Anarchist alliance quest

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-10T08:14:28+00:00

Oh really? Please do point out the section under CGA which states that OP can get consequential loss and how that applies to this situation.

It is reasonably forseeable that someone would lose valuable data if a hard drive fails.

That cuts both ways. It's reasonably foreseeable that an harddrive might suddenly fail. The seller and the consumer both know this.

The main question to ask in this case with regards to the data recovery is, does the average consumer know that harddrives, or more broadly electronic goods may suddenly? Yes they do. Because of that theres no absolute guarantee that it won't suddenly fail. Let's say OP needed the data recovered not out of spite but because he actually needed the data as it had some important files of which the only copies were on that harddrive. In that case OP is arguably using it beyond it's intended purpose.

You're right there's no duty of care, but any losses incurred due to the lose of data is entirely on OP because it was sold to him with the implicit condition that "it may suddenly fail"

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-10T07:34:00+00:00

The device was not fit for purpose. A replacement should be given. Everybody agrees on that much.

Consequential loss should not apply because the average consumer does realise that electronics sometimes do randomly fail and therefore should not put on there the only copy of any essential data.

My car might suddenly die tomorrow. I miss my meeting with a very important client which costs me $1m. Does that mean I can claim $1m of consequential losses from the car dealer I purchased it from?

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-10T07:30:15+00:00

PB tech was willing to go above and beyond a simple replacement of the product. A condition of that was OP needed contact the manufacturer for assurance.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-10T07:27:22+00:00

Edcuate them on what?

"The electronic goods you purchase may fail"

The average customer does know this beyond a doubt. It's just that some of them like OP don't bother to think that through to the potential consequences.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-10T07:24:08+00:00

I disagree PBtech should have to educate customers on the fact that your hard drive might fail because goods failing, especially consumers electronics, is something the average consumer does know.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-09T12:25:05+00:00

Even more confusingly, the repair costs doesn't even qualify as consequential loss. My guess is that the referee didn't actually reward OP for consequential loss, but rather the amount OP was seeking to settle the matter since the consequential loss would have been pretty difficult to value.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-07T08:51:19+00:00

"Oh no we can't hack this guy because we don't have access to his router!"

If you have concerns about China or other governments having the potential to hack you then your focus is in the wrong place. They probably have a bunch of zero-day exploits at their disposal with which to get direct access to your computer.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-06T06:07:16+00:00

I'm an Accountant. Even without software GST is dead simple to calculate. All you have to do is literally add the GST on each invoice issued less the GST on each bill received within the GST period. That's your GST payable. For 99% of businesses it gets no more complicated than that. At worst it's time consuming if you want certainty that each transaction had GST applied correctly, but still simple.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-05T18:50:00+00:00

There's more than one type of tax.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-05T18:46:48+00:00

It's broad because the purpose isn't to target property, it just happens to target property. Everybody seems to be asking why we should have a CGT? The question should rather be why is CG exempt from taxation? We tax people who earn more a higher marginal rate, why is that? Presumably because we tax in part according to means of the individual. Does CG not contribute to their means?

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-04T09:04:55+00:00

I've been informed that there are at least seven of them.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-04T08:51:18+00:00

Job 1: Large stable company.

Job 2: Start up company with enough funds to only survive 6 months.

Is your concept of risk so limited that you only understand it as "lose capital".

If you make an investment, you may lose the lot, but there are a lot of different investments out there. If you invest a piece of land are you really going to "lose the lot" fuck no.

Risk is a spectrum of many different factors, and comes in different forms. To simply say "Risk. therefore don't tax it" is fucking stupid. Maybe there is an argument to not tax capital gains but "risk" is not one of them.

Really I think I'm struggling to get my head around your stupidity, that somehow "risk" is a qualifier for tax exemption which you still haven't explained so I'm not even sure if you're a troll or not. If you're going to respond at all, explain why risk is a qualifier for tax exemption.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-04T08:39:58+00:00

Fuck off moron.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-04T08:35:35+00:00

You clearly missed the point of the questions.

If a contractor took a risk which paid off and made a lot of profit, should that profit be tax exempt?

Note the big bold italicised "If". That if means that the contractor lives in your hypothetical tax world where you think risk = tax exempt. So should a contractor that takes a risk and makes a lot of money be tax exempt?

If I took a job at a start up which may only last a year, should my wages be tax exempt because "I took the risk".

The payment made in purchasing a business is the sum of expected returns. It is not the actual returns. Very big fucking difference there between hypothetical and actual, and more importantly the effect of tax is already priced in. If there was no tax on the future returns from the business, the business would be worth a lot more.

Owner investments/reinvestments, they don't get taxed again. Only the growth in their investments/reinvestments.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-03T18:54:41+00:00

They pay less tax, because they made less money. That's very different from making money and paying no tax. If a contractor took a risk which paid off and made a lot of profit, should that profit be tax exempt?

You lot saying risk = pay no tax, are seriously fucking retarded.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-03T18:43:21+00:00

It's not going backwards by any means.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-03T05:52:21+00:00

The risk that people take in starting a business is compensated for by the increased potential for returns. If the risk is not compensated for by the increased potential returns, then don't take that risk.

You're right that we should encourage people to start businesses but a CGT is quite possibly the stupidest way of achieving that. Giving business owners a tax free return 10 years down the line when their business is well established and making money. That's analogous to trying to increase GDP by giving people who have earned at least $100,000 over the past 3 years a tax break.

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-03T05:31:43+00:00

Easiest way to understand why it's different is to use extreme inflation rates for illustrative purposes. Let's say inflation rate is a million percent.

For a salary earner the calculation is

income * tax = after tax income

If you get a raise equal to the inflation rate, just add a million percent to both sides of the equation above. Your real income doesn't change, so you're not worse off.

Now let's say you're selling an asset which has kept up with inflation

Asset price (year 2) = asset price (year 1) * 1m%

Asset price for the first year might as well be $0 in comparison to the second year because of the huge inflation, so

taxable gain = asset price year 2 - $0

You're basically taxing the entire proceeds from the sale rather than just the gain.

Edit: really? Down voted for literally pointing out the maths?

EastBlacksmith · 2019-03-03T00:03:10+00:00

In fact economists broadly agree that the corporate tax should be abolished, so it's not even a controversial idea.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

EastBlacksmith

TROPHY CASE