sharetrader

View Poll Results: Will the Bear come here ?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bears can't swim too far so we are safe

    5 11.11%
  • The existing bears at Zoo's might claw us

    11 24.44%
  • Existing bears at Zoo's will escape and do some damage

    20 44.44%
  • Bears will arrive on ships and take over the country

    9 20.00%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 85
  1. #51
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    Is it a handout or social welfare?
    A social welfare system provides assistance to needy individuals and families.
    The definition of a handout is - a portion of food, clothing, or money given to or as if to a beggar. A handout is a gift not a right. We all have a right to an adequate standard of living under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Article 25.(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
    http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...hts/index.html
    Why are you quoting the UN? The UN is as corrupt as can be. I do not give 2 flying FCUK's about Article 25 or any other article for that matter.

    Look Moka, I know where you are coming from. We probably want the same outcome. We disagree on how to get to that outcome.

    For mine, I am a communist (for use of a better term) when it comes to my family, a socialist when it comes to my community (town) a capitalist when it comes to my country and globally well not sure on that one yet.
    Last edited by blackcap; 30-01-2019 at 09:20 AM.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    It would also seem that recent tax cuts in the US have not done what they were supposed to do.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...side-economics
    Excellent article thanks Aaron. Economics needs to be simple for me to understand and this is:
    The tax cut did not trickle down, it trickled up; it produced a further widening in the gap between the haves and have nots. As Seth Klarman recently warned, the “Screwflation of the Middle Class” will likely have adverse economic, social and investment ramifications

    We are being feed propaganda.
    'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.'
    —Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

  3. #53
    The past is practise. Vaygor1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northland
    Posts
    923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    .... We all have a right to an adequate standard of living under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    ....
    Everyone has a right to make of it what they will.

    The UN and governmental agencies tasked with providing such welfare more often than not end up unintentionally ensuring this objective is never met. The following clip may be a bit biased in the view of some, but I think it does highlight a valid mechanism as to why and how this occurs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ4lnDy2xnQ

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    That may be the case in the 50's 60's and before. That was before capital and people were as free to move as they are today.
    Some capital and some people are free to move. The capital invested in freezing works in New Zealand was not very mobile. It was invested in a building for the long term production of value. And the workers were not always free to move either e.g. family ties, schooling, owning a house in a small town that was hard to sell, as well as where were the jobs.

    Freezing works were good for New Zealand economy for many years. And then like other old industries and firms, which are no longer profitable, they closed down enabling the resources (capital and labour) to move into more productive processes. This is the creative destruction of capital and especially the destruction of the value of capital assets i.e. the buildings.

    However much of the capital and labour has not moved into productive processes. Capital is in cash or short term speculative investments and this is where the problem lies. It is not producing value.


    Good cartoon
    https://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/25193/meat-works-closures



  5. #55
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    AIR in a unique position to give an indication of economic conditions right up to the minute, (at any one time they have approx. 2 months of forward bookings with which to judge consumer intentions). Going off their profit downgrade today I would say economic conditions are very soft in N.Z. and global growth is slowing considerably. The Bear is clawing at the door and looks like he wants to come in a wreak havoc !

    Have a good think about what this suggests about the prospects for other listed NZ companies...

    Is CASH KING again ?
    Last edited by Beagle; 30-01-2019 at 11:10 AM.
    Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.
    Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    I just watched the Australian Open tennis. Of note was that many of the players represented their countries ie Serbia (Novak Djocovic) Croatia (Marin Cilic) etc etc, but for some funny reason the majority of players had their place of residence somewhere else. Monaco seemed to pop up frequently.
    Yes, rich or talented people can move freely around the world, but the vast majority of people can’t. Why do they live in Monaco? No income tax. All foreigners officially residing in Monaco and people with the Monegasque nationality can benefit from this zero personal income tax regime.
    http://www.nomoretax.eu/living/relocation-to-monaco/
    So we come back to the tax issue or tax avoidance. Not paying tax is an option if you are rich. And the less tax you pay the wealthier you become. But is this fair?

  7. #57
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    Yes, rich or talented people can move freely around the world, but the vast majority of people can’t. Why do they live in Monaco? No income tax. All foreigners officially residing in Monaco and people with the Monegasque nationality can benefit from this zero personal income tax regime.
    http://www.nomoretax.eu/living/relocation-to-monaco/
    So we come back to the tax issue or tax avoidance. Not paying tax is an option if you are rich. And the less tax you pay the wealthier you become. But is this fair?
    No its not fair. (although fair is a very subjective word and fair is defined in the eye of the beholder) My point is, if we start taxing the rich at 70% or wherever, they will just up and move to Monaco and that means we as a country lose the benefit of tax and potential capital. I would rather the IRD receive 33% of $1m than 70% of zero.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    No its not fair. (although fair is a very subjective word and fair is defined in the eye of the beholder)
    I disagree that fair is defined in the eye of the beholder. Fairness is impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination. People have an intuitive sense of fairness, just as people have a conscience. Many people think very little about fair play and very largely about what is unfair. We judge fairness in a relative way, usually in comparison with our peers.
    A simple idea of fairness is do unto others as you would have them do unto you or if you phrase it negatively as whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.

    The American philosopher John Rawls came up with the concept of “the veil of ignoranceto insure impartiality of judgment when committed to the principles of social and political justice.
    Professor Rawls said those who must decide what to do have to put themselves behind what he called a veil of ignorance.” This means asking what system would be fair if you didn’t know whether you were a claimant or a taxpayer. Clearly that is a very difficult thing to do. Just as making any decision about fairness is, although the I’ll-cut-the-pie-you-chose-which-piece-you-want rule might be a good place to start.
    https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Philosophy-of-Fairness

    A good article on the need for fairness.
    http://changingminds.org/explanation...s/fairness.htm

  9. #59
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    I disagree that fair is defined in the eye of the beholder. Fairness is impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination. People have an intuitive sense of fairness, just as people have a conscience.
    [/URL]
    What one deems fair another does not. ie some think taxing those earning over x amount of $ at 80% as being fair. Some thing that is unfair.

    Therefore fair is very subjective. Fair is a subjective word. It is not quantifiable.

    Everyone has their own opinion of what unfair is, or what fair is. It differs to a certain degree from person to person. Everyone has a conscience, but every person has a conscience that differs. Every person's intuition also differs.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    What one deems fair another does not. ie some think taxing those earning over x amount of $ at 80% as being fair. Some thing that is unfair.

    Therefore fair is very subjective. Fair is a subjective word. It is not quantifiable.

    Everyone has their own opinion of what unfair is, or what fair is. It differs to a certain degree from person to person. Everyone has a conscience, but every person has a conscience that differs. Every person's intuition also differs.
    Economists have established some principles around fairness of tax. Vertical equity and horizontal equity. Vertical equity refers to the relative tax burdens of taxpayers of different means. Taxes that take an increasing portion of income as income increases are commonly termed "progressive," while those taking a smaller portion are termed it regressive." Those that take the same fraction of income at every income level are termed "proportional."
    Horizontal equity implies that we give the same treatment to people in an identical situation. E.g. if two people earn $15,000 they should both pay the same amount of income tax (e.g. $2,500).

    https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/935/economics/horizontal-and-vertical-equity/

    So which tax system do you believe is fairer progressive, regressive or proportional? And why?

    We also need to look at the role of government. The underlying issue is the relationship of government to society: does government serve society, or vice versa ?

    I was surprised that with fairness you see it just as individuals with everyone having their own opinion. That’s true but then individuals come together in groups to negotiate what they consider is fair. This happens in families, workplaces, community groups and government. It’s called democracy.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •