"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense,
and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor.
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do.
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay - it will affect
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor. >>
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do.
Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the
Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim
is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's
pocket.
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was allIt does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party
good.
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:03:50 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>You know what the problem was, but you are too dishonest to say so. Vance started it, Vance was abusive, you supported that.
wrote:
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay - it will affect
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor. >>>
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do.
Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the
Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim
is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's
pocket.
his pocket sooner than under normal depreciation rules, which may have
taken some time to add up to 20% of the purchase price. Perhaps Farmer
Joe is going to invest in two new vehicles . . .
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was allIt does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party
good.
Minister in the government - nobody objected to her use of the word so
what was the problem?
After all, the ACT Party are now known as theThat is a lie.
party that saved the budget by reducing the cost of paying women the
same as men for equivalent jobs by $12.8 billion over three years.
What would Nicola Willis have done without that little bit of behindWell done, we knew that was the way you think, your admission is a good start.
the scenes work? Who cares about how women vote anyway?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:03:50 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You know what the problem was, but you are too dishonest to say so. Vance >started it, Vance was abusive, you supported that.
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay - it will affect
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>>>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>>>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the >>>Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor. >>>>
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do. >>>
is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's
pocket.
his pocket sooner than under normal depreciation rules, which may have >>taken some time to add up to 20% of the purchase price. Perhaps Farmer
Joe is going to invest in two new vehicles . . .
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was all >>>good.It does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party
Minister in the government - nobody objected to her use of the word so
what was the problem?
After all, the ACT Party are now known as theThat is a lie.
party that saved the budget by reducing the cost of paying women the
same as men for equivalent jobs by $12.8 billion over three years.
What would Nicola Willis have done without that little bit of behindWell done, we knew that was the way you think, your admission is a good start.
the scenes work? Who cares about how women vote anyway?
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:03:50 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor. >>>
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do.
Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the
Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim
is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's
pocket.
- it will affect
his pocket sooner than under normal depreciation rules, which may have
taken some time to add up to 20% of the purchase price. Perhaps Farmer
Joe is going to invest in two new vehicles . . .
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was allIt does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party
good.
Minister in the government - nobody objected to her use of the word so
what was the problem? After all, the ACT Party are now known as the
party that saved the budget by reducing the cost of paying women the
same as men for equivalent jobs by $12.8 billion over three years.
What would Nicola Willis have done without that little bit of behind
the scenes work? Who cares about how women vote anyway?
On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:47:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>She didn't make that decision, you really are naive if you thnk otherwise.
wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 20:47:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyI care about how women vote, but it seems that Nicola Willis had to
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:03:50 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:You know what the problem was, but you are too dishonest to say so. Vance >>>started it, Vance was abusive, you supported that.
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay - it will affect
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>>>>>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>>>>>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the >>>>>Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim >>>>>is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's >>>>>pocket.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the >>>>>>Raptor.
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do. >>>>>
his pocket sooner than under normal depreciation rules, which may have >>>>taken some time to add up to 20% of the purchase price. Perhaps Farmer >>>>Joe is going to invest in two new vehicles . . .
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was all >>>>>good.It does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party >>>>Minister in the government - nobody objected to her use of the word so >>>>what was the problem?
After all, the ACT Party are now known as theThat is a lie.
party that saved the budget by reducing the cost of paying women the >>>>same as men for equivalent jobs by $12.8 billion over three years.
What would Nicola Willis have done without that little bit of behind >>>>the scenes work? Who cares about how women vote anyway?Well done, we knew that was the way you think, your admission is a good >>>start.
sacrifice that issue as a result of other decisions the government had
made - the tax reductions to landlords for example . . . .
For which there is no evidence.The budget is largely driven by political decisions made since the
Assertions such as this reveal Rich's thinking and inability to
separate fact from fantasy. Political rhetoric is all he has.
current government was elected - the tax reduction for landlords, the
ferry cancellation being two large decisions, but many reductions in
spending have come back to bite them - health being a major issue
where the perception is that the government has made problems worse. .
On Thu, 22 May 2025 22:21:29 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Perhaps you could explain that a little more, Crash. I was under the
wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:03:50 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>>>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>>>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the >>>Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor. >>>>
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do. >>>
is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's
pocket.
Incorrect. It allows a greater depreciation in the first year, that >currently is claimed in the second year and later. There is no
reduction in taxes.
- it will affect
his pocket sooner than under normal depreciation rules, which may have >>taken some time to add up to 20% of the purchase price. Perhaps Farmer
Joe is going to invest in two new vehicles . . .
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was all >>>good.It does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party
Minister in the government - nobody objected to her use of the word so
what was the problem? After all, the ACT Party are now known as the
party that saved the budget by reducing the cost of paying women the
same as men for equivalent jobs by $12.8 billion over three years.
What would Nicola Willis have done without that little bit of behind
the scenes work? Who cares about how women vote anyway?
On Thu, 22 May 2025 20:47:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyI care about how women vote, but it seems that Nicola Willis had to
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:03:50 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:You know what the problem was, but you are too dishonest to say so. Vance >>started it, Vance was abusive, you supported that.
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay - it will affect
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>>>>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>>>>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the >>>>Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim >>>>is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's >>>>pocket.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor.
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do. >>>>
his pocket sooner than under normal depreciation rules, which may have >>>taken some time to add up to 20% of the purchase price. Perhaps Farmer >>>Joe is going to invest in two new vehicles . . .
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was all >>>>good.It does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party
Minister in the government - nobody objected to her use of the word so >>>what was the problem?
After all, the ACT Party are now known as theThat is a lie.
party that saved the budget by reducing the cost of paying women the
same as men for equivalent jobs by $12.8 billion over three years.
What would Nicola Willis have done without that little bit of behindWell done, we knew that was the way you think, your admission is a good start.
the scenes work? Who cares about how women vote anyway?
Assertions such as this reveal Rich's thinking and inability toThe budget is largely driven by political decisions made since the
separate fact from fantasy. Political rhetoric is all he has.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:44:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 22:21:29 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Perhaps you could explain that a little more, Crash. I was under the >impression that it reduced profit for the period - and therefore
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:03:50 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>>>>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>>>>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the >>>>Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim >>>>is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's >>>>pocket.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor.
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do. >>>>
Incorrect. It allows a greater depreciation in the first year, that >>currently is claimed in the second year and later. There is no
reduction in taxes.
reduced company profit. Could you explain what actually happens?
- it will affect
his pocket sooner than under normal depreciation rules, which may have >>>taken some time to add up to 20% of the purchase price. Perhaps Farmer >>>Joe is going to invest in two new vehicles . . .
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was all >>>>good.It does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party
Minister in the government - nobody objected to her use of the word so >>>what was the problem? After all, the ACT Party are now known as the
party that saved the budget by reducing the cost of paying women the
same as men for equivalent jobs by $12.8 billion over three years.
What would Nicola Willis have done without that little bit of behind
the scenes work? Who cares about how women vote anyway?
On Fri, 23 May 2025 12:16:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Thank you Crash, you confirm my understanding that it reduces tax for
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:44:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Companies can claim additional depreciation as a tax-deductible
On Thu, 22 May 2025 22:21:29 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Perhaps you could explain that a little more, Crash. I was under the >>impression that it reduced profit for the period - and therefore
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:03:50 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On 22 May 2025 04:58:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It reduces tax that he would otherwise have to pay
"For example, if Farmer Joe buys a new $200,000 Ford Ranger. With the new >>>>>>'Investment Boost' policy, Farmer Joe can claim $40,000 as a tax expense, >>>>>>and another $16,800 of depreciation on the remaining 80%."Correct. There are no 200K Ford Rangers, and even if there were the >>>>>Farmer had to shell out the 200K for the rebate - so the $56,000 claim >>>>>is only against tax liability - it does not go into the Farmer's >>>>>pocket.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698449/budget-2025-bit-bitsy-here-are-best-bits
The quoted cost elsewhere is a mere $90,000 with $10 change for the Raptor.
Really Stuff you are stretching things. Oh wait this is what you you do. >>>>>
Incorrect. It allows a greater depreciation in the first year, that >>>currently is claimed in the second year and later. There is no
reduction in taxes.
reduced company profit. Could you explain what actually happens?
expense on assets purchased, in the year they were purchased. However
it reduces depreciation claimable in subsequent years.
Fully explained (together with an example) here:
https://budget.govt.nz/budget/pdfs/releases/l25a-factsheet-investment-boost.pdf
- it will affect
his pocket sooner than under normal depreciation rules, which may have >>>>taken some time to add up to 20% of the purchase price. Perhaps Farmer >>>>Joe is going to invest in two new vehicles . . .
These are the dickheads that thought Vance's article on c**ts was all >>>>>good.It does appear to be a word that was acceptable to an ACT Party >>>>Minister in the government - nobody objected to her use of the word so >>>>what was the problem? After all, the ACT Party are now known as the >>>>party that saved the budget by reducing the cost of paying women the >>>>same as men for equivalent jobs by $12.8 billion over three years.
What would Nicola Willis have done without that little bit of behind >>>>the scenes work? Who cares about how women vote anyway?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 18:40:00 |
| Calls: | 9,827 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,191,328 |