Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Essentially the same forced savings idea for individuals but done in a more centralised way. Tax the budget when it is strong and provide welfare when it isn't.
Simples.
(PS. May need to archive this so people can quote Carantoc on it in 100 years time)
Hmm, fair enough idea. Now just need to find a government that doesn't see budget surplus as an opportunity to go on a spending spree and buy votes, as well as voting citizens that don't encourage, (or even demand), that behaviour.
@Harrow; How did you expect all the plebes to have invested for their future?, and who would have stumped up the money to build all of the properties that are now rentals?
You don't give any credit for the hardships that many Aussies put themselves through in order to have an investment property, in the tough economical times and the good/bad tenant minefield. Some of them succeeded. Many more got gobbled up and spat out by the system.
Select to expand quoteBuster fin said..
@Harrow; How did you expect all the plebes to have invested for their future?, and who would have stumped up the money to build all of the properties that are now rentals?
You don't give any credit for the hardships that many Aussies put themselves through in order to have an investment property, in the tough economical times and the good/bad tenant minefield. Some of them succeeded. Many more got gobbled up and spat out by the system.
I understand that not everyone wants to or has the means to purchase their own home and that property investment has a role to play in fulfilling a need. What I don't agree with is the tax advantage that negative gearing gives which favours high-income earners, encourages property speculation, and skews property prices, making it harder for lower-income earners to compete and buy their own home. And it's not sour grapes, I'm in the ideal position to personally benefit from negative gearing, but I just think everyone deserves to be on a level playing field when it comes to buying a place to live. Property investing would still exist without it, investors just wouldn't be willing to pay as much for their investment properties.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..Buster fin said..
@Harrow; How did you expect all the plebes to have invested for their future?, and who would have stumped up the money to build all of the properties that are now rentals?
You don't give any credit for the hardships that many Aussies put themselves through in order to have an investment property, in the tough economical times and the good/bad tenant minefield. Some of them succeeded. Many more got gobbled up and spat out by the system.
I understand that not everyone wants to or has the means to purchase their own home and that property investment has a role to play in fulfilling a need. What I don't agree with is the tax advantage that negative gearing gives which favours high-income earners, encourages property speculation, and skews property prices, making it harder for lower-income earners to compete and buy their own home. And it's not sour grapes, I'm in the ideal position to personally benefit from negative gearing, but I just think everyone deserves to be on a level playing field when it comes to buying a place to live. Property investing would still exist without it, investors just wouldn't be willing to pay as much for their investment properties.
Why do people go on about creating houses for rental where in most cases they are just diverting houses from owner-occupiers to rentals?
If you got a new house built and rented it out its one thing, but buying an existing house essentially takes that from an owner occupier.
If it weren't for the huge tax benefits, most people wouldn't bother.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..FormulaNova said..japie said..
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.Henry Ford
I am struggling to find any reference to Henry Ford actually saying this. Is this one of those things where certain suckers that read certain stupid sites, jump onto something without checking it factually?
Yep, there isn't any supporting evidence that it came from Henry Ford. I think the links I found suggest that it shows up on conspiracy websites all the time, yet nowhere else. Go figure. I guess that'w why it's here.
I guess humans have the strong ability to support their arguments.
Anyone heard from Carantoc lately? I can't see any posts from him.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Anyone heard from Carantoc lately? I can't see any posts from him.
Hi-ya Buddy.
I'm going well, thanks for asking.
I know's you read my posts and haven't cancelled me, despite what you publically self-identify as 
. eh, eh ??!!
But kudos to your self-restraint in not replying directly. Must be killin' ya wanting to reply to my awesome posts but having to hold back to make it look like you have cancelled me.
Mind-you I still can't believe you'd cancel me out just because we seemingly have slightly differing opinions about one subject.
Seems a bit extreme don't it ?
Can't we just agree to disagree about that and banter on about everything else ? I'll even promise to never to mention the gubberments mishandling of the vax issue again.
Argh, ****e, I just mentioned it.
Mmmm, think I got away with it though.
Hey, whadda-ya think about all those giant balloons the US is shooting down ? I bet they have got nothing to do with China, but have been sent up by the flat earth society and THEY don't want anyone to see the photos they send back of the flat disc, so THEY are shooting them down. eh ?? eh ?? Insert random reference to the military-industrial-pharma corporation.
Empirical hey ? you should you do you own research.
Toodle-do. Have a good one.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..Buster fin said..
@Harrow; How did you expect all the plebes to have invested for their future?, and who would have stumped up the money to build all of the properties that are now rentals?
You don't give any credit for the hardships that many Aussies put themselves through in order to have an investment property, in the tough economical times and the good/bad tenant minefield. Some of them succeeded. Many more got gobbled up and spat out by the system.
I understand that not everyone wants to or has the means to purchase their own home and that property investment has a role to play in fulfilling a need. What I don't agree with is the tax advantage that negative gearing gives which favours high-income earners, encourages property speculation, and skews property prices, making it harder for lower-income earners to compete and buy their own home. And it's not sour grapes, I'm in the ideal position to personally benefit from negative gearing, but I just think everyone deserves to be on a level playing field when it comes to buying a place to live. Property investing would still exist without it, investors just wouldn't be willing to pay as much for their investment properties.
The last couple of years it's been almost impossible to NG. The commentary I've been reading for years says that NG isn't the problem as much as the 50% discount on capital gains for people who hold an asset more than a year.
My solution for that problem is to tax the capital gain according to the proportion of borrowed funds that went into the purchase of the investment, shares, houses, art, collectibles, even bitcoin. Borrowed 90%, get taxed on 90% of the gain at your marginal rate. 50% and get taxed on 50%, etc. So the tax expense on NG would be recouped at the sale. Big NG claim, big capital gains tax evens it out.
PS I don't know about Mr Ford, but there was this Scottish guy in the mid 1700s who wrote a book called On the Wealth of Nations whose thoughts on residential real estate are
A dwelling house,as such, contributes nothing to the revenue of its inhabitant...If it is to be let to a tenant for rent, as the house itself can produce nothing, the tenant must always pay the rent out of some other revenue...Though a house, therefore, may yield a revenue to its proprietor...it cannot yield any to the public, nor serve in the function of capital, and the revenue of the whole body of the people can never be in the smallest degree increased by it.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..Harrow said..Buster fin said..
@Harrow; How did you expect all the plebes to have invested for their future?, and who would have stumped up the money to build all of the properties that are now rentals?
You don't give any credit for the hardships that many Aussies put themselves through in order to have an investment property, in the tough economical times and the good/bad tenant minefield. Some of them succeeded. Many more got gobbled up and spat out by the system.
I understand that not everyone wants to or has the means to purchase their own home and that property investment has a role to play in fulfilling a need. What I don't agree with is the tax advantage that negative gearing gives which favours high-income earners, encourages property speculation, and skews property prices, making it harder for lower-income earners to compete and buy their own home. And it's not sour grapes, I'm in the ideal position to personally benefit from negative gearing, but I just think everyone deserves to be on a level playing field when it comes to buying a place to live. Property investing would still exist without it, investors just wouldn't be willing to pay as much for their investment properties.
The last couple of years it's been almost impossible to NG. The commentary I've been reading for years says that NG isn't the problem as much as the 50% discount on capital gains for people who hold an asset more than a year.
My solution for that problem is to tax the capital gain according to the proportion of borrowed funds that went into the purchase of the investment, shares, houses, art, collectibles, even bitcoin. Borrowed 90%, get taxed on 90% of the gain at your marginal rate. 50% and get taxed on 50%, etc. So the tax expense on NG would be recouped at the sale. Big NG claim, big capital gains tax evens it out.
PS I don't know about Mr Ford, but there was this Scottish guy in the mid 1700s who wrote a book called On the Wealth of Nations whose thoughts on residential real estate are
A dwelling house,as such, contributes nothing to the revenue of its inhabitant...If it is to be let to a tenant for rent, as the house itself can produce nothing, the tenant must always pay the rent out of some other revenue...Though a house, therefore, may yield a revenue to its proprietor...it cannot yield any to the public, nor serve in the function of capital, and the revenue of the whole body of the people can never be in the smallest degree increased by it.
(Negative) Gearing is meant to encourage investment. It is meant to take otherwise useless capital and redeploy it in the economy into something productive. If you tax it the wrong way, it harms investment and productivity.
I agree with the thing on housing though. Something that is effectively unproductive except for the first build is used as a get-rich-quick scheme for people, purely due to speculation that it is always going to go up. Negative gearing of it lets people offset their initial losses in the hope that they get a windfall in the future. Even if house values dropped today it would take a while for people to stop tying up capital in housing and use it for more productive investment.
From what I recall, the investment housing boom didn't really take off until the early 2000s, which I think coincided with changes to the 50% capital gain discount. Before that it was indexed to inflation. When you consider that, 50% is far far better after a year than say 7%, which may explain why people wanted to flip houses.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Mr Milk said..Harrow said..Buster fin said..
@Harrow; How did you expect all the plebes to have invested for their future?, and who would have stumped up the money to build all of the properties that are now rentals?
You don't give any credit for the hardships that many Aussies put themselves through in order to have an investment property, in the tough economical times and the good/bad tenant minefield. Some of them succeeded. Many more got gobbled up and spat out by the system.
I understand that not everyone wants to or has the means to purchase their own home and that property investment has a role to play in fulfilling a need. What I don't agree with is the tax advantage that negative gearing gives which favours high-income earners, encourages property speculation, and skews property prices, making it harder for lower-income earners to compete and buy their own home. And it's not sour grapes, I'm in the ideal position to personally benefit from negative gearing, but I just think everyone deserves to be on a level playing field when it comes to buying a place to live. Property investing would still exist without it, investors just wouldn't be willing to pay as much for their investment properties.
The last couple of years it's been almost impossible to NG. The commentary I've been reading for years says that NG isn't the problem as much as the 50% discount on capital gains for people who hold an asset more than a year.
My solution for that problem is to tax the capital gain according to the proportion of borrowed funds that went into the purchase of the investment, shares, houses, art, collectibles, even bitcoin. Borrowed 90%, get taxed on 90% of the gain at your marginal rate. 50% and get taxed on 50%, etc. So the tax expense on NG would be recouped at the sale. Big NG claim, big capital gains tax evens it out.
PS I don't know about Mr Ford, but there was this Scottish guy in the mid 1700s who wrote a book called On the Wealth of Nations whose thoughts on residential real estate are
A dwelling house,as such, contributes nothing to the revenue of its inhabitant...If it is to be let to a tenant for rent, as the house itself can produce nothing, the tenant must always pay the rent out of some other revenue...Though a house, therefore, may yield a revenue to its proprietor...it cannot yield any to the public, nor serve in the function of capital, and the revenue of the whole body of the people can never be in the smallest degree increased by it.
(Negative) Gearing is meant to encourage investment. It is meant to take otherwise useless capital and redeploy it in the economy into something productive. If you tax it the wrong way, it harms investment and productivity.
I agree with the thing on housing though. Something that is effectively unproductive except for the first build is used as a get-rich-quick scheme for people, purely due to speculation that it is always going to go up. Negative gearing of it lets people offset their initial losses in the hope that they get a windfall in the future. Even if house values dropped today it would take a while for people to stop tying up capital in housing and use it for more productive investment.
From what I recall, the investment housing boom didn't really take off until the early 2000s, which I think coincided with changes to the 50% capital gain discount. Before that it was indexed to inflation. When you consider that, 50% is far far better after a year than say 7%, which may explain why people wanted to flip houses.
Negative gearing was sold to the public as an opportunity but like superannuation it was a gift to the financial industry who gain the most from both schemes.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Harrow said..FormulaNova said..japie said..
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.Henry Ford
I am struggling to find any reference to Henry Ford actually saying this. Is this one of those things where certain suckers that read certain stupid sites, jump onto something without checking it factually?
Yep, there isn't any supporting evidence that it came from Henry Ford. I think the links I found suggest that it shows up on conspiracy websites all the time, yet nowhere else. Go figure. I guess that'w why it's here.
I guess humans have the strong ability to support their arguments.
Anyone heard from Carantoc lately? I can't see any posts from him.
I found the quote on Goodreads . Hardly a "conspiracy" website although pretty much anything which counters the establishment narrative is now labelled as a conspiracy. Which is a nonsense altogether unless you're an establishment harpy. Or your ego is too powerful to allow you to change your mind. Or you are too lazy to take a critical look.
www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/banks
Stacks of great quotes on there. Many eminent humans who've been justifiably critical of the banking industry and have seen through their machinations.
As Carantoc pointed out usury was deemed unacceptable by Christianity for almost 2000 years and still is by Islam. Rightly so. If you dig into it it is a moral issue. So much misery inflicted over the millennia by unscrupulous individuals who finance both sides of conflicts.
Another quote from an eminent conspiracy theorist for you!
"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Thomas Jefferson
I'm sure you'll be able to find something on the net that denies he said it, or if not come up with something equally facile that you found in your wallow!
For good measure!
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." (President Woodrow Wilson, a few years before his death in reference to the Federal Reserve act of 1913, which he signed into law. The American Mercury?, p. 56. 1919.)
I called this sort of inflation back when covid first started. In fact I was calling it before covid. I was publically incredulous when the RBA said no interest rate hikes until 2024 12 months ago. They are clueless and underpins how bad our gov agencies are now managed.
It is not hard. Inflation is simply defined even 50 years ago as the "Undue expansion or increase of the currency of a country, esp. by the issuing of paper money not redeemable in specie"
Governments cause inflation by printing money or borrowing money over and above the available tax revenue. Australia has gone into overdrive in budget blowouts. Started with the labor Rudd gov and the LNP merrily went against thier policies since then and have created a massive debt. Labor have no intention of changing course and are currently trying to outdo them all.
The US is even worse and countries around the world have printed or borrowed hell for leather to compensate people for shutting down society and stimulating economies during covid. It hasn't stopped yet and so neither will inflation. It may pause, but it will come back with a vengance.
Inflation hurts the poor. Every time, but governments are addicted to sugar hits of spending and wage increases and the poll ratings they produce. We know what causes inflation. It is not a secret, but no one wants to point thier finger and call it out because it is easier to score political points by blaming the symptoms and not the cause.
Even 50 years ago this was well understood. fee.org/resources/what-you-should-know-about-inflation/
Select to expand quotejapie said..
For good measure!
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." (President Woodrow Wilson, a few years before his death in reference to the Federal Reserve act of 1913, which he signed into law. The American Mercury?, p. 56. 1919.)
Is that what you do when you don't understand how something works? Just quote someone so it appears to be a conspiracy?
Lizard people unite! We are being controlled by other/different lizard people.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
I found the quote on Goodreads . Hardly a "conspiracy" website although pretty much anything which counters the establishment narrative is now labelled as a conspiracy. Which is a nonsense altogether unless you're an establishment harpy. Or your ego is too powerful to allow you to change your mind. Or you are too lazy to take a critical look.
www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/banks
!
Wow. Your level of comprehension is not so good. Terrible? Critical thinking - definitely not? I think you have just scored a zero for quoting something from a website where users have added the content.
That is a site where people can just post up quotes they like.
You do have to be a member though in order to add a quote you like, so why not sign up and make up some other ****house quotes?
Im suprised you mob havnt started sparking up about whats happened in Ohio last week? Surely it gotta get ya CT knees jerking. Prime farm land there too responsible for good chunk of then nations food supply chain?? hhhmmmm. Aparently Netflix just finished making a movie there "White Noise" which pretty much follows the story line of exactly what happened in real life. That's odd.
Select to expand quoteHumdinger said..
Im suprised you mob havnt started sparking up about whats happened in Ohio last week? Surely it gotta get ya CT knees jerking. Prime farm land there too responsible for good chunk of then nations food supply chain?? hhhmmmm. Aparently Netflix just finished making a movie there "White Noise" which pretty much follows the story line of exactly what happened in real life. That's odd.
Ohio, what part of Australia is that??
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..japie said..
I found the quote on Goodreads . Hardly a "conspiracy" website although pretty much anything which counters the establishment narrative is now labelled as a conspiracy. Which is a nonsense altogether unless you're an establishment harpy. Or your ego is too powerful to allow you to change your mind. Or you are too lazy to take a critical look.
www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/banks
!
Wow. Your level of comprehension is not so good. Terrible? Critical thinking - definitely not? I think you have just scored a zero for quoting something from a website where users have added the content.
That is a site where people can just post up quotes they like.
You do have to be a member though in order to add a quote you like, so why not sign up and make up some other ****house quotes?
I really look forward to the reply, asking me about not applying critical thinking.
What is critical thinking again?
From a Wiki (which anyone can edit really):
"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence.
Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines"
So, the available facts seem to show that there is no direct link to Henry Ford despite random people attributing this quote to him. There are articles out there suggesting that it has come from somewhere else and mistakenly attributed to Henry Ford.
It shows up on a Goodreads website where random people can sign up and post quotes they like.
Well, my critical thinking says it did not come from Henry Ford. Does this mean that all the nutcase websites are going to remove that quote and people are going to stop quoting from those websites as if its true?
My critical thinking says 'no'.
My questions goes to number 3, FormulaNova.
Maybe go have a snickers instead of talking to yourself about what replies you have already decided you will chose to read ?
And then, do you think that that because the words may have been incorrectly assigned to Henry Ford that it negates the entirety of Japie's point ?
Are you trying to convince us that because there is an incorrectly attributed quote on the internet that all the world's bankers must be infinitely benevolent and that anyone who dares question the sanity of the systems we have developed for humanity must be silenced for the greater good ?
Or maybe you are trying to convince yourself ?
Vapid is the first word that comes to mind. Also that line from Monty Python's The Idiot Song. As much imagination as a caravan side.
Any wonder you get a constant barrage of criticism for your banal offerings. Like trying to hold a conversation with a tar baby!
Hey, FN seriously now.
Go re-read Japie's post on page 1 you seem to have such an issue with.
.....
You seriously telling us that what you got from reading that was an incorrectly attributed quote to Henry Ford ?
You don't maybe think the books linked or the words quoted from the US constitution are more pertinent to the point being made ?
Now, I don't know the US constitution off by heart, much like I don't know the quotes of Henry Ford off-by-heart.
And I assume you don't either.
So I am pretty sure that if I had an issue with what Japie was saying I'd be googling clause 7 of article 1 of the US constitution, not whether Henry Ford said some meaningless quote Japie signed off with.
Unless you cap critical thinking to thinking what you can criticize somebody for if they don't agree with your pre-conceived notion ?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Yep, there isn't any supporting evidence that it came from Henry Ford. I think the links I found suggest that it shows up on conspiracy websites all the time, yet nowhere else. Go figure. I guess that'w why it's here.
I guess humans have the strong ability to support their arguments.
Anyone heard from Carantoc lately? I can't see any posts from him.
Hi FormulaNova
Carantoc here. Sometimes it not always good to get what you wish for (quote unknown)
Maybe your links are skewed to what you want to hear ? Google does that you know.
Some other links suggest it was attributed to Henry Ford during a speech in the US House of Reps in 1937 by Charles Binderup. He said "It was Henry Ford who said, in substance...." - so not a perfect recital, but a paraphrase.
Now the Congressional Record is written by the people in the House at the time, but I think you can trust that it is a pretty good record of what was actually said.
And 1937 is pretty contemporary to Henry Ford. And I can't really think why he would attribute a random quote to Henry Ford, on the public record, if he didn't believe it was what was said. Maybe the original source of everything Henry Ford ever said around 1937 wasn't immortalized on the internet for you to google ?
But whether Henry F (if I can be so informal) said something like that or not, the rest of Charles Binderup's speech seems to say, in substance, same as what Japie is saying...
Have a read...
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Congressional_Record_Volume_81_Part_3.djvu/154
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
....the links I found suggest that it shows up on conspiracy websites all the time, yet nowhere else. Go figure. ....
Hi FN,
Carantoc here, back again.
Just wanted to point out that if you beLIEve the quote made in the US House of Reps only appears on conspiracy sites, then equating the US government to a bunch of CTists might mean you have just gone fully PM33.
Look, its not somewhere I'd like to go, but I'll be the first to congratulate you on entry to that club.
"It must come as a shock when you realise you are so far around the circle you are now talking out of your own arse" not Henry Ford
Noone ever mentions that by not taxing the capital gain on profit from sale of your primary residence we encourage people to maximise the investment in that property. It makes sense to purchase the most expensive property you can, and maximise the capital gain at 0 tax rate.
Maybe we should tax the gain on properties in the top 10% of prices nation wide. That wouldn't be popular !
Select to expand quotehardpole said..
Noone ever mentions that by not taxing the capital gain on profit from sale of your primary residence we encourage people to maximise the investment in that property. It makes sense to purchase the most expensive property you can, and maximise the capital gain at 0 tax rate.
Maybe we should tax the gain on properties in the top 10% of prices nation wide. That wouldn't be popular !
Even better in the USA where mortgage interest on primary residence can be a tax deduction.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
Vapid is the first word that comes to mind. Also that line from Monty Python's The Idiot Song. As much imagination as a caravan side.
Any wonder you get a constant barrage of criticism for your banal offerings. Like trying to hold a conversation with a tar baby!
Ahh, so critical thinking has a second stage where you forget you got things wrong and then just try and insult people.
Okay, that works.
Was it only a few posts ago where you were instructing me to apply critical thinking? I did, and found that the quote has no merit.
It seems to be a common thing amongst the conspirirati where they tell others to educate themselves and to apply critical thinking. I can't help but feel they don't understand what critical thinking is.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
Any wonder you get a constant barrage of criticism for your banal offerings. Like trying to hold a conversation with a tar baby!
Gee, that's going a bit far isn't it?
"Many consider tar baby to be a pejorative term for African Americans.[21] Lexico lists tar baby as "a contemptuous term for a black person",[22] the Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "a derogatory term for a Black (U.S.) or a Maori (N.Z.)",[1][23] and The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English lists it as an offensive term for a black person.[24]"
I thought people had moved on from that sort of stuff?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
..Was it only a few posts ago where you were instructing me to apply critical thinking? I did, and found that the quote has no merit.
Hi-ya FNova-dog, ya little bull-terrier,
How-ya going this morning.
Look.. good on ya for trying to do some of that thinkin' stuff and not I'm knocking your first attempt, but... well...
......maybe have a second try, eh ?.
I do appreciate it might not be easy - both reading what other people write and then thinkin' about it as well...
Maybe endeavor to persevere Googling Henry Ford quotes (for it is the most important point being made here), then maybe eventually something random will pop-up.....
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Congressional_Record_Volume_81_Part_3.djvu/154
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Congressional_Record_Volume_81_Part_3.djvu/154
Your link didn't work. That should.
But all you have there is a politician on the floor of Congress putting words into Henry Ford's mouth. We have no idea of how truthful that Binderup was in general or if he was a memory champion.
So still no proof that Ford said it.
Select to expand quotehardpole said..
Noone ever mentions that by not taxing the capital gain on profit from sale of your primary residence we encourage people to maximise the investment in that property. It makes sense to purchase the most expensive property you can, and maximise the capital gain at 0 tax rate.
Maybe we should tax the gain on properties in the top 10% of prices nation wide. That wouldn't be popular !
It does potentially seem a bit of a quirk in the tax system. Presumably some argument about your primary residence not being owned for financial gain but for basic requirements of ordinary living ?
We are income-taxed on the portion of our earnings that are used for every-day living........ although the costs associated with earning that income is deductible from the taxable amount.
Presumably making it CGT free is just a more simplified system than having everyone trying to claim their primary residence costs associated with earning an income as a tax deduction ?
Claiming 5 out of 7 nights a week of the maintenance and depreciation of your property and fixtures as a tax deduction offset against their appreciation wouldn't be very easy......
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Congressional_Record_Volume_81_Part_3.djvu/154
Your link didn't work. That should.
But all you have there is a politician on the floor of Congress putting words into Henry Ford's mouth. We have no idea of how truthful that Binderup was in general or if he was a memory champion.
So still no proof that Ford said it.
Absolutely.
This Binderup fellow was a politician so presumably had the memory of a gold fish and the integrity of a ........a....politician
But the point I was making wasn't whether Henry Ford said it or not,
It was the claim that the quote is something made up by CTists and only appears on websites dedicated to feeding CTers.
Yet the words were originally stated to be paraphrased from Henry Ford, made contemporary to when Henry Ford would have said them and made on the public record by federal politician.
....and the claim was that if you applied critical thinking you would conclude CT-ism is the only conclusion.
So I applied carantoc-thinking# and wonder why a politician, in parliament would publically claim Henry Ford said that if it is something he was unlikely to ever say ?
I am merely speculating there is no more evidence that Ford didn't say it than there is evidence he did - unless you only believe the Google search returns you choose to believe - namely the results saying the quote originates from, and only exists on, CT feeding websites and has zero to with Henry Ford..
Myth ...... plausible
#carantoc-think - bit like critical thinking but completely pointless other than proving carantoc is right. Not to be confused with macro-thinking
