mardigras

I'm sick of responding to your mental incapacity. Try a dictionary. Although I doubt there is anything that can help you. You drive people away with your idiot statements.

Unusual - inferring 'unusual'. As I said, I don't control how stupid people interpret things.

I haven't claimed an issue. I've stated facts. You're the one that seems to think the RIU should know My opinion is that I doubt the betting analyst sees much.

No. I don't control how stupid people interpret things. If I saw similar again, I'd post it - without the video.

I thought it ran 3rd, but where it places doesn't change the unusual aspect of the bet.

I haven't cast anything. I've merely stated facts along with a highly credible opinion that those facts are unusual.

Could be, I don't think I've seen too many runners in a NZ race (especially early and a maiden) where a horse has got bets being asked for on betfair around $2000 7 minutes out from the start at odds of $3.40, which went to $1650 being asked for at $3.20 by the time 2 minutes out came around. I'd put that in the unusual bracket. You don't even get that on a G1 in NZ as a rule.

It was the 3rd fastest time on a Slow 8 track (That includes the two that finished in front of her) - Actually 3rd fastest even down to a Slow 7. The 5th fastest if you went to a 6. And about the 11th fastest if you went to a rating of a 5. Not bad for a track rated 8 for a horse that didn't handle it.

We're not. But do you think it was 30 metres away from where the earlier 1600m races started from?

Well you got that one right. Well done. I read the posts on here pre race. And I ignored the opinions. And I backed her at odds of $64+. I got it wrong. If only I knew she wasn't going to handle it, I could have saved my money.

If the time is anything to go by, the horse ran the 3rd fastest time this century on the track over the distance for the stated condition. Not bad for a horse that didn't handle it. Imagine what she would have done on a track she handled. I for one don't listen much to others opinion. I tend to form my own. You're entitled to yours. I'm entitled to mine.

I didn't say she was enjoying it. But she was certainly handling it. Subjectively. Seems an opinion that is different to yours is akin to Donald Trump. Certainly I'd imagine if Donald Trump claimed he had a horse that doesn't handle wet ground after running a close third in a G1 in decent time, - he'd be told it was fake news. Yet you seem to think the other way around applies.

I'd have thought so.

I wouldn't believe everything you hear. She may have preferred better going. But 'subjectively', she handled it as well as anything else. A horse doesn't run like that if they don't 'handle it'. Johnson's opinion is equally' subjective'. It's an easy excuse, Johnson or not. It's like saying Makybe Diva doesn't like firm tracks (given all the bullshit about tracks being doctored for her for the cup). She was good on slow ground and still good on fast ground. Unless you're now suggesting even horses that can't handle it are quite capable in NZ Group ones of footing it. That would say a lot about the competition mind you.

Us all? Not those that get tax free income. No. On the likes of your typical paye person, Yes. That is the problem. paye rates will be higher because of tax avoidance, and currently non taxed investments. Why have income tax? Might as well abolish it and make everything a user pays tax. Increase GST to 45%. Will that help?

I didn't know they made them exempt. I thought they assessed the value as at the date of the implementation, not a retrospective value. I've certainly paid CGT whilst living there and the assessed value was on the value at the point in time of arriving in Australia.

But they are different decisions. Just because they make poor decisions elsewhere, doesn't mean other decisions are necessarily poor. CGT is not a negative tax. It's a tax on income. The norm of the people is they pay tax on income, yet people get up in arms because some that don't become the target for actually paying. I don't understand it. You don't pay CGT on losses and I understood they weren't charging CGT on unrealised profits (perhaps unless you emigrate). What's the issue? Who said they were going to use the CGT to fund social welfare policy? And once the government changes, the CGT would be used for whatever the government at the time decided.

I don't support CGT for socialist reasons. I support CGT for having a well funded and more appropriately funded government. The governments are going to fund social welfare programs to various degrees. I'd rather we didn't have the majority of social welfare aspects that we do. But they are going to continue no matter who is in government. The people that want to make money in an economy like NZ, require the government to spend money in other areas as well. If there isn't enough because it's all spent on social welfare, the people that don't want a CGT are also some of the ones being restricted in their potential due to lack of investment in other areas by that very same government. The funds have to come from somewhere. And currently, it is the people that have no choice but to pay, that pay it. And when there isn't enough, they pay more. If any government was serious about where their tax revenue was coming from, they would close the loopholes and address the tax evasion that exists. That applies to both National and Labour. But they don't. CGT is one way to address one of the loopholes. So long as it has appropriate compliance checks. The issue of a CGT and welfare is unrelated. One should happen irrespective of the other imo. With no social welfare, there should still be a CGT. It's just a tax loophole otherwise.

You're probably right. Be better just to increase the income tax rates. Let the paye people shoulder the burden of those property and share investors like me. I am not a labour fan. But none of the choices are any good. And when you have governments so focused on social welfare, they want more money from those not on the social welfare ladder, so let's tax the group less likely to be able to avoid tax, more, to get it.

Sure is. I'd be keener on a level around 20%, or even lower towards 15%. Some income taxation without stifling the behaviour.

I agree with respect to income tax. And that should be addressed. Sort out the myriad loopholes around avoidance. And tax evasion should be better identified. And dealt with appropriately as the crime it is. Can you give me some examples of how a small business owner is going to be disadvantaged by a CGT, that isn't a good thing? I'd say the main people affected by a CGT are people with spare cash/equity. The wealthy. Share investors and property investors. We have survived fine with out it. We have survived fine without the onus of personal responsibility around superannuation as well. Yet they should scrap the government pension (and should have done so years ago), and put the onus on the individual to sort their own shit out. It's a country full of people seeking more and more from the government, rather than paying their share and getting away from social welfare so that the government can spend the money where it is needed to help those that want to work and make money. Spend money on things like infrastructure, not unemployment benefits and pensions. I can't possibly agree with GST. It's as much abused as Income Tax. People pay for things for personal use and put them in their business books.

Depending on the rules. They may allow you to offset against the same form of income. So a CGT loss against a CGT gain. And carry forward any net loss against future CGT related gains.

Still off topic. Why don't you start your own thread and put up everything you know. Shouldn't take long.

I don't know, but what I do know is that I'm a capitalist. Seems you couldn't even work that out.

Clearly some have trouble sticking to the topic.