Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 88940	2008-04-15 11:02:00	Tax Breaks For Top Rugby Players	Winston001 (3612)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
659088	2008-04-16 11:07:00	Hang on - what about the tens of millions spent on the Americas Cup - by the taxpayer? Much of it ending up overseas. Its inconsistent to fund a minor sport and ignore a major one. What's your point? That's not a tax break. That was them being paid. That paid money was almost certainly then taxed. The Govt spends money all over the place. So far though, that hasn't been your point. Are you going to pretend that it is now? In spite of all the posts clearly stating otherwise?	Thebananamonkey (7741)
659089	2008-04-16 19:43:00	Hang on - what about the tens of millions spent on the Americas Cup - by the taxpayer? Much of it ending up overseas. Its inconsistent to fund a minor sport and ignore a major one. By your own admission, taxpayers money was spent unwisely and most of it ended up overseas. The Americas cup may be a minor sport popularity wise but it is a major sport in terms of a supposedly financial benefit to the economy. The ONLY reason the govt spent money on America's Cup campaign is because they saw it as an investment. How does a tax break benefit you and I? When we win in 2011 I will be amongst the supporters and I will feel the pride of the nation but when people say the win is a benefit to economy I tell them to stick it! Question? How many people here directly or indirectly can account for the $1 they made when the economy benefitted during our tenure with the Americas Cup. That whole line - it is a benefit to the economy - is a load of crap. 90% of that benefit goes to the 10% with the wealth, dont get sucked in to the hype.	sam m (517)
659090	2008-04-16 21:39:00	Hang on - what about the tens of millions spent on the Americas Cup - by the taxpayer? Much of it ending up overseas. Its inconsistent to fund a minor sport and ignore a major one. Note I said all sports should not get tax brakes. That certainly includes yachting. The fact that it did,doesn't mean this practise should continue.	Cicero (40)
659091	2008-04-16 21:55:00	That whole line - it is a benefit to the economy - is a load of crap. 90% of that benefit goes to the 10% with the wealth, dont get sucked in to the hype.You're missing an important point Sam. If we won the America's Cup the following challenge would've been held here, thereby puring millions into the economy. Sheesh, even a visit by a cruise liner is estimated to put a million bucks into local economies at every port of call. Same with rugby - we get untold number of overseas visitors for international matches, and 2011 will be a major boost to businesses all over the country.	Greg (193)
659092	2008-04-16 22:37:00	No Greg - I got the point, in fact I am way past your point if you would care to read my post again . Let explain again . Overseas tourist comes in 2011 to watch RWC . The $$ spent on the ticket and that goes to the NZRU . He flies in on Air NZ, the $$ goes to Air NZ, he lands and books a motel . The $$ spent on the room goes to the owner who is probably a corporation with overseas interest . He buys a meal, the $$ go to the restaurant owner who invests his profit on his new boat . The millions that come in is not disputed, the problem is that those millions of $$ changes hands within the top 10% of the country . Maybe this is rightly so as they did invest however I do not fall for the BS propoganda line that the money benefits the economy and therefore benefits me - that is crap . I will rephrase my question; The last time NZ had the Americas Cup - what did you do with your share?	sam m (517)
659093	2008-04-16 22:48:00	No Greg - I got the point, in fact I am way past your point if you would care to read my post again . Let explain again . Overseas tourist comes in 2011 to watch RWC . The $$ spent on the ticket and that goes to the NZRU . He flies in on Air NZ, the $$ goes to Air NZ, he lands and books a motel . The $$ spent on the room goes to the owner who is probably a corporation with overseas interest . He buys a meal, the $$ go to the restaurant owner who invests his profit on his new boat . The millions that come in is not disputed, the problem is that those millions of $$ changes hands within the top 10% of the country . Maybe this is rightly so as they did invest however I do not fall for the BS propoganda line that the money benefits the economy and therefore benefits me - that is crap . I will rephrase my question; The last time NZ had the Americas Cup - what did you do with your share? You are so onto to it Sambo,though it pays to remember you won't convince lefties . A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul .	Cicero (40)
659094	2008-04-16 22:50:00	Mate, you're over generalising. Visitors don't only stay at international hotel chains. People stay at privately run motels, backpackers and B&Bs as well. Restaurants are frequently run at marginal profits, hence the lousy success rate of start-up businesses. The air fares paid to Air NZ also go to employ thousands of NZ'ers. All manner of small business profit from overseas visitors - from local dairies to high street souvenir stores. All this money circulating around the country goes to the people that businesses employ. New Zealanders. It's an inescapable fact that tourism boosts the economy by many millions of dollars each year. Additional media attention from national sporting events puts a higher profile of our country overseas. And events held here seriously increase the numbers of visitors. If your argument was valid there wouldn't be a ministry of tourism who spend a small fortune on publicising our land.	Greg (193)
659095	2008-04-16 22:52:00	You are so onto to it Sambo,though it pays to remember you won't convince lefties. Cicero, you're not always out of touch with reality, but this time you've slipped again.	Greg (193)
659096	2008-04-16 23:27:00	Cicero, you're not always out of touch with reality, but this time you've slipped again. Never thought of you as a leftie Greg. Always beware when somebody else wants to spend YOUR money.	Cicero (40)
659097	2008-04-16 23:39:00	A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. Chances are though, that Peter's employed by Paul. And that if Peter weren't robbed then Paul couldn't afford to pay him quite as much, so Peter's being robbed actually benefits him in a round about sort of way. Or to put it another way. If nobody came and spent money at the hotels, ever, do you think the hotels would still employ staff? If more people came to stay at hotels than they currently do, do you think that they'd employ more staff? If more staff are employed, and the available pool of additional staff diminishes, do you think that wages will rise to make existing, unfilled positions more attractive? The money you get from a buoyant economy seems to me to be the grand total of whatever's in your bank account, and whatever assets you own.	Thebananamonkey (7741)
1 2 3 4 5 6