The dumbest Stuff or Herald headlines (& other news media)

Forums › Off topic › The dumbest Stuff or Herald headlines (& other news media)

1 | ... | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | ... | 308

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#3118625 21-Aug-2023 14:54

SirHumphreyAppleby:

Fat Bottomed Girls cut from Queen’s greatest hits to appease younger audience

(Daily Telegraph UK, via NZ Herald)

The article doesn't say anything about how removing the song would appease a younger audience. The song, IMO, presents a pretty positive view of fat bottomed girls. I thought a positive body image was what were were meant to focus on, and not the obvious health issues associated with obesity? Or, is it to appease the girls with flat bottoms?

There are already several releases of Queens Greatest Hits, with slight variations on song content. While this may be the first to omit this particular song, there doesn't appear to be any official comment on why it was removed, let alone any evidence in support of it being for a younger audience.

As for Yoto, Techmoan might as well cover this failed 'format' now.

Might as well add Queen to the list which includes Enid Blyton, Roald Dahl etc.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

floydbloke

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#3118634 21-Aug-2023 15:08

SirHumphreyAppleby:

Fat Bottomed Girls cut from Queen’s greatest hits to appease younger audience

(Daily Telegraph UK, via NZ Herald)

The article doesn't say anything about how removing the song would appease a younger audience. The song, IMO, presents a pretty positive view of fat bottomed girls. I thought a positive body image was what were were meant to focus on, and not the obvious health issues associated with obesity? Or, is it to appease the girls with flat bottoms?

There are already several releases of Queens Greatest Hits, with slight variations on song content. While this may be the first to omit this particular song, there doesn't appear to be any official comment on why it was removed, let alone any evidence in support of it being for a younger audience.

As for Yoto, Techmoan might as well cover this failed 'format' now.

So how are skinny lads gonna learn life before they leave their nursery now???

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#3118700 21-Aug-2023 17:03

Depends who are the rights owners are I guess. Imo they did market testing and it's just a clanger out of place as regular listening for a younger generation who saw the movie.

Personally I just cringe at some of the stuff I used to listen to in the days when I could not even hear most lyrics on the non-digital radio gear etc. As far as I recall it's not in that category for me. I'm sure we could all list a few in another topic 😉

Banned yeah nah missed from a compilation don't think so.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#3118920 22-Aug-2023 09:38

NzHerald: Film pays tibute to a generation of NZ women

My phone doesn't even want to do that word. That was a great tv movie as I remember it. I hope it's been fully 4k'ed and AI'ed. In any case it's good improvement whatever the iteration.

Bung

6733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2926

Subscriber

#3118928 22-Aug-2023 09:55

neb:
So it was one of the least concerning scenarios rather than the implied child-kidnapping-pedophile-blood-drinking-adrenochrome-hillary-clinton-panic one... just that simple "older boyfriend" rather than "older man" completely changes things.

Police now admit that "older boyfriend" totally inappropriate term. “No 12-year-old has a boyfriend who is an adult – it’s not possible,”

tweake

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3119063 22-Aug-2023 17:43

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/132782366/why-were-considering-leaving-our-rental-as-a-ghost-house

granted its readers writes but it seams a tad fake.

"Here is the nub of the problem in my view. We have always been able to claim a deduction in our taxes for costs incurred in providing a rental service. A simple example, if you collect $20,000 in rent, have $5000 in expenses, and pay $15,000 in interest payments, you essentially break even.

But the recent changes working their way through the system mean you will no longer be able to claim interest costs.This changes things dramatically. You now pay tax on the $15,000 income in the above example. This is an additional $5000 cost on your bottom line. So, instead of breaking even, you now make a $5000 loss, your costs have increased to $25,000, but rental remains at $20,000. You are forced to raise your rent, so far as the market allows, or you are stuck with the loss. Why would you invest?"

hang on sec, they say the interest is deducted but in the example its not. so without interest deducted its $15k profit. now that the interest is not tax deductable, they make nothing, but still retain the capital gains.

open to correction here but that sounds like someone doing a bit of misinfomation to pretend that they are going from making nothing but capital gains, to making a loss. when in fact its going from making a profit + capital to only capital gains. (at least in this example).

or am i missing something?

SirHumphreyAppleby

2939 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1860

#3119072 22-Aug-2023 19:46

tweake:

open to correction here but that sounds like someone doing a bit of misinfomation to pretend that they are going from making nothing but capital gains, to making a loss. when in fact its going from making a profit + capital to only capital gains. (at least in this example).

or am i missing something?

Perhaps I missed something, but the figures seem correct to me...

20,000 - 5,000 - 15,000 = 0
20,000 - 5,000 - 15,000 * (1 - .33) = 4950

Capital gains are only realised when you sell, and are by no means guaranteed. On paper, home owners may be millionaires, but the expenses and interest payments represent real money they need now.

tweake

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3119073 22-Aug-2023 19:54

SirHumphreyAppleby:

tweake:

open to correction here but that sounds like someone doing a bit of misinfomation to pretend that they are going from making nothing but capital gains, to making a loss. when in fact its going from making a profit + capital to only capital gains. (at least in this example).

or am i missing something?

Perhaps I missed something, but the figures seem correct to me...

20,000 - 5,000 - 15,000 = 0
20,000 - 5,000 - 15,000 * (1 - .33) = 4950

Capital gains are only realised when you sell, and are by no means guaranteed. On paper, home owners may be millionaires, but the expenses and interest payments represent real money they need now.

20,000 - 5,000 - 15,000 = 0
20,000 - 5,000 - 15,000 * (1 - .33) = 4950

thats not correct because they are counting the deducted interest so it should be

20,000 - 5,000 - 0 = 15,000
20,000 - 5,000 - 15,000 * (1 - .33) = 4950

see what i mean, they are counting the interest when its deducted and also when its not deducted.

RunningMan

9186 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4840

#3119076 22-Aug-2023 20:04

tweake:

or am i missing something?

Yes. They are paying the interest in both cases. The difference is whether or not it gets grouped with the other $5,000 expenses that they don't have to pay tax on.

There's no sceneraio where the $15,000 interst isn't paid; it's just whether or not it is considered an expense of doing the business and therefore whether tax gets paid on it.

tweake

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3119080 22-Aug-2023 20:41

RunningMan:

tweake:

or am i missing something?

Yes. They are paying the interest in both cases. The difference is whether or not it gets grouped with the other $5,000 expenses that they don't have to pay tax on.

There's no sceneraio where the $15,000 interst isn't paid; it's just whether or not it is considered an expense of doing the business and therefore whether tax gets paid on it.

i get ya.

i think the example could have been worded a bit better for half asleep tweak.

they are basically complaining that they cop extra tax, which they can avoid if they don't have finance or don't buy such high price houses and have such high finance. which is probably the entire point it was done.

so they go from basically free finance to paying market rates. of course now the double wammy is the high interest rates. that would be much easy to say than their maths.

geoffwnz

1722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1579

ID Verified

#3119223 23-Aug-2023 07:39

tweake:

i get ya.

i think the example could have been worded a bit better for half asleep tweak.

they are basically complaining that they cop extra tax, which they can avoid if they don't have finance or don't buy such high price houses and have such high finance. which is probably the entire point it was done.

so they go from basically free finance to paying market rates. of course now the double wammy is the high interest rates. that would be much easy to say than their maths.

It's a complaint advertorial though. It's not meant to be factually accurate or easy to understand. It's pushing the "woe is me, my life is so hard" angle by intentionally clouding the "facts" to push the required sympathy story.

Basically bagging whatever political decision of the day they feel can win them sympathy or help push their bias towards their preferred party.

MotorDrive Rallying

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#3119301 23-Aug-2023 11:08

tweake:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/132782366/why-were-considering-leaving-our-rental-as-a-ghost-house

"Why would you invest?"

Awesome. The law change is working as expected. Go and sell your house to an owner-occupier and invest your money elsewhere.

RunningMan

9186 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4840

#3119382 23-Aug-2023 15:09

tweake: [snip]

so they go from basically free finance to paying market rates.

Not quite. They don't get free finance in either scenario, they always pay market rates - it's whether or not they also have to pay tax on top of those market rates.

Under the old system, paying for the finance (i.e the interest) was considered a business expense, so not taxed. Much the same as if a business buys a computer or phone or whatever, they effectively pay the price without tax (GST). The new system that changes, so tax has to be paid on the interest.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3119866 24-Aug-2023 18:20

frankv:
Awesome. The law change is working as expected. Go and sell your house to an owner-occupier and invest your money elsewhere.

See also this longer article, The gravy train is over: Why my tiniest violin is out for landlords:

The purpose of these policies that landlords can’t stand are to stop landlords investing in houses, so property prices fall, so people can buy a first home, so we don’t have a housing crisis. It’s literally the point. It’s the whole point, nothing but the point, so help me God.

We don’t want investors who own 20 homes to buy more homes. We don’t want people who think renting is passive income for them, that renters should subsidise their lifestyles, that renters should absorb every cost the landlord has.

I get that it’s a shock for landlords, I do, and I have my tiniest violin out for them. For a very long time, they were on a gravy train. Buy a house, because you own a house, the bank will lend you another house, raise rent, raise rent, buy another house.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3119879 24-Aug-2023 19:17

Too many quotes

IMHO there is need for landlords. Many people cannot who do not want to buy a home. Some birds make a nest, others roam free. You need to male landlords viable as they serve a need. Imagine if landlords quit the market tomorrow? Lots and lots of houses for sale, prices drop for obvious reasons. Then the reality sets in, where are the rentals for this that want them or need them???

1 | ... | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | ... | 308