(31-12-2021, 05:01 AM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: And the gap between the highest paid and the lowest continues to stretch even the imagination of the most limited among us, while there are still some economic dinosaurs out there who really believe unlimited growth is a good thing, rather than symptomatic of a societal and financial cancer...

(30-12-2021, 09:26 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(04-12-2021, 01:09 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: "Witness Luxon, a millionaire and owner of seven houses, protesting against this yearÔÇÖs minimum-wage increase, a lift that gave a full-time worker an extra $40 a week."

I think that says it all really; its perfectly fine for business owners to have large salaries but when it comes to people like cleaners, nurses, teachers - those people whose true value we've learned to appreciate far more thanks to covid - then they don't deserve more income & he has no problem leaving them to struggle.

Many business owners don't earn large salaries.  In  may cases they are paid less than some of their employees.  And teachers get substantially more than minimum wage as do nurses.

(31-12-2021, 11:02 AM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(30-12-2021, 09:26 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: Many business owners don't earn large salaries.  In  may cases they are paid less than some of their employees.  And teachers get substantially more than minimum wage as do nurses.

My comment was about Luxon.

Most business owners are reasonable & treat staff fairly; its the ones who don't who are the problem.

(31-12-2021, 11:10 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:02 AM)Lilith7 Wrote: My comment was about Luxon.

Most business owners are reasonable & treat staff fairly; its the ones who don't who are the problem.

No your  INITIAL comment was about Luxon - you then proceeded to include all  business owners "its perfectly fine for business owners to have large salaries".  And Luxon isnt even a business owner.

(31-12-2021, 11:19 AM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:10 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote: No your  INITIAL comment was about Luxon - you then proceeded to include all  business owners "its perfectly fine for business owners to have large salaries".  And Luxon isnt even a business owner.

Seven properties? Hardly a family home plus a bach, is it.

At which number does it become a business, then? Four houses? Five? Ten?

"Witness Luxon, a millionaire and owner of seven houses, protesting against this yearÔÇÖs minimum-wage increase, a lift that gave a full-time worker an extra $40 a week."

His actions said it all.

(31-12-2021, 11:26 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:19 AM)Lilith7 Wrote: Seven properties? Hardly a family home plus a bach, is it.

At which number does it become a business, then? Four houses? Five? Ten?

"Witness Luxon, a millionaire and owner of seven houses, protesting against this yearÔÇÖs minimum-wage increase, a lift that gave a full-time worker an extra $40 a week."

His actions said it all.

So if I recall - He has his own house, a beach house, his apartment in Wellington and 4 rentals.  So 4 rentals isn't massive .  He likely also has significant other assets outside property.  And  no he isn't a business owner - the rentals will be investments and he has for many years been paid a salary.
Nice to see a quick sidestep of the part when you included business owners in general.

(31-12-2021, 11:34 AM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:26 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote: So if I recall - He has his own house, a beach house, his apartment in Wellington and 4 rentals.  So 4 rentals isn't massive .  He likely also has significant other assets outside property.  And  no he isn't a business owner - the rentals will be investments and he has for many years been paid a salary.
Nice to see a quick sidestep of the part when you included business owners in general.

So then you disagree that seven properties is a business - you could simply have said that, rather than looking for a way to make a snide comment.

Seven properties is, if not an actual business, extremely close to exactly that.

(31-12-2021, 11:38 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:34 AM)Lilith7 Wrote: So then you disagree that seven properties is a business - you could simply have said that, rather than looking for a way to make a snide comment.

Seven properties is, if not an actual business, extremely close to exactly that.

3 of them are for personal use.  4 will be investments.  And based on  your comments in the other thread 4 for an individual is just right.

(31-12-2021, 11:41 AM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:38 AM)Wainuiguy Wrote: 3 of them are for personal use.  4 will be investments.  And based on  your comments in the other thread 4 for an individual is just right.

 Seven properties in total is about as close to a business as you can get.
We disagree.

(31-12-2021, 12:27 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 11:41 AM)Lilith7 Wrote:  Seven properties in total is about as close to a business as you can get.
We disagree.

You can't class properties for personal use in that category.  4 are investments.

(31-12-2021, 02:11 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 12:27 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: You can't class properties for personal use in that category.  4 are investments.

 Of course you can - the fact is that he can only live in one house at a time.

And even one house which is the family home & another which is a holiday home/bach still leaves five as investment properties - a business.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disagree

"to not have the same opinion, idea, etc.:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you (on that issue).
[ + that ] Few people would disagree that something should be done to reduce crime in the area."

(31-12-2021, 07:34 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: For which the tax payer grants him an accommodation allowance to offset the rent he charges himself.

No, not a businessman at all.

Ding ding. That's the leg with bells on...

(31-12-2021, 08:37 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 07:34 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: For which the tax payer grants him an accommodation allowance to offset the rent he charges himself.

No, not a businessman at all.

Ding ding. That's the leg with bells on...

Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

(31-12-2021, 07:27 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 02:11 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:  Of course you can - the fact is that he can only live in one house at a time.

And even one house which is the family home & another which is a holiday home/bach still leaves five as investment properties - a business.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disagree

"to not have the same opinion, idea, etc.:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you (on that issue).
[ + that ] Few people would disagree that something should be done to reduce crime in the area."

 [Removed: Rule 2A]   4 investment properties.  4, not 5.

1
2
3
4

The 5th property is the apartment in Wellington for when he is sitting in Parliament.  4 INVESTMENTS.  Do you think he lists his occupation as property manager?

(01-01-2022, 07:31 AM)Olive Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 08:37 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

Isle?   Or Aisle?

(31-12-2021, 08:37 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 07:34 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: For which the tax payer grants him an accommodation allowance to offset the rent he charges himself.

No, not a businessman at all.

Ding ding. That's the leg with bells on...

Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

(02-01-2022, 08:27 AM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote:

(31-12-2021, 08:37 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: Which many MPs get on  both sides of the isle.

Indeed, and it should stop. On any side of the aisle.
But like putting any kind of brake on property value inflation it won't happen so long as it isn't in the interests of the 'landed gentry'. A group that is becoming smaller by the day...