Matthew Gilligan tells Economist Property is GOOD business

[elguapo]

WRONG, that is EXACTLY what it is about.

Your understanding of English is clearly different to mine!

[Damap]

Go and talk to a decent financial advisor. That's their job :-)

101 of course is to be a contractor not an employee.

[elguapo]

Umm there's some differences of interpretation going on here.

I interpreted it as saying you do what you can (legally) which minimises your tax (and by doing so you are in effect paying yourself first) then what's left over is taxable and you pay your tax.

cheers,

donna

Indeed What you interpret it as is not what is written.

[Damap]

Yes you are right on Donna!!

[donna]

elguapo - true - you are right - it is not what is written.....it is how I have interpreted what is written...the hidden meaning so to speak.

cheers,

Donna

[mortgage broker]

taxes hmmmm, really; who thinks that politicians can make better decisions than the free market. Taxes are really about relinquishing control over a certain amount of capital.

Property is the only way mum and dad investors can have a taste of the power of leverage. Shares are awesome for the ones leveraging - not the public but those who retain control over how the money is spent and those who initially go public.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

taxes hmmmm, really; who thinks that politicians can make better decisions than the free market. Taxes are really about relinquishing control over a certain amount of capital.

Neither are known for particularly good decisions. It therefore comes down to the better of two evils.

Shares are awesome for the ones leveraging - not the public but those who retain control over how the money is spent and those who initially go public.

A lot of listed shares are a blatant transfer of wealth. It goes from the mugs, opps, I mean "investors", to the directors and management.

[McDuck]

taxes hmmmm, really; who thinks that politicians can make better decisions than the free market. Taxes are really about relinquishing control over a certain amount of capital. ..

And yet the Global financial crisis was free market self interest in pure form, the system only saved by heavy government intervention.
Or how the free market is rapidly sucking all the wealth up to tiny few mega rich, as we speak..
What about ivory in Africa, your free market would wipe out this magnificent beast, while government rangers fight to save them...
Seriously, are you even awake when you speak?

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

And yet the Global financial crisis was free market self interest in pure form, the system only saved by heavy government intervention.
Or how the free market is rapidly sucking all the wealth up to tiny few mega rich..
What about ivory in Africa, your free market would wipe out this magnificent beast, government rangers fight to save them...
Seriously, are you even awake when you speak?

Unfortunately, there is no +1 on this site so I need to express it in a post.

[Davo36]

And yet the Global financial crisis was free market self interest in pure form, the system only saved by heavy government intervention.
Or how the free market is rapidly sucking all the wealth up to tiny few mega rich, as we speak..
What about ivory in Africa, your free market would wipe out this magnificent beast, while government rangers fight to save them...
Seriously, are you even awake when you speak?

McDuck: The banks in the US should have been left to fail. Then any other banks wouldn't do it again. But because they were saved, because the market wasn't allowed to work as a market, there's huge incentive for them to take as many risks as they can - they know they'll be bailed out.

Ivory: Interesting case, the only reason people pay big bucks for it is that it's very hard to get. So you could make a case that all ivory should be openly and freely traded... but of course you're right on this one, all the elephants would be gone. As an animal welfarist not sure what to suggest other than cutting the balls off of anyone caught in this trade!