https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217
Rich80105 wrote:
https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217
It's contradictory. Taxation is not congruent with civil liberties.
The means of fighting global terrorism in the long term is for the majority to denounce the ridiculousness of religion and to show it for the scam that it is. This doesn't take money, it takes will.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217Disagree with what, Tony? We have collectively agreed to reduce our
I have thought about it, several years ago in fact, and it is still wromg.
At some time in the future we will understand that the only way to combat >modern terrorism is with regulations that we do not like.
Those that disagree can protest as much as they like but when the first serious
terrorist attack happens here they will think again. And it will happen, it is >only a matter of time, tragically.
Meanwhile people make political mileage out of it - they are bottom feeders! >Tony
On 15/04/2016 4:51 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217
It's contradictory. Taxation is not congruent with civil liberties.
The means of fighting global terrorism in the long term is for the majority >> to denounce the ridiculousness of religion and to show it for the scam that >> it is. This doesn't take money, it takes will.
And it will never happen. There will always be those who believe in
magic and mysticism, god or gods, heaven etc. and completely ignore
science. Here we go - now well into the 21st century and still the
majority of Americans - 75% -believe in angels.
Rich80105 wrote:
https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217
It's contradictory. Taxation is not congruent with civil liberties.
The means of fighting global terrorism in the long term is for the majority >to denounce the ridiculousness of religion and to show it for the scam that >it is. This doesn't take money, it takes will.
If only the regressive left would stop tippy-toeing around the issue of >religious belief and religious extremism. ALL ideas should be subject to >analysis and ridicule. Being offended by something is saying that you have >had your feelings hurt. Big fucking deal.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:14:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217Disagree with what, Tony?
I have thought about it, several years ago in fact, and it is still wromg. >>At some time in the future we will understand that the only way to combat >>modern terrorism is with regulations that we do not like.
Those that disagree can protest as much as they like but when the first >>serious
terrorist attack happens here they will think again. And it will happen, it >>is
only a matter of time, tragically.
We have collectively agreed to reduce ourI know nothing about Tax Havens, especially since we do not live in one, if we did I would need to understand more.
own freedoms to try to avoid the worst of possible terrorist attacks,
that was clearly stated in the post.
Can you explain why tax havens
that shield terrorists assets from taxation and scrutiny should
somehow be exempt from actions to reduce the likelihood of terrorist
attacks?
Since National has not got a Tax Haven policy your comments above are so much detritus.Meanwhile people make political mileage out of it - they are bottom feeders! >>Tony
Those that promote such tax havens may well be bottom feeders - even
if they do not exploit the provisions themselves, by supporting New
Zealand being a tax haven they are giving comfort to criminals and
terrists who want to avoid tax ans scrutiny in their own country. Even
though our current government dropped the rate of tax from 28% to
zero, thus creating the conditions for New Zealands tax haven status,
I do not believe that all National supporters are bottom feeders, but
your view may be different.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 16:51:13 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217
It's contradictory. Taxation is not congruent with civil liberties.
The means of fighting global terrorism in the long term is for the
majority to denounce the ridiculousness of religion and to show it for the >>scam that it is. This doesn't take money, it takes will.
If only the regressive left would stop tippy-toeing around the issue of >>religious belief and religious extremism. ALL ideas should be subject to >>analysis and ridicule. Being offended by something is saying that you have >>had your feelings hurt. Big fucking deal.
Your religious abhorrence for, and the offence you take from both
other religions and taxation could perhaps be the first you may wish
to denounbce and ridicule.
After all, you have nothing to support your
beliefs except blind faith
- is that not consistent with your view of--
what religion represents?
On 15/04/2016 4:51 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217
It's contradictory. Taxation is not congruent with civil liberties.
The means of fighting global terrorism in the long term is for the
majority to denounce the ridiculousness of religion and to show it for
the scam that it is. This doesn't take money, it takes will.
And it will never happen. There will always be those who believe in
magic and mysticism, god or gods, heaven etc. and completely ignore
science. Here we go - now well into the 21st century and still the
majority of Americans - 75% -believe in angels.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 16:51:13 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217
It's contradictory. Taxation is not congruent with civil liberties.
The means of fighting global terrorism in the long term is for the majority >> to denounce the ridiculousness of religion and to show it for the scam that >> it is. This doesn't take money, it takes will.
If only the regressive left would stop tippy-toeing around the issue of
religious belief and religious extremism. ALL ideas should be subject to
analysis and ridicule. Being offended by something is saying that you have >> had your feelings hurt. Big fucking deal.
Your religious abhorrence for, and the offence you take from both
other religions and taxation could perhaps be the first you may wish
to denounbce and ridicule. After all, you have nothing to support your beliefs except blind faith - is that not consistent with your view of
what religion represents?
https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You didnt achshully'. . .
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:14:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217Disagree with what, Tony?
I have thought about it, several years ago in fact, and it is still wromg. >>>At some time in the future we will understand that the only way to combat >>>modern terrorism is with regulations that we do not like.
Those that disagree can protest as much as they like but when the first >>>serious
terrorist attack happens here they will think again. And it will happen, it >>>is
only a matter of time, tragically.
With Mr Geiringer of course, as I said.
We have collectively agreed to reduce ourI know nothing about Tax Havens, especially since we do not live in one, if we >did I would need to understand more.
own freedoms to try to avoid the worst of possible terrorist attacks,
that was clearly stated in the post.
Can you explain why tax havens
that shield terrorists assets from taxation and scrutiny should
somehow be exempt from actions to reduce the likelihood of terrorist >>attacks?
Their policy was to drop the tax rate on foreign trusts from 28% toSince National has not got a Tax Haven policy your comments above are so much >detritus.
Meanwhile people make political mileage out of it - they are bottom feeders! >>>Tony
Those that promote such tax havens may well be bottom feeders - even
if they do not exploit the provisions themselves, by supporting New
Zealand being a tax haven they are giving comfort to criminals and
terrists who want to avoid tax ans scrutiny in their own country. Even >>though our current government dropped the rate of tax from 28% to
zero, thus creating the conditions for New Zealands tax haven status,
I do not believe that all National supporters are bottom feeders, but
your view may be different.
Tony
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:44:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI disgreed with what he wrote just about all of it so I did actually.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You didnt achshully'. . .
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:14:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/719418458857865217Disagree with what, Tony?
I have thought about it, several years ago in fact, and it is still wromg. >>>>At some time in the future we will understand that the only way to combat >>>>modern terrorism is with regulations that we do not like.
Those that disagree can protest as much as they like but when the first >>>>serious
terrorist attack happens here they will think again. And it will happen, it >>>>is
only a matter of time, tragically.
With Mr Geiringer of course, as I said.
Mr Geirnger wrote the article; which parts of the article do you
disagre with?
You are of course lyingWe have collectively agreed to reduce ourI know nothing about Tax Havens, especially since we do not live in one, if >>we
own freedoms to try to avoid the worst of possible terrorist attacks, >>>that was clearly stated in the post.
Can you explain why tax havens
that shield terrorists assets from taxation and scrutiny should
somehow be exempt from actions to reduce the likelihood of terrorist >>>attacks?
did I would need to understand more.
That's not how Chapman Tripp saw it when National dropped all tax on
foreign trusts in 2011: >http://www.chapmantripp.com/publications/Pages/New-Zealand-now-an-attractive-tax-location.aspx
Their policy was to drop the tax rate on foreign trusts from 28% toSince National has not got a Tax Haven policy your comments above are so much >>detritus.
Meanwhile people make political mileage out of it - they are bottom feeders!
Tony
Those that promote such tax havens may well be bottom feeders - even
if they do not exploit the provisions themselves, by supporting New >>>Zealand being a tax haven they are giving comfort to criminals and >>>terrists who want to avoid tax ans scrutiny in their own country. Even >>>though our current government dropped the rate of tax from 28% to
zero, thus creating the conditions for New Zealands tax haven status,
I do not believe that all National supporters are bottom feeders, but >>>your view may be different.
Tony
zero, and not require sufficient information to be preovided for each
trust to be able to find out if it is being use to avoid taxation.
National (or at least John Key) have been saying there is nothing
wrong with our current regime, but not all other countries agree with
him.
In the UK, David Cameron, who personally intervened to weaken an EU
drive to reveal the bveneficiaries of trusts, and also defended UK tax >havens: >http://citywire.co.uk/money/cameron-defends-uk-tax-havens-after-panama-scandal/a897669
has now responded to further pressure and revelations : >http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/banks-must-declare-links-panama-papers-law-firm-mossack-fonseca
and >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/international-blacklist-of-tax-havens-will-be-drawn-up-george-osborne-announces-a6986956.html
In comparison, the reaction of the leaks in New zealand has been to
give those invovled time to tidy up any embarassing arrangemnets . . .
You may also find the following of interest: >http://www.taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_new_zealand/Read it - meaningless.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 17:34:06 |
| Calls: | 2,095 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,142 |
| Messages: | 949,473 |