination of Seymour leading TOP.

---

Act and Top policies couldn't be further apart. Top would align with Mana or the Greens more than any other parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

Act and Top policies couldn't be further apart. Top would align with Mana or the Greens more than any other parties.

---

I think TOP tax policy would provide a stronger more productive economy. Seymour is a good no-nonsense leader - he is my pick of all the leaders!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bjauck

I think TOP tax policy would provide a stronger more productive economy. Seymour is a good no-nonsense leader - he is my pick of all the leaders!

---

Top tax policies will never be accepted by the public. It's hard left socialism, if not out and out communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

Top tax policies will never be accepted by the public. It's hard left socialism, if not out and out communism.

---

Not according to the defintion of those doctrines. I dont think TOP wants to nationalise the means of production etc.. It is not socialist.I think one of the more (independent) business friendly parties. You need to look at Prosser (NZF) for a Socialist/Communist policy.

TOP business policy summary http://www.top.org.nz/top14

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bjauck

I dont think TOP wants to nationalise the means of production etc.. It is not socialist. You need to look at Prosser (NZF) for that.

---

They want to make you pay an annual tax on the value if your house and assetts so they can give it to someone else. That's extreme socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

They want to make you pay an annual tax on the value if your house and assetts so they can give it to someone else. That's extreme socialism.

---

Why is an asset tax more socialist than an income tax? Indeed I think TOP reforms would actually encourage individual capitalist endeavour by encouraging the investment into income producing capital assets as opposed to non-income producing assets.

TOP wants to slash income tax which would be of particular benefit for those on the current top rates. Why is an annual tax on your house any more of a "socialist" concept than annual rates charged on the capital value of your house?

Besides all nz parities (including ACT) are socialist according to the second aspect of the following definition of socialism. TOP is not socialist according to the first part of the definition.

Socialism:
noun

• a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (my highlight)
  
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bjauck

Why is an asset tax more socialist than an income tax? Indeed I think TOP reforms would actually encourage individual capitalist endeavour by encouraging the investment into income producing capital assets as opposed to non-income producing assets.

TOP wants to slash income tax which would be of particular benefit for those on the current top rates. Why is an annual tax on your house any more of a "socialist" concept than annual rates charged on the capital value of your house?

Besides all nz parities (including ACT) are socialist according to the second aspect of the following definition of socialism. TOP is not socialist according to the first part of the definition.

Socialism:
noun

• a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (my highlight)
  
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

---

I think you will find if you have read FP's previous posts that he has made his money in real estate and has enjoyed tax free capital gains all his life(Yes you paid tax on the rent FP well done but be honest capital gains is what made you rich). An equity tax would be unthinkable and abhorrent to the likes of FP. I guess communism is the worst insult he could find even if it isn't correct.

In my opinion David Seymour heading the TOP party sounds insane, ACTs ideologies are almost at the opposite ends of the political spectrum (although TOP party is not even close to communism FP) to the TOP parties even if they both think it is the best way forward for the country. My understanding TOP is wanting to try and make society fairer/better(there is no perfect solution though) for as many people as possible whereas ACT's policies would tend to disproportionately benefit a smaller portion of society. David Seymour probably still believes in the trickle down theory for a better society.
To be honest a retired person living in a multi million dollar beach front mansion without any other investments would get right royally screwed by the equity tax so should never vote TOP out of self interest. And although these people would be worse off under a TOP govt I don't think they are the ones genuinely struggling to get by. It might even get some people thinking about investing in something other than just the most expensive house they can afford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

I think you will find if you have read FP's previous posts that he has made his money in real estate and has enjoyed tax free capital gains all his life(Yes you paid tax on the rent FP well done but be honest capital gains is what made you rich). An equity tax would be unthinkable and abhorrent to the likes of FP.

---

For a start, I am not rich; and I think you'll find an annual equity tax would be unacceptable to most NZers and a complete disincentive. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid it - even more than they did with death duties.

I think if we were totally honest we would admit that we buy rentals on the expectation the capital value will increase even if our intent is to invest to derive a weekly income.

Same with shares in a start up that isnt making a profit.

So the capitalist tax avoider in me says no to cspital gains tax.

But the equitable payment of tax on all gain says CGT may make some sense

There will of course be unintended consequences - like rent rising to cover future tax bill or maitenance deferred to accrue for liability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

For a start, I am not rich; and I think you'll find an annual equity tax would be unacceptable to most NZers and a complete disincentive. People would go to all sorts of lengths to avoid it - even more than they did with death duties.

---

People will always try to minimise tax, no matter the type. If an asset tax was associated with the individual assets, I am not sure if they could be avoided as easily as incomes accruing to individuals.

I think you are right about an asset tax being unpopular...there are still a great number of Owner occupiers who would shudder at the though of their investments in their homes being subject to an asset tax (in addition to rates?) However just because it would be popular, does not make it any more socialist than other revenue raising measures...

Investments in one's own home (as opposed to investments in businesses and companies) have always had a privileged position in NZ's revenue raising system. So obviously there is a strong feeling held by many of entitlement that this privilege continue. However as home ownership is increasingly unattainable for many, it could be time to review the tax system to ensure NZ's capital is being taxed fairly, and is being deployed efficiently and effectively.