Eat the Rich

[87chevy]

Then taxes would work the other way around with the rich paying almost nothing and the poor paying the most. But then you wouldn't need taxes at all.

Uh.... What country do you live in....? In the US bush has already made it so that the richest of the rich DONT pay taxes. So now they benefit from every other service of the government that we do and don't contribute at all....So this is the right way to do things in your opinion? Just continue to allow the rich to get richer and let the poor people live in squaler. And where the **** are you people getting the idea that monopolies have never existed? I guess all my history books in shcool were complete lies and propoganda......


edit: And how bout the Corporations.....okay, wait, no, i won't bring that up in here......

 

[Famine]

You can make a reasonable case that humanity never existed either - in 4.5 billion years of this planet, we've only been on it for about 1.2 million years, or 0.03% of the time. That's not statistically significant, so can be ignored - let alone any form of financial organisation which will have only been around in the last 1200 years (0.001% of humanity's time on Earth).

But that's just being obtuse.

 

[///M-Spec]

Uh.... What country do you live in....? In the US bush has already made it so that the richest of the rich DONT pay taxes.

87Chevy, don't take the wrong way, because I like you. But you need to stop believing that crap liberal politicians feed you just to get your vote. That statement is so wrong, its not funny.

FACT

-The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
-The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.

The vast majority of the US tax burden falls on the rich. Source: US Congressional Budget Office

Those of you interested in analysis (oh! oh! pretty charts!) based on these numbers can find it HERE.

Think about that: take 100 random people and just FIVE of them pays 50% of everyone else's tax burden. So the next time you see a "rich" person, instead of keying his Jaguar, maybe you should thank him for all the roads and subsidised healthcare and tanks and stuff they foot most of the bill on.

Just continue to allow the rich to get richer and let the poor people live in squaler.

Stop making this an emotional issue for a minute and think this through logically.

Wealth is not a pizza. It is not like rich people take too many slices and poor people end up with an empty box. It doesn't work that way. Wealth is a fluid, dynamic thing, not a static one. You don't RUN OUT OF WEALTH as long as there are people working.

What happens when people make a lot of money? Do they just take a bags of gold coins, toss them in a giant vault and when know one is looking, they jump in the pile like Scrooge McDuck and yell "whoope!!"?

No. In a non-planned, non-central economy, wealth is almost always used to create more wealth. Rich people invest their money. The money is lent to other people so they can start a business, buy a house or pay for their child's education. If they make smart investments, the wealth is multiplied. The new business pays off; the house allows for comfortable retirement and kids end up becoming educated members of the work force. Then the cycle continues.

Does everyone win? Not everyone. Just like life, there are winners and losers. You place your bets, you take your chances. No matter what liberals tell you, there are no guarantees in life. I lost well over 5 figures in a start up venture three years ago. Do you hear me whining about it? NO.

And you make it sound like Americans who aren't "rich" live in a miserable existence with no hope for anything better. That's bullpuckey. I've been there. I know. Even the "poor" people in the United States command vast riches compared to truly poor people in the rest of the world. Look in any ghetto and you'll see well-dressed kids everywhere. Its hard to feel sorry for poverty when it wears $150 gym shoes.

Why do Mexicans risk their very lives to enter the US illegally at the rate of 300,000 a year??? Surely not so they can live in filth and squalor.

Poor is sub-Saharan Africa. Poor is rural India. If you want to get sanctimonious, why don't you send half of your paycheck to those kids you see on the Christian Children's Fund commercials? Then you can come back here and tell us how horrible we are for wanting to keep some of our hard earned cash.

And where the **** are you people getting the idea that monopolies have never existed? I guess all my history books in shcool were complete lies and propoganda......

Yeah, I think history books are filled with half-truths and distortions. They used to teach white kids they were better than Negro kids too, you know.

Read THIS. Then get back to me.


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Ugh. Double posted again.

 

[///M-Spec]

Anyone else having problems with GTP6? Or is it just me?


M

 

[87chevy]

too bad all that pretty tax info is over 5 years old..... still, that's the way it should be, and don't ever confuse me with being a liberal. Liberals are idiots, as a are hard core conservatives.

 

[Carl.]

Anyone else having problems with GTP6? Or is it just me?

I often have error pages after clicking on 'submit reply', and I lose all I've typed in , so now I always copy it in the clipboard just in case. So far the site is preventing me from double posting, I get a warning message then I get back to the thread. (from the advanced reply, at least) - I'm on IE.

-The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
-The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.

That would also mean that 5% of the working population is earning about 50% of the total income, which describes well how much of the global wealth is already in very few hands. I'll take the time to read your article before going further into this.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Here's some more tax info, look fro the "Adjusted Gross Income Shares" table. Maybe there is more recent information on this site than that, I'll have to look later. Anyway, rest assured, rich people pay a huge portion of the taxes (today... right now).

The figures on this website indicate that the top 25% pays for more than 60% of your government services. Just as ///M suggested, I'd like to thank all the rich people out there who are paying for my share.

That would also mean that 5% of the working population is earning about 50% of the total income,

You imply that there is something wrong with that. What's wrong with 5% of the population earning a ton more than the rest of us? They earned it! They brought you goods and services that give you more free time and increased your lifespan... and it was YOU that's right YOU and me who decided that they should make that much by paying the price they asked for their products. You've already decided that it's fair.

 

[ledhed]

Did anyone stop to consider just how you get rich ? think of all you have to produce of all the hard work. Think of all the people you have to employ to multiply your efforts. I have been a small business owner and have felt the satisfaction of creating jobs for the people that worked with me. It felt great to be able to help put food on some tables beside my own. I may not be a rich dude but I have always known that in this country its could happen with hard work and some luck. I cant see why because someone is good at what he does and is able to make money he must be penalized. remember if you eat the rich who will provide the jobs when they are gone ? If you take too much you lose the best people and are left with no one to create jobs , lend money and invent .
Like Famine says you just take your show to someone or someplace better..well Famine didn't say that but he should have..Think of what taxes provide and what they do not provide. Taxes do not provide jobs that produce more wealth, they just distribute the wealth that already exist and not very efficiently.
Taxes are needed in a large and diverse country such as the US but they need to be applied carefully and fairly.
Btw I see nothing wrong with the top 1%/ 5% figures try to remember its all relative.
I do see something wrong with the 40% figure. famine if someone tried to take 40 % of my pay they had better bring the cops ! To me thats unfair it sounds like the same people that came up with the so called fair tax plan in screw Jersey are involved.

 

[Sage]

Did anyone stop to consider just how you get rich ? think of all you have to produce of all the hard work. Think of all the people you have to employ to multiply your efforts. I have been a small business owner and have felt the satisfaction of creating jobs for the people that worked with me. It felt great to be able to help put food on some tables beside my own. I may not be a rich dude but I have always known that in this country its could happen with hard work and some luck. I cant see why because someone is good at what he does and is able to make money he must be penalized. remember if you eat the rich who will provide the jobs when they are gone ? If you take too much you lose the best people and are left with no one to create jobs , lend money and invent .

Exactly! I remember Duke making a statement about this regarding CEOs earning 6-7 digit sums of money a long time ago, but the point is, rich people are usually in the position to provide jobs for others. Rich people help make it possible for others to make money.

 

[Duke]

Uh.... What country do you live in....? In the US bush has already made it so that the richest of the rich DONT pay taxes. So now they benefit from every other service of the government that we do and don't contribute at all...

Uh, I have to throw this right back atcha, bud. What country do you live in? Don't believe the liberal propoganda - it's worse, if anything, than the conservative propoganda. What you just wrote there is just about the most factually incorrect thing I've ever read here.

[edit] Ah, I see ///M has already risen to the defense. Thanks.

 

[87chevy]

well.......................................Here's the thing, the liberals are complaining because someone is getting away with paying no taxes.......now, i guess it's obvious they might make it sound worse than it is, okay. However I doubt they'd make an argument with absolutely 0 validity. Liberals might be completey misguided but they are not all dumb. Even though that tax info provided by ///M was about 5 years old (hmmm placing it in Clintons era when we were getting out of debt..... that's interesting, may have to look at that more) Even if the figures are still the same, yeah my comment was wrong, and based only on what i hear from others, but, I completey support that it should remain that way. danoff continues to insist that every rich person has earned their wealth. That's not true, and i'm sure he knows that there are plenty of people who have not earned their wealth, he just hasn't stated it. I think what it really comes down to as why this is pissing me off, is that really, i see some of you as defending human greed and not knowing it. If you have enough for a multi-million dollar home and a 200k car, BE F#CKING HAPPY YOU WORTHLESS ****!!!!!! sorry sorry sorry, uncalled for but i can't stand it!!!! Defending the horribly wealthy just turns my soul, something in my sould tells me that there is something very wrong about that.......... sure, you should be able to have the ability to earn what you can, but once it reaches a certain point, where you have more than enough than you NEED, you should be satisfied and not expect more. I'm going to do my best to make this my last post in defense of my beliefs on this issue and only observe from here on out. maybe give famine some 👍 's here and there but there's no way i'll be able to hold onto my sanity if i continue to trade blows with you people in here, and i don't want to ruin my rep and relationships on GTP so i'll exit stage right.................

 

[///M-Spec]

That would also mean that 5% of the working population is earning about 50% of the total income, which describes well how much of the global wealth is already in very few hands.

No it wouldn't JP. Do the math.

Besides, the vast majority of global wealth is in the hands of governments. In the US, the federal and state government produces over 35% of the GDP and is also the largest employer. There is no question where the wealth is, and it is not in the hands of the private sector.

I'm going to do my best to make this my last post in defense of my beliefs on this issue and only observe from here on out. maybe give famine some 's here and there but there's no way i'll be able to hold onto my sanity if i continue to trade blows with you people in here, and i don't want to ruin my rep and relationships on GTP so i'll exit stage right.................

Rule #1 of debate is to never take it personally. Why bother? This thread changes nothing in the real world. We're just 5 or 6 people having a discussion.

Remember that healthy debate is one of the most American things there is.


M

 

[Duke]

That would also mean that 5% of the working population is earning about 50% of the total income, which describes well how much of the global wealth is already in very few hands.

It would mean that if there was a fair, flat-rate income tax system in place... which it isn't. What I find amusing and annoying is that New Liberals refer to a flat-rate tax system as "regressive" and a graduated tax as "progressive".

You're also still failing to grasp what ///M wrote above. There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world that has to be shared around. Wealth is created by human thought and effort. Rich people do not get rich by taking money away from poor people - they create wealth by investing, running companies, inventing products, etc. More often than not they bring a lot of other people along for the ride, too.

No one in the New Liberal camp has ever managed to explain how offering someone a job at a low wage is worse than not offering them a job AT ALL. If low-wage factory workers in Korea, Mexico, and Indiana weren't earning money working in a factory, what would they be doing? Scratching in the dirt to grow subsistence food! It is because someone had money to build a factory and an idea to make a product that they have jobs at all.

I'm not trying to make the case that a laborer's life is easy - it's not. It takes a lot of hard work to substitute muscles for brains. Muscles are also much more common than brains, so the supply is big and the price for muscles is low. If the laborer can find a way to create wealth better, then (s)he will become wealthier.

Yes, some - many - rich people inherit their wealth. But remember, it's not like they asked to be born to that particular situation any more than some inner city ghetto kid. That's the luck of the draw. Life can be fair without being equal. But a rich kid doesn't automatically not deserve his wealth. He may deserve my respect if he works hard and increases it, or he may deserve my scorn if he wastes it stupidly, but it's no one's place to say he doesn't deserve to own it.

A lot of you have been seduced by/brainwashed/taught the idea of positive rights - the idea that people, by simple virtue of their need, are positively entitled to certain things. This is a phenomenon of the last 200 years or so, and particularly the last 100. But positive rights can only be provided to some people by taking that cost away from others. This is why positive rights are false.

What are real are called natural rights or negative rights. You have the right not to be interfered with in pursuit of a happy life - but that does not imply a right to have a happy life provided. Negative rights are centered around protecting people from having other people harm them, by violence or theft. But the right to be protected from others directly harming you does not equate to the right to be protected from everything.

 

[Danoff]

Even though that tax info provided by ///M was about 5 years old

Mine was 2 years old (considering that '04 isn't over with yet).

danoff continues to insist that every rich person has earned their wealth

I never said that, nor do I think it. Some rich people have stolen their wealth and deserve to go to jail. Others have inherited it and own it legitimately because their relatives earned it and decided to give it to the person they saw best fit to receive it.

I think what it really comes down to as why this is pissing me off, is that really, i see some of you as defending human greed and not knowing it.

I think what's really pissing you off is that I (and duke and I think ///M) are defending human greed and know it fully. Greed is not a bad thing, it's nature. It's a fact of life that we need to take into account. It has been genetically bred into us.

Now, watch what you do here:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have enough for a multi-million dollar home and a 200k car, BE F#CKING HAPPY YOU WORTHLESS ****!!!!!!

Worthless rich people

Defending the horribly wealthy just turns my soul

"horribly" wealthy. What do they need to be defended against?

where you have more than enough than you NEED, you should be satisfied and not expect more.

The assumption that it is expected, not necessarily worked for. And the assumption that it is not justifiable for rich people to expect what they have earned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are assuming that rich people contribute nothing to society. That they are worthless and horrbily wealthy (like that even makes sense, why is it horrible to be wealthy?).

Under these statements is a bias against people who have a lot of money. Where does it come from? Why does this bias exist? These people are not holding you down. They have taken nothing from you. They have not used you to get where they are. When was the last time a rich person broke in to your home and stole your belongings? It's your life. When you buy something or take a job you do so willingly - nobody is forcing you to do any of it. If you are not rich it's up to you to decide if you want to be and to make it happen. I'm not rich, but I'm trying to make it happen.

Why do you hate rich people so? I think from these quotes that it's clear that you do. How have they wronged you?


Edit: Worthless rich person who fed 200k into the car market and millions into real estate. Worthless bastard probably employs a butler and a driver not to mention whoever works for him at his company. Good-for-nothing rich person probably pays a gardener and huge sums of money to expensive restaurants that hire good chefs and waiters. Worthless rich person who spends too much money on electronics supporting the industry that so many people work in these days. Who tests out the latest gadgets at 10 times as much as they should cost so that manufacturers can work the kinks out of the technology to reduce the price to where the rest of us are willing to buy them. Worthless rich person who supports an army of investment bankers - hell just bankers in general. Who supports artists by buying expensive paintings for his lavish home. Who supports construction workers and the people who supply construction workers by building a top-of-the line home. Worthless guy probably gets a car wash ever other week supporting those people. Maybe he has a private jet and therefor supports the aerospace industry and whatever pilot he has working for him. The moron probably lays down thousands on his country club membership supporting all of those people at that work for the club. He probably buys a new car every other week and pays for the nicest bottled water. He probably has expensive wine in his home - allowing the wine industry to thrive. His company probably buys advertisement that all of those advertising people get paid to produce. He probably has to hire an actor to make the commerical too... man does he spend money!

And who gets that money?

 

[Duke]

Perhaps the word "free" is out of place. However, my brother has, over the course of his life, received schooling, training and healthcare that was free to him. Having survived everything life has thrown at him to reach an employable age, he is contributing back to allow others the same opportunity he was given - as do I, and I was given free university education as well.

Your brother has recieved an unknown and uncalculated sum in benefits, paid for by anonymous past people, and has now accepted an unending and untotalled burden of debt in order to pay back this unknowable amount to anonymous future people.

So how is your system better? Why is it so horrible to earn or borrow precisely what you need for expenses, and then pay precisely that amount back (plus interest), knowing that you will no longer bear that burden once you have cancelled the debt? I don't understand why this seems so unthinkable to some people.

To take all that has been given and not give anything back is selfish - or opportunistic, depending on your point of view. Perhaps we have been brainwashed into believing this - but there is nothing stopping any one of us leaving this society and joining another one to ply our trade.

No that's not "selfish" - that's "theft". Again, how is this better than a system where people incur debt to the precise amount of their expenses, and then are free once they have paid that debt?

No. A doctor must take the Hippocratic Oath so that he can practise what he has been taught. If he doesn't take the Oath, he cannot be a practising doctor. He is, if you will, forced to take the Oath and bound by that Oath to give medical help to anyone who asks for it.

But was that individual forced to become a doctor? NO. Therefore, it was a choice he made as part of the cost of becoming a doctor. Again, it was voluntary - if swearing the Hippocratic oath was morally impossible for him, he could have chosen some other profession that did not require such an oath. I am required by law to design safe buildings for people, but I am not required to do it for free.

This gets back to your "Sheffield supporter" comment as well. I think you need to investigate the nature of personal choice a little more carefully.

 

[Carl.]

So how is your system better? Why is it so horrible to earn or borrow precisely what you need for expenses, and then pay precisely that amount back (plus interest), knowing that you will no longer bear that burden once you have cancelled the debt? I don't understand why this seems so unthinkable to some people.

For schooling, Simply because the availibility of higher education lies within your performance and abilities, and not your parent's wallet. If you have the better skills to take the course, then you're in. If not, you're out. Quite simple, and in the end more efficient (well, maybe not for education costs, but in terms of results) than choosing students by how wealthy their parents are or their capacity to find money for it. How would you consider this to be unfair? - Note -> I don't recall anyone in this thread asking for all the wealth to be distributed equally. I'm quite sure Famine, Hare Turtle and 87chevy are clearly seeing a distinction between equality and fairness too.

I know there is a lot more points to address, I'll try to have a bit of time for during the rest of the day.

 

[///M-Spec]

Edit: Worthless rich person who fed 200k into the car market and millions into real estate. Worthless bastard probably employs a butler and a driver not to mention whoever works for him at his company. Good-for-nothing rich person probably pays a gardener and huge sums of money to expensive restaurants that hire good chefs and waiters. Worthless rich person who spends too much money on electronics supporting the industry that so many people work in these days. Who tests out the latest gadgets at 10 times as much as they should cost so that manufacturers can work the kinks out of the technology to reduce the price to where the rest of us are willing to buy them. Worthless rich person who supports an army of investment bankers - hell just bankers in general. Who supports artists by buying expensive paintings for his lavish home. Who supports construction workers and the people who supply construction workers by building a top-of-the line home. Worthless guy probably gets a car wash ever other week supporting those people. Maybe he has a private jet and therefor supports the aerospace industry and whatever pilot he has working for him. The moron probably lays down thousands on his country club membership supporting all of those people at that work for the club. He probably buys a new car every other week and pays for the nicest bottled water. He probably has expensive wine in his home - allowing the wine industry to thrive. His company probably buys advertisement that all of those advertising people get paid to produce. He probably has to hire an actor to make the commerical too... man does he spend money!

And who gets that money?

<applause>

But I think he really is out.


M

 

[Danoff]

For schooling, Simply because the availibility of higher education lies within your performance and abilities, and not your parent's wallet.

My parents didn't pay a dime for me to go to school and I did a lot of it. My wife is in school now and we're paying for it. Ever hear of scholarships and student loans? How about work-study?

 

[Duke]

For schooling, Simply because the availibility of higher education lies within your performance and abilities, and not your parent's wallet. If you have the better skills to take the course, then you're in. If not, you're out. Quite simple, and in the end more efficient (well, maybe not for education costs, but in terms of results) than choosing students by how wealthy their parents are or their capacity to find money for it. How would you consider this to be unfair?

Have you heard of private scholarships? A lot of people - my wife and I included - went to college with a combination of scholarships, student loans, and our money. The scholarships evaporate if you don't get good enough grades, and if you flunk out your student loans become due immediately, not interest-deferred until after you graduate.

I have a Master's-level degree. Am I somehow a less worthy student, because my parents paid for my undergraduate education in full? Grad school I did mostly on my own, as described above. My wife has a Bachelor's degree, paid for largely by scholarships and student loans, with some help from her parents. We both got out of school with approximately the same amount of debt. We have both paid that debt off plus interest. I make slightly more than she does because I have somewhat more education. I don't see how the "pay for yourself" system has failed here.

I'm not sure you really understand how this stuff works. You need to be a good enough student to get into the university in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, rich people do not automatically get into college just because their parents can pay for it. Admissions standards are admissions standards. They will not take a bad student who can pay his own way over a good student who cannot.

 

[Sage]

If you have enough for a multi-million dollar home and a 200k car, BE F#CKING HAPPY YOU WORTHLESS ****!!!!!! sorry sorry sorry, uncalled for but i can't stand it!!!!

I have a cousin, who we'll just refer to here as "Eric". Though his family (my aunt and uncle) were well off, they were by no means rich (both were engineers). However, Eric fostered his talents in working with computers – he built a computer completely from scratch when he was 14 – and about 6 or 7 years ago, he started a company, Inktomi. Inktomi was the very first search engine company that utilized a network of computers (about 50) instead of relying on a couple supercomputers... this was a concept that he and a friend from college came up with, put together, and took the risk in starting a company. I believe, though I'm not certain, that it was also the first search engine company that came up with the idea of having paid advertisers listed at the top of the search.

Anyway, Inktomi was bought out by Yahoo a year ago, but during its "life", especially during the .com boom, stock rose from $4 to $200, after splitting 3-4 times.

So, he became a millionaire. And yes, he has an expensive car – a BMW Z8. And you know what? He's not a "worthless ****". He's one of the nicest people I've ever known, and one of the smartest. He teaches computer science at a UC school, full-time now. He's very humble – he has the nice car and the nice house, and likes to keep a well-stocked wine cabinet, but otherwise he barely spends anything on lavishes. He and his wife have a son, and he's not spoiled whatsoever... just has the normal toys any little kid would have, like a little Tots Basketball thing.

By starting this company, he helped make the Internet more "known", he employed hundreds of people and paid them a good salary, and he made a company whose stocks gave many people (my parents included) a good profit. So how the hell is he a worthless **** just because he made money for himself too?

 

[87chevy]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

now look who's taking this pesonal! ha ha ha ha. wow, clearly my statement was to rich people unsatisfied with their wealth. oh you guys kill me!

 

[Danoff]

now look who's taking this pesonal! ha ha ha ha. wow, clearly my statement was to rich people unsatisfied with their wealth.

It looked like you were making your statement to rich people who were unsatisfied with having their earnings redistributed.

That's what it looked like to me anyway.

 

[Duke]

^^^^^^^^
What he said.

Besides, so what if rich people are unsatisfied with their wealth? So long as they don't expect someone else to come along and give them more money, why shouldn't they strive to earn more?

I have a decent middle class income. I sleep in a warm dry bed, I eat plenty of food, and I have a lot of toys. Yet I'd love to have more money. Does that make me a worthless ****, because I already have more than a lot of people do? Is it a sliding scale: anybody with more than me is a worthless, greedy SOB and anybody with less is a downtrodden peasant?

You're thinking with jealousy and emotion, 87chev, not with logic.

 

[Famine]

I never said that, nor do I think it. Some rich people have stolen their wealth and deserve to go to jail. Others have inherited it and own it legitimately because their relatives earned it and decided to give it to the person they saw best fit to receive it.

Or their antecedants stole it and left it to the person they saw best fit - the concept of, for instance, the Royal Family having such large sums of money and land because a relative of theirs several hundred years ago decided to round up some mates of theirs and take it off someone else rankles with many people. Or the Church of England, which many, many moons ago, charged a tithe (commonly thought to be around 10%) to all people, or risk the shame of excommunication.


However, I was going to point out that you said earlier that you weren't talking about those who have stolen their wealth. But you went and beat me to it.

Your brother has received an unknown and uncalculated sum in benefits, paid for by anonymous past people, and has now accepted an unending and untotalled burden of debt in order to pay back this unknowable amount to anonymous future people.

So how is your system better? Why is it so horrible to earn or borrow precisely what you need for expenses, and then pay precisely that amount back (plus interest), knowing that you will no longer bear that burden once you have cancelled the debt? I don't understand why this seems so unthinkable to some people.

Now, who said anything about "better"? I was merely describing what happens in the UK for a comparison.


The "cost" of schooling a child in the UK has not, to my knowledge, been calculating in the public domain. Neither has the cost of the average hospital visit, or having fire crews on standby in case your house sets light, or how much road the average person drives on a year costs. I'm sure the numbers have been worked out elsewhere, but they are numbers I don't have access to.

Nevertheless, for 14 years, the UK taxpayer paid for his schooling (and most children in the UK). For 35 years the UK taxpayer has paid for the road he drives upon, the hospitals he has received treatment in (he wasn't a very well baby either - born at 32 weeks, weighing 2lb 4oz) and for fire stations - amongst other things on a very, very large list. Since he works for the National Air Traffic Services, the taxpayer also pays his salary - NATS are funded directly by the government. The sum of money he has received, and is receiving, in services is, to all intents and purposes, incalculable - I could take a reasonable estimate of around £140,000, allowing for inflation, for his schooling alone, but the cost of the other things is beyond me. I dread to think how long that would take to pay back if taken as a loan - besides which, who decides on the interest? Someone who wants to make money out of loaning it to people.

For reference, my parents paid for me to go to a private school, at a cost of £3,000 a year. The estimate I used above comes from a report saying that on average our state schools cost £10,000 a year per pupil - more than many private schools. Why this should be I don't know.

"Sheffield supporter"

Don't make the mistake of saying that out loud if you're ever in Sheffield...

How can it be my personal choice that I grew up where I did, and could hear the crowds of a Saturday? I didn't like football until I reached a certain age, but from the age of 5 I can remember looking for their results - despite not liking the support. I don't understand how imprinting can be consider personal choice.

But was that individual forced to become a doctor? NO. Therefore, it was a choice he made as part of the cost of becoming a doctor. Again, it was voluntary - if swearing the Hippocratic oath was morally impossible for him, he could have chosen some other profession that did not require such an oath. I am required by law to design safe buildings for people, but I am not required to do it for free.

The individual trained as a doctor, knowing that at the end of the course they would have to take the oath. Taking the course was optional, taking the oath is not. As an aside, all of our NHS doctors are paid by... taxpayers.

I cannot envisage a situation where you would be required to suddenly design a safe building for someone who was in danger of losing their life if you did not. I'm sure that if you were, you would do it out of the goodness of your heart, but doctors do not have that same free will. Yes, they opted for the career - but after that point they are required by the thousand year old laws they have agreed to - to carry out their training on anyone who asks for it.

Out of interest, would a US doctor be allowed to refuse to treat someone who fell ill on an international flight if they aren't US citizens, or covered by US health insurance?


If one of the Americans could inform me of the nature of private health care in the States - PM would suffice as I assume the others already know - I would be grateful. How many private companies offereing insurance are there? Do they run the hospitals or not? If so, would one company's hospital be allowed to treat another company's patients - that kind of thing. Cheers.

 

[87chevy]

so, duke, and ///M are you defending man's right to be greedy as danoff says you are? he is. I don't remember seeing that in the bill of rights............

 

[Danoff]

double post

 

[Danoff]

Nevertheless, for 14 years, the UK taxpayer paid for his schooling

For 14 years, the UK taxpayer paid for a small portion of what his schooling cost and allowed other people to pay for the rest of it.

How fair is it to force people to pay for public schools? What if you don't have kids? What if you went to a private institution and paid for your schooling already? Why then should these taxes be levied on you. It's not exactly fair is it?

And guess what. They don't work well anyway.

I don't remember seeing that in the bill of rights............

The right to own property.

Ammendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Ammendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


I'd read X carefully if I were you.

 

[Famine]

For 14 years, the UK taxpayer paid for a small portion of what his schooling cost and allowed other people to pay for the rest of it.

How fair is it to force people to pay for public schools? What if you don't have kids? What if you went to a private institution and paid for your schooling already? Why then should these taxes be levied on you. It's not exactly fair is it?

I'm at a loss. Who paid for the rest of it? I was speaking of "the UK taxpayer" as a single entity, rather than a single UK taxpayer.

Should people with seven children pay more tax, to cover schooling costs for their children, than people with none? If they then send the children to private schools, should they receive rebates for the five years extra tax they paid before the children were of school age?

I could turn this around too - what if no-one in your neighbourhood experiences a fire? I've never seen a fire engine at my home, or anywhere in the 45 houses which surround it. Why should we pay tax towards a fire service we haven't used - would it not be better to pay fire insurance, as with health insurance, in the eventuality that we may need it? (incidentally, did you get chance to read that "First, Do No Harm" book? I found it intriguing and it effectively agreed with neither of us).


I DID go to a private institution. I do not object to my tax money being used to educate children for the betterment of mankind. Our children currently learn about basic fundamental principles which were unknown until 40 years ago - such as the work for which Watson and Crick received Nobel Prizes (okay, so they don't have the same biochemical knowledge which the work required, so they are in effect merely "Standing on the shoulders of giants"). If one - just ONE - of these children goes on to acheive something which helps mankind along a little more, then that money was well-spent.

In effect of course, nearly all of the children do go on to acheive something which helps mankind along a little more. Our civilisations would be nothing without the "little people" who clean up our mess - and many of them don't receive enough money to tax. Are they theiving from our society because they've taken the free education and not used it (or were incapable of using it through learning difficulties) or repaid it, or are they actually helping our society by providing us with services we need but often do not recognise?

 

[Duke]

so, duke, and ///M are you defending man's right to be greedy as danoff says you are? he is. I don't remember seeing that in the bill of rights............

Look at what is in the Constitution. As danoff says, you, your property, and effects are not subject to unreasonable seizure without a warrant issued for probable cause.

The Preamble also states that the purpose of the entire Constitution - and by extension, the United States of America - is to protect the rights of individual citizens. The People are securing the blessings to liberty to themselves by this set of laws. Primary among the blessings of liberty is the right to own property. I believe that the Constitution protects a rich person's right to pursue as much wealth - to "be greedy" as you put it - as they can earn.

You still seem to think that every dollar a person earns is stolen from someone else. This simply isn't true.