After reading earlier posts about the swine I bet it's a tax scam or something.

[Daze]

 

God I love Europeans.

 

We (I speak for almost all Englishmen) refuse to be labelled as European.

 

pip pip cheerio

[Lux]

We (I speak for almost all Englishmen) refuse to be labelled as European.

 

pip pip cheerio

 

 

I'd rather not be called British either (seeing as how my nationality is English, Welsh and Irish)..can't really expect them Americans to understand

[PotshotPolka]

So that is it? Am I being naive in believing that you are happy to stick to your irrational idea and not prove how it would work or are you going to say something instead of trying to make a joke of me because I don't agree with you, which is merely because the idea wouldn't work. (but feel free to prove why it would)

 

No. My idea isn't irrational. I just wanted to pull out of your basis for your argument. You, think, and by think I mean irrationally assert, that one's ability is the not the determinant of the Oh Holy Haves, and Have Nots.

 

If you want to know why it doesn't "work" understand the principle reason behind working. People work for profit. The Soviets tried to flip this, and what they got was a direct result. Soviet factory foreman soon began creating as little as possible while maximizing the amount of resources they could conserve to keep their workers and equipment from falling into disrepair. If they produced efficiently, they would be passed up by the quotas and would in turn receive less, and their status of living would plummet. It was, essentially, an inverted capitalist society.

 

You can't seem to grasp the concept that what you produce is yours. Would you be willing to walk into a store to buy a drink, watch the person in front of you pay $2.00 for his drink, and then be charged $4.00 for yours on the basis you make twice as much? Why then, should you pay more for the same, or less from a government?

 

You answer because they need. Need is a subjective thing Lux. Need won't feed you either.

 

You say some jobs are "vital". By what standard?

 

Doctors and lawyers spend years learning their trade, incurring costs in exchange for their knowledge. The jobs are difficult, as is the material, and relatively few people are willing to pursue them. Ditch digging on the other hand, is something most are able to do, since it requires few learned skills. Many laborers are able to do it, therefore the costs are pushed lower since wages are competitive. The same can be said of doctors or lawyers. Their skills are not cheap because their schedules are crammed. How should it be decided who they service? Why, it would make sense that the person willing to pay the most should be entitled, since it is a free market where we can outbid others right?

 

 

Finally you claim the rich undeservedly hold the means of production, that poor live meagerly, and should have more.

 

Your Europeans societies were feudal for centuries as most were. I'll agree on the point oligarchies and aristocracies monopolized markets with political power, but that is no longer the case... well it isn't here anyways, you fools still salute a Queen for her bloodline and cry for equality at the same time, which is beautifully ironic.

 

So why should a poor man have more? I'll tell you why not. It isn't because he's necessarily lazy, or for that matter that the rich monopolize markets and should dole out a bit to keep his neighbor in line, and from shanking him.

 

You say "should". Fuck your should. The difference between inequal taxation and beggars is the stick. You can decline beggars and charitable causes, its your choice. I have nothing against philanthropy. Your government, and the majority however, aren't so civil.

 

This isn't saying taxation is bad, that's for anarchists and the stupid libertarians (not all libertarians, the stupid ones) to say. You cry for equality, so do I.

 

If you seriously think my line of thinking is so arrogant, then check your premises, I've checked them many, many times, and I cannot find a more moral answer.

[Lux]

Thanks for getting yourself to the golden bit

 

No. My idea isn't irrational. I just wanted to pull out of your basis for your argument. You, think, and I by think I mean irrationally assert, that one's ability is the not the determinant of the Oh Holy Haves, and Have Nots.

 

Er....so ones ability is the determinant of the oh holy haves and have nots? Or at least you think it should be...? Fair enough. I wouldn't say that the amount of income you receive is guaranteed to be proportionate to the amount of ability you have, or maybe I'm just struggling to understand what you are saying.

 

If you want to know why it doesn't "work" understand the principle reason behind working. People work for profit. The Soviets tried to flip this, and what they got was a direct result. Soviet factory foreman soon began creating as little as possible while maximizing the amount of resources they could conserve to keep their workers and equipment from falling into disrepair. If they produced efficiently, they would be passed up by the quotas and would in turn receive less, and their status of living would plummet. It was, essentially, an inverted capitalist society.

 

Obviously people work for profit.....and this happens and works in the UK economy IMO. I can't really use your example, because the UK isn't communist Soviet Russia.

 

You can't seem to grasp the concept that what you produce is yours. Would you be willing to walk into a store to buy a drink, watch the person in front of you pay $2.00 for his drink, and then be charged $4.00 for yours on the basis you make twice as much? Why then, should you pay more for the same, or less from a government?

 

Education is free up to a certain point. The government funds your education so that it can in the future benefit from you. People don't get charged $2 for a drink and then $4 for a drink because people are taxed regressively on those kinds of goods, as in you get charged 15% VAT.

 

You answer because they need. Need is a subjective thing Lux. Need won't feed you either.

 

You say some jobs are "vital". By what standard?

 

A lot of things are subjective...but whilst we are living in the UK society and not managing to survive of disease ridden water whilst having HIV in Africa need is the ability to live above the poverty line. Need feeds you because the government pays for you when you are that bad off. I'm not saying I agree with that, but then again if you correctly fund people it comes with positives to society. We could just let every poor person die if we wanted to, but the point of funding them is in the hope that they will get off their arse and work, which unfortunately is the hard thing to do without failure. Whilst they need it, the country needs them too, if they didn't then why else would they bother to help them out? Obviously because of humans rights baloney but that applies more for disabled people who can't and never will do anything for society but feed off of it. People who currently do but could potentially help society will be encouraged through subsidies to do so. Obviously if you pay too much then they may be happy to just feed off of that money, but it's hard to achieve the right balance, despite what I/u/we/anyone believes.

 

Doctors and lawyers spend years learning their trade, incurring costs in exchange for their knowledge. The jobs are difficult, as is the material, and relatively few people are willing to pursue them. Ditch digging on the other hand, is something most are able to do, since it requires few learned skills. Many laborers are able to do it, therefore the costs are pushed lower since wages are competitive. The same can be said of doctors or lawyers. Their skills are not cheap because their schedules are crammed. How should it be decided who they service? Why, it would make sense that the person willing to pay the most should be entitled, since it is a free market where we can outbid others right?

 

I understand why lawyers get paid a lot whilst ditch diggers don't

 

In a case such as a lawyer there are state lawyers (although I'd assume there are state lawyers in America too?) but if you want a better lawyer then you have to pay more. That is how many aspects of a free market work, and that is how some things are. The UK does have private hospitals too provide a quality more suited to those who are paying out of their pocket dearly. Dentistry is increasing more like that too, but I don't get your point about people willing to pay more should be more entitled. Obviously in something like Ebay that happens and works, but there isn't that big a shortage of lawyers or doctors that we need to go to measures such as "whoever pays the highest gets the treatment". That can happen if you so choose, and you will get better quality but I don't think that should be the sole form of medical care, or legal help.

 

So why should a poor man have more? I'll tell you why not. It isn't because he's necessarily lazy, or for that matter that the rich monopolize markets and should dole out a bit to keep his neighbor in line, and from shanking him.

 

Finally you claim the rich undeservedly hold the means of production, that poor live meagerly, and should have more.

 

Your Europeans societies were feudal for centuries as most were. I'll agree on the point oligarchies and aristocracies monopolized markets with political power, but that is no longer the case... well it isn't here anyways, you fools still salute a Queen for her bloodline and cry for equality at the same time, which is beautifully ironic

 

Firstly.....IMO the Queen is just a tourist attraction and is still there because of tradition. She has no power, and despite what she actually does which may seem important as a Queen she has no power over the matter, she is just a dog on a leash.

 

Who is to say that a "poor" man is any of the things you have listed? Poor is relative, especially when referring to the opinion of people who are earning over £100k a year. If you don't tax rich people more, then poverty will increase at the extreme points, and the richer will become richer. This will just lead back to olden times......and then it won't even matter if you're a lawyer or not you could still be rich, and even if you have the academical potential to be rich you will not be given the opportunity to do so because rich people will not allow you to get in.

 

You say "should". Fuck your should. The difference between inequal taxation and beggars is the stick. You can decline beggars and charitable causes, its your choice. I have nothing against philanthropy. Your government, and the majority however, aren't so civil.

 

The thing is, my "must" is your "should". I don't control what the government does, and what is the point in highlighting that I say "should" and then go and say "no you shouldn't" when it already happens? What word should I be using instead of should? I integrate my opinion with what actually happens, because in a lot of cases I don't think what the government is doing is wrong.

 

Anyway, obviously I can decline beggars and charitable causes, but you can't really on philanthropy especially in this modern day. If something has to happen and it needs money, and there is no "if no one volunteers then it won't happen" because the consequences of no action are far worse then taxing the rich more then so be it. Money doesn't grow on trees, if things in society need money to function then who else will pay them if not the taxpayers?

 

Beggars can still be on benefits if they want so begging is just a non formal way of making more money.

[PotshotPolka]

then poverty will increase at the extreme points, and the richer will become richer. This will just lead back to olden times......and then it won't even matter if you're a lawyer or not you could still be rich, and even if you have the academical potential to be rich you will not be given the opportunity to do so because rich people will not allow you to get in.

 

This is the point I've tried to make in a million different arguments. There is ZERO empirical evidence to support this phenomenon. The keynesian perspective (which mind you, is what you've been preaching this whole time, is actually a weird perverted thing that is what some would call a mixed economy) is that the government should be enlisted to curtail these "shortcomings". The last 80 years of experimentation really have done nothing than undermine Keynesian and protectionist economic policies, which are the real grit of all social programs. Christ dude, the goddamn New Deal essentially is responsible a massive part of the financial market collapse.

 

 

I'm done arguing with you on subjective points. You understand the definition, but you can't seem to understand why "should" is something to be left to individual.

 

The government funds your education so that it can in the future benefit from you.

More Keynesian crap. It actually artificially increases demand in the market and just makes schooling more expensive and competitive, with no real increase in the job market in itself.

 

But that's besides the point. Benefit me? I'll be the one to make decisions with my own money to benefit myself.

[Lux]

This is the point I've tried to make in a million different arguments. There is ZERO empirical evidence to support this phenomenon. The keynesian perspective (which mind you, is what you've been preaching this whole time, is actually a weird perverted thing that is what some would call a mixed economy) is that the government should be enlisted to curtail these "shortcomings". The last 80 years of experimentation really have done nothing than undermine Keynesian and protectionist economic policies, which are the real grit of all social programs. Christ dude, the goddamn New Deal essentially is responsible a massive part of the financial market collapse.

 

Perhaps...but how else would it go? It's easy to say that it won't happen now, but predictions in economics never seem to be accurate. The point is to learn from history, I don't think I can manage to go any further with the matter then I have already, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I'm done arguing with you on subjective points. You understand the definition, but you can't seem to understand why "should" is something to be left to individual.

 

Should is my conclusion of things. I'm allowed to make a point, apply it and then conclude with my own opinion am I not?

 

More Keynesian crap. It actually artificially increases demand in the market and just makes schooling more expensive and competitive, with no real increase in the job market in itself.

 

But that's besides the point. Benefit me? I'll be the one to make decisions with my own money to benefit myself.

 

What do you think would happen if the government stopped subsidising education? Signs of what would happen are foreseeable now....the highest quality schools which for the most are restricted to middle class richer families are the ones where employers look to first. They get the best paid jobs, the people who couldn't afford or weren't prepared due to the lack of preparation you get in a standard school get the average jobs....and the classes divide. It happens to an extent, but if it wasn't for the subsidisation of education it would be a lot worse.

 

I don't believe that it would go any differently to how it has in the past.

[PotshotPolka]

 

Should is my conclusion of things. I'm allowed to make a point, apply it and then conclude with my own opinion am I not?

 

 

 

Sure bro. Except it's not your fucking money.

[Lux]

Sure bro. Except it's not your fucking money.

 

Lol........you will never decide entirely how you will spend your money, and that is a fact.

[PotshotPolka]

Lol........you will never decide entirely how you will spend your money, and that is a fact.

 

The fuck I won't.

[Lux]

The fuck I won't.

 

Cool story bro