which is the most civilsed nation on earth?

[smellysocks12]

I have a problem with those who spat on soldiers who returned from Vietnam and those who "support the troops", but not the war.

That isn't right indeed. The soldiers were just doing their jobs, decission making isn't a part of their job. I'm not too familiar with the whole Vietnam situation, but weren't many men who were sent to Vietnam drafted? I think they did, why else would BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE BUSH RUN TO CANADA??? They should only have criticized the politicians, which they did, but some took it too far.



The war in Vietnam wasn't worth it, even from an American point of view, so many casualities, so little to win..

 

[ZAGGIN]

How it treats its own citizens... hmmm... like stealing from them? Treating them unfairly? That's something Canada and the UK do a lot more than we do here in the US. Granted we do a lot of it too, but we're clearly better about it than they are (ie more civilized).

or murdering them... murder is a far greater crime than theft (in the us as well as anywhere else). no nation can be called civilised if it still uses babaric means to kill its citizens.

in the uk, we abolished corporal punishment decades ago because it is barbaric, and for the simple reason that we could not risk killing any more innocent people. there had been many high profile cases where 'supposedly' guilty people had been hanged, only to be found innocent after their death. thats wrong.

as far as i know, canada does not have a death sentence. ps, is this correct?

dandoff, until your nation abolishes the death sentence, it will always be less civilised than the uk, canada or any other nation that refuses to use it.

also, the uk treats it citizens very well dandoff (far better than the US). they are cared for by the state, and looked after if they are sick. we have a health care service that is FREE for all regardless of income, race, creed, colour or nationality. and we dont kill our own citizens! who could ask for a better place to live!

 

[Famine]

we have a health care service that is FREE for all

No. It's funded by governmental theft from citizen-earned income.

 

[smellysocks12]

Taxes aren't theft, you willingly pay it. It's the fee you pay to be able to live in that country. If you don't like it get the hell out of the country, go live Monaco where you don't have to pay tax. Nobody is forcing you to stay. The only reason why nobody there has to pay tax is because nothing is being produced on that island, everyone lives there to sit on their ass and do nothing while their capital is generating more more money elsewhere. So there isn't a working class who needs to be protected.


Calling the wealthy rich an oppressed minorty is the most retarded idea anyone ever mentioned to me. Oh my god, they feel so oppressed sitting on their yacht 150 foot long yacht thinking about what ferrari to buy next while playing with their pink chihuahua. I almost feel sorry for them.


The type of society some of you consider to be ideal resembles the one in Saudi Arabia, with everyone poor except the few rich who have unlimited power.


*edit*

Alright, M, I'll keep it civilized here.

 

[Famine]

Taxes aren't theft, you willingly pay it.

No, I grudgingly pay it. As a matter of fact I don't even get the choice to pay it, since it's deducted at source before I even see any of it.

The richer I get, the more I must pay. That seems a little contrived to me - what incentive do I have for working harder and bettering myself when someone I didn't vote for can come round at the end of each month and say "Ah, I see you're doing better for yourself. I'll take a bigger slice then, thanks."?

That's precisely WHY those that CAN afford it move to Monaco (which isn't an island, by the way, but an enclave) - they get to a point where Mr. Government is taking millions from them each year. And why? They use the same roads as the rest of us, they use the same police, they use the same fire services, they use the same health service and, in general, use less of our schools systems (preferring instead to send their children to properly-funded, properly-run private educational establishments). They must pay more because they're able to pay more?

I survive on my below-average wage, thanks. I have no incentive to earn more because I'll get raped for it - everything pound earned over £36,000 in the UK is taxed at FORTY PERCENT... Where do I sign!

 

[smellysocks12]

No, I grudgingly pay it. As a matter of fact I don't even get the choice to pay it, since it's deducted at source before I even see any of it.

You can move to a country where you don't have to pay taxes if you don't like to pay them. By working in a country you already decided that you willingly pay the required taxes. I also don't like the fact that I have to pay for a train ticket either, but I have the option to go walk to my destination. I also don't like to pay to get into a movie theater, but I do because I want to be in there.

The richer I get, the more I must pay. That seems a little contrived to me - what incentive do I have for working harder and bettering myself when someone I didn't vote for can come round at the end of each month and say "Ah, I see you're doing better for yourself. I'll take a bigger slice then, thanks."?

You do make more money when your wages are higher, it's not like they cut you wages at a certain point and take everything, just a higher percentage. Also, earning more income doesn't always mean that you work harder. I do believe that there should be something to earn for spending a lot of time on education / work, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be publicly available basic services for everyone. Not everyone needs a mansion, but the least you can do is make sure that everyone gets a roof above his head. I mean, if you're rich and living in a mansion, many homeless people in your neighborhood don't make you happy either. It makes the situation better for both the poor and the rich.

That's precisely WHY those that CAN afford it move to Monaco (which isn't an island, by the way, but an enclave) - they get to a point where Mr. Government is taking millions from them each year. And why? They use the same roads as the rest of us, they use the same police, they use the same fire services, they use the same health service and, in general, use less of our schools systems (preferring instead to send their children to properly-funded, properly-run private educational establishments). They must pay more because they're able to pay more?

I know that's why, I can understand it in a way. Though most of those people worked their way up in the society as it is, also because of the political situation. They used everything to get rich, and then they are they say bye and leave. Not supporting the country anymore which gave them the opportunity to get rich.

It isn't exactly the same comparison, but that is the same as African people with a high education. Some people in Africa studied there to become a doctor, yet then they move here to become a cleaner, because they make more money here. They could have made themselves more useful, yet instead they end up here cleaning the shoes of the rich.

I survive on my below-average wage, thanks. I have no incentive to earn more because I'll get raped for it - everything pound earned over £36,000 in the UK is taxed at FORTY PERCENT... Where do I sign!

36,000 pounds is enough to live with and the 60% you have left sounds fair to me. It's the same over here.

I'm not a communist and I do think people should be able to make more money by working themselves upward, but eliminating the social security completely and privatizing everything isn't the way to go.

 

[Famine]

In both of those things, you have an option. The items are charged at the perceived market value - the level at which more people are willing to pay than unwilling.

In the arena of residence, unless you're earning a decent wage or have reached an age where financial commitments are no longer an issue (mortgages), you're stuck. Stuck paying 40p per £1 to some jokers you tried to vote out. Saying "if you don't like it, move" to someone on £18k a year is unhelpful. Saying to someone earning £100k a year is more than likely to elicit the response "Already have, thanks."

Driving out the higher earners to other climes is not conducive to keeping an economy rolling. Like it or not, the rich pay for your existence. The income tax alone paid from a Premiership footballer's salary in one year pays for NINE full time nurses...

 

[smellysocks12]

I believe when having to pay back mortgages the income spent on that is tax free? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The income tax alone paid from a Premiership footballer's salary in one year pays for NINE full time nurses...

Exactly, and who says a premiership footballer works harder than ONE full time nurse? Right now an average professional soccer player already earns more than a nurse. Have you ever been in a hospital or elderly home? Those people work their asses off doing dirty work while those soccer players earn 10 times as much or more, even with the 40% taxes on top of their income.


By the way, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. That's the free market, the soccer player has qualities that not many people have, but that doesn't mean that a nurse should be dirt poor and have a 2nd job at night. In order to do your (very responsible) work right, you need to be able to relax as well without having to worry whether there will be food on your platter that night.


Another thing, that soccer player wouldn't be earning that much either if most people are dirt poor and have to work 80 hours per week. Advertisers wouldn't be willing to pay much anymore, because poor people won't buy things anyway and people wouldn't watch the match anymore because they have to work their 2nd job.

 

[Famine]

I believe when having to pay back mortgages the income spent on that is tax free? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Stand corrected. It may well be the case in the US, but not the UK...

Another thing, that soccer player wouldn't be earning that much either if most people are dirt poor and have to work 80 hours per week. Advertisers wouldn't be willing to pay much anymore, because poor people won't buy things anyway and people wouldn't watch the match anymore because they have to work their 2nd job.

So you're saying that, by earning so much money footballers guarantee themselves that much money? Interesting rebuttal.

 

[vladimir]

famine,

if you pay taxes in percent, how can that be unfair?

earn 40.000, pay 50% tax, have 20.000.
earn twice that, pay 50% tax, have 40.000, twice as much.
earn 400.000, pay 50% tax, have 200.000.

the more you earn, the more you have. its still the same. the only difference being that you are able to provide more for the state, so the ones who can't provide that much gain in help if they need it.
on the other hand, guess who is paying for all the products and services that enable the wealthy one to earn that much?

 

[smellysocks12]

So you're saying that, by earning so much money footballers guarantee themselves that much money? Interesting rebuttal.

No, that's not what I meant. Sure, they're part of it, but the tax / social security system makes it possible for them to earn that much. On one hand the system makes them pay a lot of taxes, but because of this same system they have the money to be able pay taxes to begin with.

 

[Famine]

famine,

if you pay taxes in percent, how can that be unfair?

earn 40.000, pay 50% tax, have 20.000.
earn twice that, pay 50% tax, have 40.000, twice as much.
earn 400.000, pay 50% tax, have 200.000.

the more you earn, the more you have. its still the same. the only difference being that you are able to provide more for the state, so the ones who can't provide that much gain in help if they need it.
on the other hand, guess who is paying for all the products and services that enable the wealthy one to earn that much?

We don't. See my Income Tax Comparison thread.

In essence, you earn up to "X" tax free (£4,500ish). The next "Y" you earn (about £2,000ish) is taxed at 10%. The next "Z" (about £28,000ish) is taxed at 22%. Everything above that (roughly every pound over £35,000) is taxed at 40%.

 

[Danoff]

On one hand the system makes them pay a lot of taxes, but because of this same system they have the money to be able pay taxes to begin with.

In spite of that system they have the money to be ablet o pay taxes to begin with. And you're... ehem

TOTALLY AVOIDING THE ISSUE OF MORALITY!!

if you pay taxes in percent, how can that be unfair?

Because the percentage is higher for some people than others - easy.

Exactly, and who says a premiership footballer works harder than ONE full time nurse? Right now an average professional soccer player already earns more than a nurse. Have you ever been in a hospital or elderly home? Those people work their asses off doing dirty work while those soccer players earn 10 times as much or more, even with the 40% taxes on top of their income.

Soccer players earn 10 or 100 times more.... think about that. They earn it. They worked for it and made it. You may think a nurse works harder, but that doesn't mean he or she earns as much money. Nurses get what they earn unless they're funded by the government.

I can spend all day digging a ditch and filling it back in and have done some very hard manual labor - but that doesn't mean I earned any money. But manual labor is some of the easiest work on the planet. It's much more difficult and much more productive to work with your brain than with your muscles. Still football players work with their muscles and their brains and bring entertainment to millions. That earns a ton more money than a nurse who changes a bedpan for one sick dude.

You can move to a country where you don't have to pay taxes if you don't like to pay them.

That's an interesting argument. You're saying that its moral because they stayed in the country - so they're voluntarily paying taxes. Let's say that you passed a law that said all blonde people would be executed and gave them 5 weeks to get out of town. Perhaps some people stayed behind and you executed them. Does it make it any more moral to kill them because they chose to stay in their homeland?

You do make more money when your wages are higher, it's not like they cut you wages at a certain point and take everything, just a higher percentage.

That's right, the government takes more money. And that's fair and just because?

Calling the wealthy rich an oppressed minorty is the most retarded idea anyone ever mentioned to me. Oh my god, they feel so oppressed sitting on their yacht 150 foot long yacht thinking about what ferrari to buy next while playing with their pink chihuahua. I almost feel sorry for them

Doesn't mean that its is fair or just to steal their money. If you are starving and a rich person has bread, that doesn't give you a right to the bread just because he's rich. Your need does not give you rights.

or murdering them... murder is a far greater crime than theft (in the us as well as anywhere else). no nation can be called civilised if it still uses babaric means to kill its citizens.

Capital punishment is just.

When a person violates someone else's rights they forefit their own rights within society. When you kill someone, take their entire existance from them... and do it several times or in ways that show complete lack of regard for human existance - you have no right to your own existance.

It is a fair, just, moral punishment and does not make a country uncivilized.

but weren't many men who were sent to Vietnam drafted? I think they did, why else would BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE BUSH RUN TO CANADA???

Only half right. George stayed put.


Edit:

I'm not religious myself, but being so selfish (thinking social responsibility is stealing...) is actually against the bible ("..help you fellow man.." etc... Christianity is big on generosity..), a huge contradiction amonst the ideaology of many hard right-wing republicans.

I'm not religious and I'm not a republican. Taking money from one person because you think it should be given to someone else (or yourself) is theft. There is no way around it. Nobody has responded to this fundamental question.

How is it moral for the government to take more money from some citizens than others?

 

[Max_DC]

famine,

if you pay taxes in percent, how can that be unfair?

earn 40.000, pay 50% tax, have 20.000.
earn twice that, pay 50% tax, have 40.000, twice as much.
earn 400.000, pay 50% tax, have 200.000.

the more you earn, the more you have. its still the same. the only difference being that you are able to provide more for the state, so the ones who can't provide that much gain in help if they need it.
on the other hand, guess who is paying for all the products and services that enable the wealthy one to earn that much?

Well that is not correct I have to say... but believe me, you don't know how bad paying taxes can be unless you live in Germany; 2/3 of world's tax laws are in German... here in Germany the the poor pay nothing, the rich pay nothing and the middle class pays all... that is not good, but changes need its time ... my father pays 42 % taxes, not nice, but hey that's life; Hey Famine and Danoff come to Germany if you want to avoid taxes, work hard try to get into the upper class here and you will pay no taxes at all... at least until it will be changed someday....

This wohle discussion gets weird, danoffs arguments are his opinion, fine,, but concerning the " civilized thread " they are just wrong....

 

[Danoff]

This wohle discussion gets weird, danoffs arguments are his opinion, fine,, but concerning the " civilized thread " they are just wrong....

How is theft civilized?

here in Germany the the poor pay nothing, the rich pay nothing and the middle class pays all... that is not good, but changes need its time

If that is true then in Germany the oppressed minority is the middle class.

 

[vladimir]

We don't. See my Income Tax Comparison thread.

In essence, you earn up to "X" tax free (£4,500ish). The next "Y" you earn (about £2,000ish) is taxed at 10%. The next "Z" (about £28,000ish) is taxed at 22%. Everything above that (roughly every pound over £35,000) is taxed at 40%.

there is indeed a problem, since those who earn slightly more than 35k would have less than those who earn slightly less than 35k. the progressive tax system would need more steps to work properly.

you can consider that theft, i am with you here. but that is down to the faults in this particular system.

i first thought that you wanted it to be the other way round though, so that for people who earn more money the tax rate would decrease so that they would not pay more than those who earn less.

 

[Max_DC]

I'm not religious and I'm not a republican. Taking money from one person because you think it should be given to someone else (or yourself) is theft. There is no way around it. Nobody has responded to this fundamental question.

How is it moral for the government to take more money from some citizens than others?

Starting with your last question : Nations need money to work and the money comes from its citizens; The Rich pay more than the poor to get in a bit of social fairness, you know that is one of the points you need for being a civilized country...
If we would not have this kind of system the rich would get richer and richer and the poor poorer and poorer and that would lead into a revolution; What did you do in history lessons ? You question all that what nations achieved since the 19th century... hell who knows ? You seem not to get the whole thing and seem just to see your own little business and forget that the changes you demand would lead into a total different society and believe me you wouldn't like that unless you were in the Top 10000... and you seem not to be, because you are crying like a baby for about 15 posts that the government is stealing your money....
Just relax, and why are we talking about taxes all the time anyway ? Show me one definition where the tax thing plays an important role for the question if a nation is civilized !!!

 

[Famine]

Unnecessary, Max.


vladimir - I conveniently forgot National Insurance (between 6% and 11% of gross income - you pay NI on money you've already paid tax on!), which is also deducted at source. Then there's Council Tax (taken from anyone who lives anywhere - average cost £800pa, but varying depending on house type/size/location and occupancy), VAT on everything (at 17.5%), taxes on savings and, best of all, tax on your estate when you die (if you leave more than £146,000 - which is essentially a house - in assets, you, or your beneficiaries, pay somewhere in the region of 20% of your estate).

So there's no incentive to work hard and earn more, because it'll just get stolen, and there's no incentive to save, because it'll get stolen and then your descendants will get it stolen from them.

As a result, the UK is becoming a hand-to-mouth society. You're better off not working than you are working. Pregnant at 15? No problem - the Government will stick you in a house (free), not charge you rent, give you living allowances (about £300 a week per kid), pay your National Insurance and, when you're old enough, give you your state pension. You'll also get totally free healthcare (the rest of us pay for out prescriptions - so free Health Service my arse). And richer people leave the country to go somewhere they don't get butt-raped for their hard-earned.

Now, call ME Mickey Mouse, but that's financially unsustainable - "income" from taxes is less than expenditure, so you can either raise taxes - resulting in MORE people leaving and MORE people not bothering to work as it's financially unsound - or lower them, resulting in a massive net deficit since you're already committed to paying the spongers everything.

 

[smellysocks12]

How is theft civilized?

How is it civilized to keep people poor? It isn't that simple that everyone can work for their money. There aren't enough jobs, work that people aren't willing to pay much for directly HAS to be done. Nurses are necessary, people who are very sick can't work, so they don't have an income. How can they pay for their healthcare?


I think your way of thinking is very medieval, rich people pay their workers very little to do the dirty work for them, but since they have no option or funds to go elswhere they are stuck to the job they have and no outlook on a better future. That's like slavery without chains to people's feet, not really civilized if you'd ask me. Then you consider a Robin Hood type of person who takes from the rich to improve the lives of the poor immoral? Most people will completely disagree with you, of which I'm glad too or else we will end up in a complete ego-centric world with everyone unhappy except for the elite.

 

[smellysocks12]

there is indeed a problem, since those who earn slightly more than 35k would have less than those who earn slightly less than 35k. the progressive tax system would need more steps to work properly.

you can consider that theft, i am with you here. but that is down to the faults in this particular system.

i first thought that you wanted it to be the other way round though, so that for people who earn more money the tax rate would decrease so that they would not pay more than those who earn less.

No, you still don't get it, people still pay the little percentage of tax on the amount under the 35K. The 40% is on top of the amount that's left after subtracting 35K from their income. So someone who earns slightly less than 35K will still earn less than someone who makes slightly more than 35K.

 

[Max_DC]

Unnecessary, Max.

Yes maybe a little harsh (edited)... but his opinion is really strange... For me he sounds like a depressed person that is not satisfied with his life... he would always complain about anything...

 

[sn00pie]

I never assumed that soldiers joined the military during conflicts.

These people who "support the troops" yet, disagree with the war, did they (or would have) spit on the soldiers who returned from Vietnam?

Did they "support the troops" then?

...resulted from the news of incidents such as the My Lai tragedy and the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. Dissaproval of misbehaviour of individuals - not the government as such.

 

[Famine]

How is it civilized to keep people poor? It isn't that simple that everyone can work for their money. There aren't enough jobs, work that people aren't willing to pay much for directly HAS to be done. Nurses are necessary, people who are very sick can't work, so they don't have an income. How can they pay for their healthcare?


I think your way of thinking is very medieval, rich people pay their workers very little to do the dirty work for them, but since they have no option or funds to go elswhere they are stuck to the job they have and no outlook on a better future. That's like slavery without chains to people's feet, not really civilized if you'd ask me. Then you consider a Robin Hood type of person who takes from the rich to improve the lives of the poor immoral? Most people will completely disagree with you, of which I'm glad too or else we will end up in a complete ego-centric world with everyone unhappy except for the elite.

I earn less than national average wage. I agree with danoff.

His point isn't to screw poor people because they're poor, but to stop screwing better off people because they're better off.

In my example above, my standard of living is lower than a sponger's. So what incentive do I - or people following me - have to study hard, get degrees and get a job when they could just knock up their underage girlfriend and get everything free?

 

[Max_DC]

Unnecessary, Max.


vladimir - I conveniently forgot National Insurance (between 6% and 11% of gross income - you pay NI on money you've already paid tax on!), which is also deducted at source. Then there's Council Tax (taken from anyone who lives anywhere - average cost £800pa, but varying depending on house type/size/location and occupancy), VAT on everything (at 17.5%), taxes on savings and, best of all, tax on your estate when you die (if you leave more than £146,000 - which is essentially a house - in assets, you, or your beneficiaries, pay somewhere in the region of 20% of your estate).

So there's no incentive to work hard and earn more, because it'll just get stolen, and there's no incentive to save, because it'll get stolen and then your descendants will get it stolen from them.

As a result, the UK is becoming a hand-to-mouth society. You're better off not working than you are working. Pregnant at 15? No problem - the Government will stick you in a house (free), not charge you rent, give you living allowances (about £300 a week per kid), pay your National Insurance and, when you're old enough, give you your state pension. You'll also get totally free healthcare (the rest of us pay for out prescriptions - so free Health Service my arse). And richer people leave the country to go somewhere they don't get butt-raped for their hard-earned.

Now, call ME Mickey Mouse, but that's financially unsustainable - "income" from taxes is less than expenditure, so you can either raise taxes - resulting in MORE people leaving and MORE people not bothering to work as it's financially unsound - or lower them, resulting in a massive net deficit since you're already committed to paying the spongers everything.

Well there are surely some things in every system that need to be changed, and I agree that - and that was and still is a major problem here - many lazy people live from the money the hard working people earn... fine ... but in America ? I don't think that the USA can be called a wellfare state, where lazy people have an easy life, and danoff is still complaining....
And a nation can't live without taxes... and honestly do you want to live in a 100% capitalist nation?

 

[TwinTurboJay]

The United States of America

 

[Famine]

Why not?

danoff posted an example up a while ago about four ways to spend money:
Spending your money on yourself: Quality of product and value for money are imperative.
Spending your money on someone else: Value for money is imperative, but quality of product less so.
Spending someone else's money on yourself: Quality of product is more desirable than value for money.
Spending someone else's money on someone else: You don't care much about either quality or value.


All government spending is the last kind. Most corporate spending is the first and second kind.

There are things which cannot be in the hands of corporations and must be government-controlled, so some level of taxation is always necessary. danoff and I disagree on what exactly these things are - the army is one thing we agree on, but I believe that schools should be state-sponsored and he doesn't.

 

[smellysocks12]

I earn less than national average wage. I agree with danoff.

His point isn't to screw poor people because they're poor, but to stop screwing better off people because they're better off.

In my example above, my standard of living is lower than a sponger's. So what incentive do I - or people following me - have to study hard, get degrees and get a job when they could just knock up their underage girlfriend and get everything free?

You're generalizing here and simplifying the situation too much. Not everyone has the brain capacity to get college degrees, even if they work very hard and try hard they'll end up living in poverty the way you describe it. Not to mention intelligent people who have other (mental / personality) problems, they can good at other things but won't be able to get a good degree.

I don't think people who are better off are getting screwed in the western world. That billionaire oil-company owner in Russia who is getting prosecuted now, he is getting screwed. I think it isn't too much asked to make some people who have more pay more to society. If the only way to make enough money to make a decent living is by having a high degree, or extremely high skills in something, that many people will say "go to hell with your society" and resort to crime. Police doesn't have funds since rich folks don't want to pay taxes and rich people will get really screwed by getting lynched in the streets.

I'm not talking about giving everything for free, water, food and a place to live won't make a person happy. They will still try to find work to get in a better situation. If some are happy enough to settle with this, big deal? You wouldn't want a couple of lamers to ruin it for the other good willing, less fortunate people.

 

[Famine]

You're generalizing here and simplifying the situation too much. Not everyone has the brain capacity to get college degrees, even if they work very hard and try hard they'll end up living in poverty the way you describe it. Not to mention intelligent people who have other (mental / personality) problems, they can good at other things but won't be able to get a good degree.

I don't think people who are better off are getting screwed in the western world. That billionaire oil-company owner in Russia who is getting prosecuted now, he is getting screwed. I think it isn't too much asked to make some people who have more pay more to society. If the only way to make enough money to make a decent living is by having a high degree, or extremely high skills in something, that many people will say "go to hell with your society" and resort to crime. Police doesn't have funds since rich folks don't want to pay taxes and rich people will get really screwed by getting lynched in the streets.

I'm not talking about giving everything for free, water, food and a place to live won't make a person happy. They will still try to find work to get in a better situation. If some are happy enough to settle with this, big deal? You wouldn't want a couple of lamers to ruin it for the other good willing, less fortunate people.

We have an estimated FOUR million of those "couple of lamers" in the UK. That's more than 10% of the workforce. This number is rising as work becomes more and more economically unviable and sponging becomes more and more profitable.

Did you catch the story earlier this week about the single mother who lives with her three daughters? They each had a baby at 12, 14 and 16. Rather than prosecuting them for having sex illegally (not the 16 year old, obviously), they get £36,000 a year in handouts and a free place to live. Deducting from our salaries what my girlfriend and I each spend on our place to live, they earn, on average, more than either of us.

This family is not atypical.


And again you've missed danoff's point. The point wasn't to stuff poor people and only pay wages to people with degrees (reminder, I earn less than the National Average Wage, and I have TWO degrees). The point is to be as fair as possible to EVERYONE.

 

[espenss]

Wrong. The US followed UN Resolution 1441.

One done, thousands to go...

The US did find WMD, I can make a list if you want to.

Please do, no one have ever seen such a list of found WMD.

Guantanamo Bay is where the US holds suspected terrorists. Terrorists do not receive rights defined by the Geneva Conventions.

It's fantastic to see how the US just call people "suspected terrorists" and remove all their human rights.

-espen

 

[Max_DC]

Why not?

danoff posted an example up a while ago about four ways to spend money:
Spending your money on yourself: Quality of product and value for money are imperative.
Spending your money on someone else: Value for money is imperative, but quality of product less so.
Spending someone else's money on yourself: Quality of product is more desirable than value for money.
Spending someone else's money on someone else: You don't care much about either quality or value.


All government spending is the last kind. Most corporate spending is the first and second kind.

There are things which cannot be in the hands of corporations and must be government-controlled, so some level of taxation is always necessary. danoff and I disagree on what exactly these things are - the army is one thing we agree on, but I believe that schools should be state-sponsored and he doesn't.

Theory and nothing else... it wouldn't work that way ( as I said above > abuse > revolution > not nice ) ; You should all be happy that we organized the world like this : We live in peaceful times in North America and Europe;
Danoffs examples are nice, but they are way to simple for this complex subject...
Many politicians are idealists, they do care for what they spend the money, They studied laws and economy etc, don't think that it is that simple... All in all they know what they are doing : And they would be even better if democracy wouldn't force them to act carefully : Radical cuts often mean losing the next election, politicians have to be popular, that is not always good, but that is how it works and it is better than Hitler&Stalin...
People who want radical capitalism don't consider all consequences ...
Concerning schools : Schools should defintifly be controlled and payed by the government, although I can understand danoffs thoughts, American public schools sometimes are really low quality...