American Taxes 101 (an analogy)
-
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.
-
KaЯl wrote: With these criteria even the Prince Charles is a communist :eek: I've just been in a few of these types of conversation on CP over the past couple of months. Many from the US seem to think the government should pull it's head in and let the people handle everything. They say that a community will see one of their own having problems, pull together and help that individual/family out. And with this happening all over and people helping cause they want too not because the government has taken their money and said they had too, all would be well. They then go on to say how this is how it happend back in their parents and grandparents day. Forgetting that back then the population was much smaller and people actually gave a fuck about one another. Now I see the US as, fuck 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. If you don't believe in this method, then you are communist who wants to live in Europe and be over governed and have you freedom removed. I know it's all horseshit, but that is what I have seen expressed. 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
Michael Martin wrote: They say that a community will see one of their own having problems, pull together and help that individual/family out. I guess you won't believe me then, but it is quite common for that to happen here. Last year there were at least three occasions where neighboring farmers help plow, seed, or harvest the fields because the owner was ill or had other problems. Its also not uncommon for pancake breakfasts or speghetti dinners to be held for the benefit of people who lost a home in a fire or have serious medical problems. I love living in rural areas :-D James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation
-
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
Francois Noel Babeuf was a French agitator who tried to overthrow the French government in the late 1790's. He put together the idea of socialism (all though he got some ideas from another French thinker who's name eludes me) that would supplant religion with socialism as the "one true way". Marx and Engels would adapt his philosophies into "Scientific Socalism". Babeuf was eventually Beheaded. (Sigh... France again ;) Robert Owen was a wealthy British man who embraced Babeuf's philosiphy and brought it to America. He was such a true believer in the Socalist ideal that he purchased land from a religious community that was prebuilt with housing, industry (shoes, textiles, candles, glue, beer, and many other things). The religous people had been there for a decade and had decided to move on. In 1825, Owen invited people interested in his idea to move to the site in New Harmony, Indiana and take over the established industries. It failed about a year later. His idea spawned 25-30 other communites that also failed. My point was that capitialism, with all its faults, embraces something solid... the idea that selfish incentives are the best way to motivate men. >I wasn't bashing capitalism or Americans here. Both are worthy of question. As a capitalist I believe that competition makes the system better. I believe that socialist ideas in some form can help to improve our system.
-
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
Err... the inheritance tax (Death Tax) was established in 1916 to fund WWI. I think any tax that discourages saving and encourages frivoulous spending is silly. I think people should get a death benifit for saving their money for their heirs. We've got Social Security that forces us to save and a Death Tax that encourages people spend. I have no idea why the rich oppose the repeal, but I don't much care. Rich people can be stupid too.... http://www.policyandtaxationgroup.com/repeal.htm
-
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
Brit wrote: then you'll have the guy at McDonalds paying $2k a year in taxes and the guy making $1 million paying $200,000. Thats only if you have each spending all of their money on non-essentials... The guy working at McDonald's is going to be buying far fewer non-essential items than the guy making $1 million. The guy making $1 million probably isn't even spending half of it, but most of that half he spends is going to be taxed, where as only a small portion of the McDonald's workers is going to be taxed. James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation
-
Err... the inheritance tax (Death Tax) was established in 1916 to fund WWI. I think any tax that discourages saving and encourages frivoulous spending is silly. I think people should get a death benifit for saving their money for their heirs. We've got Social Security that forces us to save and a Death Tax that encourages people spend. I have no idea why the rich oppose the repeal, but I don't much care. Rich people can be stupid too.... http://www.policyandtaxationgroup.com/repeal.htm
I think any tax that discourages saving and encourages frivoulous spending is silly. I think people should get a death benifit for saving their money for their heirs. Wait!! GW told me that spending money HELPS the economy. Now, saving money is good!? Besides, the estate tax also encourages charitable giving because the wealthy know they can either give $2 to a charity or pass on $1 to their heirs. I have no idea why the rich oppose the repeal, but I don't much care. Rich people can be stupid too.... They oppose it because they realize that their heirs (and all heirs to fabulous fortunes which they didn't earn) have no good reason to need all that money. Rather than watch their children get fat, lazy, and live off daddy's money, they'd rather see it go towards helping society as a whole. Sure, they could give it to charity on their own initiative, but they know that society would be better off with fewer "fat, lazy people living off daddy's money", and society would be better off if more people had access to a decent education. That's why the support it. BTW, they explain all these reasons in the article- The petition says,"Repealing the estate tax would enrich the heirs of America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet." http://www.forbes.com/2001/02/14/0214topnews.html[^] I should also mention that estate tax ONLY affects people who are passing more than $675,000 (or $1.35 million for couples) to their children. So much for the "family farm" example. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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 MuraokaMarc Clifton wrote: After all, the constitution says that all men (and women, I suppose!) are created equal. They may be created equal, but how they turn out is a different matter. Some are productive, useful members of society, some are lifetime parasites. Taxing the productive, those with the drive and genius to thrive and contribute to the pool of capital available to benefit all, in order to enable the worthless to breed and consume unearned resources, is economic suicide. Equalization of opportunity is a good thing; equal distribution of wealth regardless of the value of the recipient or contribution to general weal is evil. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
Brit wrote: then you'll have the guy at McDonalds paying $2k a year in taxes and the guy making $1 million paying $200,000. Thats only if you have each spending all of their money on non-essentials... The guy working at McDonald's is going to be buying far fewer non-essential items than the guy making $1 million. The guy making $1 million probably isn't even spending half of it, but most of that half he spends is going to be taxed, where as only a small portion of the McDonald's workers is going to be taxed. James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation
Thats only if you have each spending all of their money on non-essentials... The guy working at McDonald's is going to be buying far fewer non-essential items than the guy making $1 million. What's essential? Fast food is probably not an essential. Unprepared food is. What about a home? A small 500 square foot home? What about a $20 million dollar mansion? Is a car essential? What if it's a geo metro? What if it's a sports car? Are clothes an essential? Do you know how many businesses will be fighting to get their products defined as "essential"? Can you come up with some good examples of non-essential items? Or am I supposed to believe that a person with a little income is just going to have to go without a car, a housing, and clothes? Our current sales tax system assumes pretty much everything is taxable except unprepared food. Is that the only item that is untaxable? Because food accounts for a fraction of a person's total expenses in life. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
> 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: show me a capitalistic socitety (that started out that way) that has gone socialist. The Peoples' Republic of California comes to mind... Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
You say $92K a year is *not* rich? Where do you live? If I were making $92K, I'd be livin' it large here in KY. :cool: As it is, I'm nowhere *near* that, and I still do better than many. You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.
It would be a severe strain for you making 92K to make payments on an average house in the PRC, but you could live like a king here in AZ. Location, location, location - the three most important things to consider... Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
I though you would find the following interesting. How Taxes Work.... Keep in mind that 10% of the population pays ~69% of the taxes, ie: those "rich" people making over 92k per year (like a firefighter in Marin county). Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language-- a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and The sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. T
Richard Melton wrote: They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! I enjoyed the story but won't comment on wether it is a far analogy or not. I will say this though: Surely if the 10th chap did not pitch up that night the bill would have been less and so it would not have been 52 dollars outstanding, but a few dollars less? Just a minor technicality, but as we all know every nit picker will use it to invalidate the whole arguement.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africalauren wrote: theyre making a movie about me "confessions of a dangerous bitch" (hey! she said it, not me)
-
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
-
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!"
Russell Morris wrote: Any philosophy that states that the primary driving force behind human beings is not or should not be selfishness is doomed. So, a philosophy which would prone to forget selfishness and to love our neighbor as ourselve is doomed, isn't it ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Marc Clifton wrote: After all, the constitution says that all men (and women, I suppose!) are created equal. They may be created equal, but how they turn out is a different matter. Some are productive, useful members of society, some are lifetime parasites. Taxing the productive, those with the drive and genius to thrive and contribute to the pool of capital available to benefit all, in order to enable the worthless to breed and consume unearned resources, is economic suicide. Equalization of opportunity is a good thing; equal distribution of wealth regardless of the value of the recipient or contribution to general weal is evil. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003Some are productive, useful members of society, some are lifetime parasites. Taxing the productive, those with the drive and genius to thrive and contribute to the pool of capital available to benefit all, in order to enable the worthless to breed and consume unearned resources, is economic suicide. I agree. But you're ignoring the middle. Take for example my girlfriend. She makes $8/hr working at a daycare, doing one of the most important jobs on earth--taking care of an infant human being, someone else's at that. And she works her butt off, unlike her coworkers that take cigarette breaks, coffee breaks, donut breaks, and when they're actually in the facility, are yacking and not working. Now, at $16,000 a year, pre tax, she can't possibly afford an apartment here in Rhode Island. And the taxes taken out of her paycheck are considerable, and that doesn't even take into account her contribution to her health care plan. On this salary, she has no hope of ever attaining the American Dream--owning her own home, etc. What I'd like to see is for this country to change its system of values, and place people like educators in the front of the income distribution line. 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 Muraoka -
> 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.
Richard Melton wrote: Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). Similiar to the USA NHTSA. Haven't heard of either of them. Richard Melton wrote: Another argument for another time, but statistically you are incorrect... Statistics can be used to prove anything. I would back someone to live with the helmet on if they hit a car or the road with their head. I wouldn't for the person without the helmet. Richard Melton wrote: ...policy wise you have the wrong value system. I don't understand what you mean here. 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
-
Michael Martin wrote: They say that a community will see one of their own having problems, pull together and help that individual/family out. I guess you won't believe me then, but it is quite common for that to happen here. Last year there were at least three occasions where neighboring farmers help plow, seed, or harvest the fields because the owner was ill or had other problems. Its also not uncommon for pancake breakfasts or speghetti dinners to be held for the benefit of people who lost a home in a fire or have serious medical problems. I love living in rural areas :-D James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation
James T. Johnson wrote: I guess you won't believe me then, but it is quite common for that to happen here. Last year there were at least three occasions where neighboring farmers help plow, seed, or harvest the fields because the owner was ill or had other problems. Its also not uncommon for pancake breakfasts or speghetti dinners to be held for the benefit of people who lost a home in a fire or have serious medical problems. I love living in rural areas :-D Apples and Oranges James. The same thing happens quite a bit out here in the country. I grew up where the country (rural) and suburbs met, it is completely different to the cities and built up areas. I have noticed that in the past 30 years that the generosity of spirit of the country and bush areas is dying. Not as quickly as the suburban areas but it's still happening. I still stand by my statement that it's basically dog eat dog and no one gives a fuck about others. I see it everyday and even here in the Code Project community it pervades. Not so much in the chatty cheerful regulars butin those on the fringes and the others that occasionaly drop in. Not a good trait in people but one that's growing and I think soon it will only happen to people well known to the benefactor or when they will get publicity they think is worth more than the cost to them. Similar to Bill giving all the money to India. He didn't give money, it was licenses that cost him nothing (OK so it cost to develop the software but it has already been paid off) and he's giving it to people who wouldn't have bought the licenses anyway. But now he is getting the products out in to the hands of the second largest population in the world. Hoping to get them hooked, then get the government followed by he people buying Microsoft. Eventually he will have development or call centres running there. I know the analogy isn't particularly good but it was meant to show the way I believe people are now or are heading towards. Ulterior motives. 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