American Taxes 101 (an analogy)
-
Well, I believe that the Government should keep people from preying upon eachother and should only tax to support itself. I believe that tax should be flat and capped. You present ideas as fact, but they are philosiphy or ideology. The last book I read on socailism was the best (know thy enemy kind of thing). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554457/qid=1043281192/sr=8-1/ref=sr\_8\_1/002-6927750-1452039?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Got any that go to your way of thinking that prove your ideas work and I'd be happy to read it/them.
All I am saying is: Things are the way they are because the majority wants it that way. That is democracy. It is not necessary that the ideas of the majority work. It never may. The only thing that is guaranteed to work is the "survival of the fittest". All social reform is contrary to that. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
"I realise many of you men have never opened chardonnay under fire before..." -Robin Williams What did you guys do all day? Practice surrendering? I'M KIDDING!
So funny. A friend of mine, chasseur alpin, made a combat training with mountain forces from different countries, a nice week of combat in the charming Alps. He was very impressed by the Bundeswehr, because of the quality of the german equipment (the french one was pitiful, but it obliged them to apply the système D, resourcefulness). 1 year after he was still laughing about the performance of the US troops. I'M KIDDING TOO! (even if my story is true, nananere)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
KaЯl wrote: Agreed, except the "simply". Anyone should also have the same possibilities (for example about the access to education). That is the way it works. Public schools available for grades 1 - 12 (no charge), state colleges available to all for the same tuition charge. Scholarships available to the mentally endowed. Private schools are a different matter. That doesn't solve the problem though, attendees actually have to learn something or they're unemployable. Schools (pick a grade, any grade) no longer have the ability to realy fail or discipline a student - parent(s) will cry "foul!" and sure. Mike
-
You do realize how much harder this would hit the poor, don't you? Afterall, a guy working at McDonalds for $10k a year pays no taxes right now. A guy making $1 million probably pays about 40% ($400,000) in income tax. If you switch to a national sales tax (say 20%), then you'll have the guy at McDonalds paying $2k a year in taxes and the guy making $1 million paying $200,000. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
They'd only be taxed on what they spend on non-essential items, not what they earn. Yep I do realize that but it's a good place to start. There are other problems like tax incentives for donations to charitable organizations also. I just don't buy into the sentiment that the more you make the higher the rate you should be taxed. I have a fundamental dislike of that concept, partly because I grew up POOR and have an extreme problem with people taking money that I EARNED. It's also why I get off my ass and donate time and money to organizations that I think are deserving. As an aside, I challenge everyone who thinks that rich people should shoulder most of the burden to quit exercising their gluteus so much and intelligently donate time and/or money to needy and worthy causes. The world will become a better place. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Yes, ultimately it comes down to the original question of "how much should each person pay?" In the case of the latest tax cuts (which mostly affect the rich), Bush is essentially saying, "the current situation asks the rich to pay too much". It all depends on that calculation. Relative to other countries, the US does seem to favor the rich, but "what other countries do" is not an objective measure of anything. A great deal of the ideas of "what is a fair tax system" revolves around people's perceptions of wealth and how it is aquired. Some people will say that wealth comes from hard work and determination -- in other words the rich have earned every penny. If this is your perception, you might think the rich get taxed too much. On the other hand, if you think the rich are rich because they didn't have to deal with racism, they inherited it, they won it in a lottery, or they were lucky enough to have access to education -- then you probably see wealth as something which isn't earned (and therefore, isn't completely deserved). Instead, wealth just falls into your lap by accident of birth. In this view, the rich should be heavily taxed (because they didn't do anything to earn it) and the poor should be given healthy sums of free money. The situation is varies from person to person (some really did earn it and others had it fall into their lap). But, quite a few people will emphasize one side or the other and then use this to justify their ideas about taxes. (Unsurprisingly, the rich are likely to say they earned it and the poor are likely to say it was all an accident of birth.) I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore." It's not like the rich can just opt-out of the tax system. If they moved from the US to another developed country, they would most likely end up paying more in taxes. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. There's an awful lot of space in this quote. The important thing the the quantitative benefit. IMO, you can't really talk about any particular tax cut very intelligently without a graph because words are inadequate to describe the effects of any given tax cut -- a fact which republicans and democrats are eager to use for their own benefit. I also wanted to point out that your analogy misses another point which might affect people's opinion about taxes: how much money people have. If the first four men were
Brit wrote: It's not like the rich can just opt-out of the tax system. In small ways they can. Think about the marriage penalty, where two incomes are stacked with the bulk of one of the incomes taxed at the highest rate - an annual penalty of say, 5k, for being married legally. How many couple would you imagine are living together instead of being married. Brit wrote: The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. There's an awful lot of space in this quote. The fact is, you have to pay income taxes before those taxes can be reduced. The noise you hear "benefits the rich" is the start of a pitch to eliminate social secutity taxes, for the "poor". Social Security was established to provide a way to make sure that "you" saved something for your retirement. A fall out of the depression era. Now that 50% of the USA does not pay income taxes the Democrats have to buy votes somehow - so, now they're pushing to hand the same 50% a free retirement, funded by those rich people. But in general, is it correct to: Tax wealth when someone dies, before it can get to the heirs? Even if it sounds like a good idea, what would you do for farmers and small business men/women who only have that farm or business to pass on down to the family? Those farms and those businesses are considered taxable wealth and the land (in the case of a farm) is valued at whatever the governing body deems appropriate. On to dividends: A dividend paid to stockholders represents: 1) money that has survived taxation at the corporate level, 2) is not being held onto as retained earnings. So, it has been taxed once already, what is the logic (except legalized theft) that allows the same money to be taxed a second time? Mike
-
One problem with your statement is that the current state of democracy in not very indicative of society. Our beauracracy tends to leave old laws in place without needed change and new laws become inane and inneffective. Our welfare system was created during the great depression at a time of great need, and has been managed to the point of collapse. The people who need help do not get it while others who are just lazy ruin the system. And even those who need help are not totally without blame, like a single mother with multiple kids, she need to take responsibility for her actions and stop having children. Many people who are wealthy would have no problem giving money to a program that works but our current system doesnt. I had no vote into how our current system works, it was setup way before me, and changing the system takes a long time. Just look at social security, I guarantee you if I took the same money and invested it I would make way more than what social security will give me when I retire(if it still exists at all). But I am forced to put money into this hole because most people arent smart enough to save their money. Cleve Littlefield Senior Developer Visual Office
>. Our welfare system was created during the great depression at a time of great need The federal welfare system did not exist until the 60s. I believe there were several state systems before that, but I do not know when they started. > But I am forced to put money into this hole because most people arent smart enough to save their money. Thats misleading, Social Security was enacted during the Great Depression after the Industrial Revolution. It was the IR that created a large group of people that were to old to work, but too young to die. The Government's idea was to help suppliment pensions and somehow this would stave off another depression. It didn't occur to the Econimists that educating people on the need to save could do the same thing. Even though Social Security supposed to be bankrupt by 2020, you are forced to pay it because the government uses the funds to spend more money from the general fund and keep it off budget (Plus the large voting baby boomer segment is still collecting it). Also at the time that this program was conceived, Socialism, Social Democracy and/or Communism were popular ideas here and abroad. I think that had some effect on its passage.
-
I don't have children, thats a choice I made. You do. Thats a choice you made. You make your own choices. If you couldn't afford to clothe and feed your children, I would be fore helping you out. I would give you money to fix your car, to pay your past due bills and perhaps to atttend additional training. Rest assured, your life would still suck in some regards, I wouldn't pay your way completely, and you would end up working very very hard what you got.
Richard Melton wrote: I don't have children, thats a choice I made. You do. Thats a choice you made. You make your own choices. True and I wouldn't give them up for anything. Richard Melton wrote: If you couldn't afford to clothe and feed your children, I would be fore helping you out. I would give you money to fix your car, to pay your past due bills and perhaps to atttend additional training. Rest assured, your life would still suck in some regards, I wouldn't pay your way completely, and you would end up working very very hard what you got. If it only worked like this I would be happy. That's a good attitude to have. Feel like running for office here in Australia? Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
-
So funny. A friend of mine, chasseur alpin, made a combat training with mountain forces from different countries, a nice week of combat in the charming Alps. He was very impressed by the Bundeswehr, because of the quality of the german equipment (the french one was pitiful, but it obliged them to apply the système D, resourcefulness). 1 year after he was still laughing about the performance of the US troops. I'M KIDDING TOO! (even if my story is true, nananere)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
>1 year after he was still laughing about the performance of the US troops. There's only so much smarts in the military to go around and right now all of our quota into our bombs. ;)
-
What about health care? access to culture? access to comunnication systems?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: What about health care? State funded medicare for the poor. Funding determined by individual states, who -yes, also tax. Some monies do come down from the Federal level. The problem here are liberal benefits granted by individual states that are difficult to fund when times are difficult. I'll give you an example. I live in Indiana. We (for some reason, still can't figure it out) have elected a Democratic governor for the last 8+ years. Times were pretty good up until the dot.com bubble burst. We're not a techhie state, a distribution center / automobile parts manfacturer / farming. The end result was that we enefitted from the fake wealth (ok, that is harsh) generated by the bubble. So the State of Indiana creates a magnificant set of health benefits for the children (just one example, by the way). The benefits are so good, and the state politicians soooo Democratic that they go out and explain to union workers that their children would be much better off on the state program, and, they in turn could save some money - that, they should drop the group health insurance on the children and move them to medicade. Guess what. Economy turns down, tax collections go down and now the State of Indiana has a deficit. KaЯl wrote: access to culture? Libraries are free. Sometimes museums are as well. Nope, you have to pay for plays. However, here in Indianapolis there is free "Shakesphere in the park" during the summer. KaЯl wrote: access to comunnication systems? You have to pay for phones. In decent sized districts, 'net access is free in libraries (ok, courtesy of a Democrat - Al Gore, the last VP who pushed for it). Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop Pretty soon people wake up and realize that Mike
-
You're not the only one. I lost a company to a lawsuit, a wife and what was left to a divorce, all at age 44, and had to start back a < 0. But I had a blast building the company, stayed friends with my ex, rebuilt my career, paid-off lawsuit settlements - blame no one but myself for the problems and keep going forward appreciating the past and enjoying each new morning. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: You're not the only one. I lost a company to a lawsuit, a wife and what was left to a divorce, all at age 44, and had to start back a < 0. But I had a blast building the company, stayed friends with my ex, rebuilt my career, paid-off lawsuit settlements - blame no one but myself for the problems and keep going forward appreciating the past and enjoying each new morning. You Americans just have to win everything, don't you! :-D I hope there were no kids involved to have go through all that and if there were that they have come out of it alright. Glad to see you have the right outlook on life. I'm still trying to get mine back. Though I never really had one to start with, but that's another story all together. Eagerly waiting for the market to pick up so I can get back into programming or at least system administration. These non technical jobs are driving me absolutely mad. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
-
Richard Melton wrote: I don't have children, thats a choice I made. You do. Thats a choice you made. You make your own choices. True and I wouldn't give them up for anything. Richard Melton wrote: If you couldn't afford to clothe and feed your children, I would be fore helping you out. I would give you money to fix your car, to pay your past due bills and perhaps to atttend additional training. Rest assured, your life would still suck in some regards, I wouldn't pay your way completely, and you would end up working very very hard what you got. If it only worked like this I would be happy. That's a good attitude to have. Feel like running for office here in Australia? Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
Only if I could demolish the ATSB and repeal your helmet law. You guys started the helmet mess.
-
Michael Martin wrote: Now I see the US as, f*** you buddy, I'm all right jack, every man for himself and walking over the top of everyone else to get to where you want to be. I am not sure how the system works where you are but in the USA 50% of the eaarning population pay no income taxes and there's a political party that operates on the premise that if you'll only elect me, I'll give you (pick something). We literally have generations that have not worked and live on welfare. I personally have known, and this is 40 years ago before it got worse, individuals who gave their children to other families so those families could qualify for higher benefits. For what it is worth, I believe in a safety net. Yes, financed by taxes. But not a life financed by taxes. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: I am not sure how the system works where you are but in the USA 50% of the eaarning population pay no income taxes and there's a political party that operates on the premise that if you'll only elect me, I'll give you (pick something). I don't fully understand how the tax system works here in Australia and I definitely don't know how it works in the US. I know that we can't claim our house repayments (one we live in not one we have as an investment property) off our tax but that this happens in the US. We too have a good selection of the population who pay little or no tax. Generally they are the dishonest bastards who some how get away with tax fraud and the extremely rich who play around with extra companies, wife and kids 'owning' assets etc. to circumvent the laws. It's all bullshit and we just need a way to make sure everyone paid there fair share of tax. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for someone to provide a solution. I know I sure as hell don't have one. I thought all political parties everywhere told these sorts of lies to attract the maximum number of votes. I know both major parties here do. Mike Gaskey wrote: We literally have generations that have not worked and live on welfare. I personally have known, and this is 40 years ago before it got worse, individuals who gave their children to other families so those families could qualify for higher benefits. Well that's pretty fucked up and shouldn't be tolerated. Both families deserve arse kicking for that shit. Mike Gaskey wrote: For what it is worth, I believe in a safety net. Yes, financed by taxes. But not a life financed by taxes. I agree totally, I just wish we had one that worked correctly. Until I lost my job I thought all unemployed were bludgers. Yes I know many are, I had to 'Work For the Dole' where I met many unemployed and saw them. I now work for the company that run's a 'Work For the Dole' scheme and still meet many bludgers that don't want to work. But I also see people trying to get back in with no luck just like I had. I was glad the unemployment benefits were there when I needed it. But the infrastructure underlying it failed in helping find what certificates/skills were required to get in to shit shovelling style work (yes I was willing to do labouring and actually applied many places). Once I found what I needed I had no way of paying for it and there was no one else hanging around to do so. An
-
Yes, ultimately it comes down to the original question of "how much should each person pay?" In the case of the latest tax cuts (which mostly affect the rich), Bush is essentially saying, "the current situation asks the rich to pay too much". It all depends on that calculation. Relative to other countries, the US does seem to favor the rich, but "what other countries do" is not an objective measure of anything. A great deal of the ideas of "what is a fair tax system" revolves around people's perceptions of wealth and how it is aquired. Some people will say that wealth comes from hard work and determination -- in other words the rich have earned every penny. If this is your perception, you might think the rich get taxed too much. On the other hand, if you think the rich are rich because they didn't have to deal with racism, they inherited it, they won it in a lottery, or they were lucky enough to have access to education -- then you probably see wealth as something which isn't earned (and therefore, isn't completely deserved). Instead, wealth just falls into your lap by accident of birth. In this view, the rich should be heavily taxed (because they didn't do anything to earn it) and the poor should be given healthy sums of free money. The situation is varies from person to person (some really did earn it and others had it fall into their lap). But, quite a few people will emphasize one side or the other and then use this to justify their ideas about taxes. (Unsurprisingly, the rich are likely to say they earned it and the poor are likely to say it was all an accident of birth.) I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore." It's not like the rich can just opt-out of the tax system. If they moved from the US to another developed country, they would most likely end up paying more in taxes. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. There's an awful lot of space in this quote. The important thing the the quantitative benefit. IMO, you can't really talk about any particular tax cut very intelligently without a graph because words are inadequate to describe the effects of any given tax cut -- a fact which republicans and democrats are eager to use for their own benefit. I also wanted to point out that your analogy misses another point which might affect people's opinion about taxes: how much money people have. If the first four men were
Brit wrote: I also wanted to point out that your analogy misses another point which might affect people's opinion about taxes: how much money people have. If the first four men were dirt poor and the tenth man had only $60 to begin with, this taxation system looks like it overtaxes the rich (IMO). On the other hand, if the first four men were dirt poor and the tenth man has 10 trillion dollars, then it doesn't appear to "overtax" the rich. In fact, it might even be reasonable to ask that ultra-rich person to pickup the whole tab. I'm not arguing that the tenth person should be taxed even higher -- I'm just pointing out the fact that "total wealth" is a variable that affects the perception of "what is a fair tax system?". You mention that "10% of the population pays ~69% of the taxes", but that tells me nothing unless I can help gauge what that means by more information - for example "10% of the population owns 99% of the wealth". If that's true, then the "69% of the taxes" number doesn't seem so unfair. In the year 2000, 68% of the total net worth was owned by 10% of the population. The top 20% of the population receives 47.3% of the income.
-
Brit wrote: It's not like the rich can just opt-out of the tax system. In small ways they can. Think about the marriage penalty, where two incomes are stacked with the bulk of one of the incomes taxed at the highest rate - an annual penalty of say, 5k, for being married legally. How many couple would you imagine are living together instead of being married. Brit wrote: The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. There's an awful lot of space in this quote. The fact is, you have to pay income taxes before those taxes can be reduced. The noise you hear "benefits the rich" is the start of a pitch to eliminate social secutity taxes, for the "poor". Social Security was established to provide a way to make sure that "you" saved something for your retirement. A fall out of the depression era. Now that 50% of the USA does not pay income taxes the Democrats have to buy votes somehow - so, now they're pushing to hand the same 50% a free retirement, funded by those rich people. But in general, is it correct to: Tax wealth when someone dies, before it can get to the heirs? Even if it sounds like a good idea, what would you do for farmers and small business men/women who only have that farm or business to pass on down to the family? Those farms and those businesses are considered taxable wealth and the land (in the case of a farm) is valued at whatever the governing body deems appropriate. On to dividends: A dividend paid to stockholders represents: 1) money that has survived taxation at the corporate level, 2) is not being held onto as retained earnings. So, it has been taxed once already, what is the logic (except legalized theft) that allows the same money to be taxed a second time? Mike
Tax wealth when someone dies, before it can get to the heirs? Even if it sounds like a good idea, what would you do for farmers and small business men/women who only have that farm or business to pass on down to the family? Those farms and those businesses are considered taxable wealth and the land (in the case of a farm) is valued at whatever the governing body deems appropriate. If the government wanted to protect this segment of the working public, they should've added some extra clauses relating specifically to farmers, or they could said that there is no inheritance tax on assets smaller than say $250,000. (They seem infinitely capable of adding clauses when they need them.) Instead, they've "fat-fingered" the issue and "oops!" now the children of CEOs can inherit $500 million dollars instead of the paultry $300 million. Well, that $200 million dollars has to be raised somewhere, so even if they raise taxes in proportion to the amount that people are currently paying, it ends up being a regressive tax. That fact is hidden in the details, however. There were even a bunch of millionaires against this removal of the inheritance tax. Roughly 120 millionaires and billionaires have circulated a petition protesting President Bush's plan to phase out the estate tax by 2009. Big names on the petition, which will appear in an advertisement in The New York Times on Feb. 18, include George Soros and William H. Gates Sr., the father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, the richest man in the world. Warren Buffett (No. 4 on the Forbes Four Hundred Richest in America) prefers not to be grouped with riffraff like Soros (No. 44, with a fortune valued at $5 billion) or David Rockefeller Jr., and did not sign the petition. But he supports the idea. http://www.forbes.com/2001/02/14/0214topnews.html[^] A dividend paid to stockholders represents: 1) money that has survived taxation at the corporate level, 2) is not being held onto as retained earnings. So, it has been taxed once already, what is the logic (except legalized theft) that allows the same money to be taxed a second time? More generally, what effect will this have on the tax distribution? It will lower the taxes for the rich and that's taxes that will have to be made up elsewhere. If this removal of dividends tax is accompanied by an increase in taxes on the same demogr
-
Cute story. But your analogy is, in my opinion, incorrect. In your story, you are discussing people paying for a meal and making this an analogy to paying taxes. This is incorrect, because taxes are applied to income. Therefore, the first 5 men would be dead of starvation (having no income), the fifth would be eating mac&cheese, the sixth, seventh and eighth would be brown bagging it, the ninth would go to the local deli, and the tenth would be eating at the country club and picking up the tab for the local senator. It would, instead, be better to distribute $2 among the 10 men. After all, the constitution says that all men (and women, I suppose!) are created equal. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka MuraokaSounds like socialism to me:mad: Redistribution of wealth my ass. ******************** * $TeVe McLeNiThAn ********************
-
One problem with your statement is that the current state of democracy in not very indicative of society. Our beauracracy tends to leave old laws in place without needed change and new laws become inane and inneffective. Our welfare system was created during the great depression at a time of great need, and has been managed to the point of collapse. The people who need help do not get it while others who are just lazy ruin the system. And even those who need help are not totally without blame, like a single mother with multiple kids, she need to take responsibility for her actions and stop having children. Many people who are wealthy would have no problem giving money to a program that works but our current system doesnt. I had no vote into how our current system works, it was setup way before me, and changing the system takes a long time. Just look at social security, I guarantee you if I took the same money and invested it I would make way more than what social security will give me when I retire(if it still exists at all). But I am forced to put money into this hole because most people arent smart enough to save their money. Cleve Littlefield Senior Developer Visual Office
CleverGuy wrote: Just look at social security, I guarantee you if I took the same money and invested it I would make way more than what social security will give me when I retire(if it still exists at all). But I am forced to put money into this hole because most people arent smart enough to save their money. Start your own S Corporation. That way you do not have to pay Social Security on all of your income. :)
-
> Be prepared for the capitalistic short sighted Americans Robert Owen came here in 1825 and managed to destroy a thriving community. Babeuf, of course, never managed to put his ideology into play. I won't even go into Lennin's flavor of the world. Once again, I'm not against helping some one out. I am against robbing someone because of their class. I can only go quid pro quo here, but show me a capitalistic socitety (that started out that way) that has gone socialist. Now show me a socialist (in the original and new senses of the word) society that has gone capitalist. Fundamentally, it comes down to if you believe people are the same as they have been for thousands of years, or you believe that mankind has evolved past some sort of "predatory" phase of human development. So far believing the former has done better than the latter. Perfection may be somewhere in between the two.
Richard Melton wrote: Fundamentally, it comes down to if you believe people are the same as they have been for thousands of years, or you believe that mankind has evolved past some sort of "predatory" phase of human development. So far believing the former has done better than the latter. Perfection may be somewhere in between the two. Any philosophy that states that the primary driving force behind human beings is not or should not be selfishness is doomed. -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
-
Only if I could demolish the ATSB and repeal your helmet law. You guys started the helmet mess.
Richard Melton wrote: Only if I could demolish the ATSB and repeal your helmet law. You guys started the helmet mess. WTF is the ATSB? Why wouldn't you want to wear a helmet? I don't care how good a rider you think you are I could still run you off the road by accident and the helmet would be your best chance of survival. Also it would keep the bugs out of your teeth and help if a wayward bird was to hit you in the head at 60 mph. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
-
> Be prepared for the capitalistic short sighted Americans Robert Owen came here in 1825 and managed to destroy a thriving community. Babeuf, of course, never managed to put his ideology into play. I won't even go into Lennin's flavor of the world. Once again, I'm not against helping some one out. I am against robbing someone because of their class. I can only go quid pro quo here, but show me a capitalistic socitety (that started out that way) that has gone socialist. Now show me a socialist (in the original and new senses of the word) society that has gone capitalist. Fundamentally, it comes down to if you believe people are the same as they have been for thousands of years, or you believe that mankind has evolved past some sort of "predatory" phase of human development. So far believing the former has done better than the latter. Perfection may be somewhere in between the two.
Richard Melton wrote: Robert Owen came here in 1825 and managed to destroy a thriving community. Babeuf, of course, never managed to put his ideology into play. Don't know them, can't comment. Richard Melton wrote: Once again, I'm not against helping some one out. I am against robbing someone because of their class. It comes down to the fact I don't believe people will help down-and-outers out of the goodness of their hearts more than I dislike trusting a government to do it with my tax dollar. During my 13 months out of work I was on unemployment benefits for 8 months. I spent the first 5 just not wanting to go on them and thinking a job must be just around the corner. In all this time no friend, relative (I don't speak to family and my in-laws are pensioners) or benefactor help me once. In fact the bit work I could get was for a pitance. I was exploited by those who had the chance. While I still feel up shit creek without a paddle if not for government run unemployment I would be completely fucked. So short version government unemployment is a neccessary evil. Rich are more able to afford to miss a couple of extra dollars through tax. I did it for years (yes I was considered to be in the top echelons for tax purposes). I don;'t like it but actually through experience am glad it was there. Richard Melton wrote: I can only go quid pro quo here, but show me a capitalistic socitety (that started out that way) that has gone socialist. Now show me a socialist (in the original and new senses of the word) society that has gone capitalist. I wasn't bashing capitalism or Americans here. In another post I went into a bit more detail on why I thought the Americans would come in and attack KaRl (or who ever wrote the post I was replying too) and call him a Communist (Socialist was probably a better term). It is because they hate government run anything and still believe in the good of the individual to look after the community. A trait I think has gone out of humanity, not just Americans. Richard Melton wrote: Fundamentally, it comes down to if you believe people are the same as they have been for thousands of years, or you believe that mankind has evolved past some sort of "predatory" phase of human development. So far believing the former has done better than the latter. Perfection may be somewhere in between the two. I think humans are community apathetic and only care about the
-
Richard Melton wrote: Only if I could demolish the ATSB and repeal your helmet law. You guys started the helmet mess. WTF is the ATSB? Why wouldn't you want to wear a helmet? I don't care how good a rider you think you are I could still run you off the road by accident and the helmet would be your best chance of survival. Also it would keep the bugs out of your teeth and help if a wayward bird was to hit you in the head at 60 mph. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
> helmet would be your best chance of survival. Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). Similiar to the USA NHTSA. Another argument for another time, but statistically you are incorrect and policy wise you have the wrong value system.