which is the most civilsed nation on earth?

[Famine]

We aren't really talking about jobs here, are we? People with the highest income don't have jobs, they have companies. They're the owners of companies. They hire people to do the work for them. If you work hard, make lots of hours to get a high income, then I do agree these people shouldn't be paying more than anyone else. Though I believe that investors who rake in the big billions because others did their work well can miss a higher percentage of their income.


To give an extreme example, do you believe Paris Hilton earned her income and shouldn't be paying more? As a matter of fact she isn't even the investor, her father is. People like her are less useless to society than the person cleaning the toilets at your work.


If anything I will agree on is that the different tax levels should be moved upwards a bit, that you start paying 40% over the income higher than 50K.

Now, I'm no fan of the skanky toastrack-chested one, but she's certainly NOT useless to society.

She spends daddy's money. Lots of it.

What does she spend it on?

Cars - Someone had to make the car. Someone had to market it. Someone had to sell it. Someone has to service it. She's keeping people in a job.

Booze - Someone had to make that booze. Someone had to market it. Someone had to sell it. Someone has to clean up her barf afterwards. She's keeping people in a job.

Condoms - Actually, no...


People like daddy Hilton (forget his first name) make money by investing and running a business. Run the business badly or make a crap product and you'll lose out. Should he be taxed to oblivion for having enough nous to give people what they want, or for wisely investing his money in other people's ventures? Notwithstanding all of that, if you add just ONE percent to his tax bill, you'll create the exact opposite to the desired effect. Suddenly he can't employ 500 people because he's paying 1% more tax. Now you have a few extra thousand in the Exchequer, but 500 people draining Unemployment benefit...

People like Paris Hilton spend money. They spend it on things they don't actually need, but in doing so they shovel money into "ordinary" people's pockets in a very, very direct manner. Do we actually NEED to tax her? She'll funnel money into the Exchequer quicker than we could tax it off her.

 

[smellysocks12]

Hasn't anyone ever heard of the millionaire next door? High paying jobs don't create millionaires--they create themselves, no matter how much they make. Most of the "poor" we're talkng about wouldn't BE poor if they just lived within their means.

Yes and no. I do agree that millionaires create themselves, yet not everyone has the opportunity to, even if they try to. As a matter of fact, if everyone would try as hard to become a millionaire, nobody would be a millionaire.


In the situation it is in most European countries most people can blame themselves if they're poor, simply because they don't even fit in the rules that gives them the right to get social security. They aren't rich, but anyone with a little motivation to work and fit in society isn't poor in a western European country. However, if these social securities wouldn't be there, the situation would be completely different. Then many people would be poor.

Then the situation would be kind of like an African country, where social security is low. Many African countries actually ARE rich, but the people aren't. Would you go to Africa and tell the poor people there that they are lazy bastards?

"You lazy leper patient! Go find a job... What did you say? Having HIV is no excuse to be not working and you still have one arm left, so what are you complaining about?"

The same can kinda be said about poor neighborhoods in the USA. Social security is much lower and harder to get, which results in more poor people. You wouldn't go to Harlem and tell all the homeless people there that they are lazy and have many opportunities to get a job.

 

[Famine]

There is almost NO excuse to be employable but unemployed in the US. They've got 30,000 McDonald's, for crying out loud.

 

[smellysocks12]

Now, I'm no fan of the skanky toastrack-chested one, but she's certainly NOT useless to society.

She spends daddy's money. Lots of it.

What does she spend it on?

Cars - Someone had to make the car. Someone had to market it. Someone had to sell it. Someone has to service it. She's keeping people in a job.

Booze - Someone had to make that booze. Someone had to market it. Someone had to sell it. Someone has to clean up her barf afterwards. She's keeping people in a job.

Condoms - Actually, no...


People like daddy Hilton (forget his first name) make money by investing and running a business. Run the business badly or make a crap product and you'll lose out. Should he be taxed to oblivion for having enough nous to give people what they want, or for wisely investing his money in other people's ventures? Notwithstanding all of that, if you add just ONE percent to his tax bill, you'll create the exact opposite to the desired effect. Suddenly he can't employ 500 people because he's paying 1% more tax. Now you have a few extra thousand in the Exchequer, but 500 people draining Unemployment benefit...

People like Paris Hilton spend money. They spend it on things they don't actually need, but in doing so they shovel money into "ordinary" people's pockets in a very, very direct manner. Do we actually NEED to tax her? She'll funnel money into the Exchequer quicker than we could tax it off her.

Point taken, yes, Paris Hilton does spend a lot of money, which is a good thing because when money is rolling it creates jobs. Taxes also slow down investments as you described, but this can be compensated by interest rates. The national bank has tools to lower the interest when unemployment is high, so this can compensate the higher taxes, which means the employment will not change. Maybe those people wouldn't be working for Mr. Hilton then, with interest this low they might even start their own business and make their own income, while there is a catching net in case their new business adventure goes wrong. This will change both poverty AND inequality for the better.


And about mcDonald's, they create a lot of jobs, but they don't hire older people. They have this "young" image and older employees demand higher wages, so Mickey D's isn't the solution for the unemployment problem.

 

[skicrush]

The same can kinda be said about poor neighborhoods in the USA. Social security is much lower and harder to get, which results in more poor people. You wouldn't go to Harlem and tell all the homeless people there that they are lazy and have many opportunities to get a job.

I would, in fact. Lazy and stupid. I put myself through collge, and I didn't even go into debt for it. I even bought the pickup I drove in high school from my parents at market value. AMAZING? NO! I worked all summer, and got part-time work during the school year. Yes, working at fast food restaurants, when I couldn't find anything else.

And forget about the fact that you can go to school at night, at local community colleges that are dirt cheatp, or on the internet (by going to free computers at your average public library). I'd say it's downright cheap to get a college degree, if you're smart enough to know wyou ought to get one. Easy? Well, not TOO easy, especially when you have to work while you go to school. But can ANYONE do it? Yep, pretty much, if they just decide they want to. Same with the unemployed--almost anywhere in the world. They are unemployed because they do not have the will to find work and then actually work. We only make it easier for them by buying them food still while they sit on their lazy butts. HEADLINE! THE GREAT DEPRESSION IS OVER!! Willing, able bodied men now able to FIND WORK!!!

 

[Duke]

The misunderstanding of economics and the the concept of 'rights' demonstrated by most of the people in this thread would be laughable if it wasn't nearly tragic.

And for the record, about 30% of the workers in all three of my local McDonalds are over 60 - retirees who are supplementing or maintaining their retirement income.

 

[///M-Spec]

This thread is wandering pretty far off-topic at this point (and I've even help it along).

I've bumped the relavant topic up to continue this thread and allow this one to remain on the original.


M

 

[smellysocks12]

I just had supper and I thought about this topic seriously for a while, so now I'm going to post my most thoughtful post so far.

I don't know how your college was, but mine definitely is too difficult to get through for most people as far as I can tell. Maybe if you do something semi-scientific it's easier, but then try to find a job at that. You can even buy a college degree online in America, that doesn't mean that future employers will be tricked by waving that piece of paper in front of them. Knowledge is the key, intelligence plays a huge part of it, having a college degree shows some, but then you have to prove it and fact is most people simply aren't Einsteins. They will have trouble finding work.


This isn't a problem, actually unemployment IS good. If unemployment would be 0 the production factor labor would get very expensive. Prices would get higher and both rich and poor would lose actual wealth, the rich would lose more in numbers, for the poor the loss feels worse. It is important that there is a certain level of unemployment, but that doesn't mean that these people should fall in an abandoned hole. Sure, working should always improve their situation over not working, but leaving them dead broke as if they're nothing but comodities is something you can't do from a humane point of view. This is why society has to chip in to keep the people living at a decent standard, to preserve the certain level of unemployment with humane standards.

This explained the short to mid term results, in the longer term if wages are incredibly high companies will look for ways to do things without labor. So eventually people will lose their jobs since their work will be done by machines / robots. Only the high level, management work will be left to be done by people. Since people were encouraged to find work early on, many didn't go to college after high school, so then we have a problem. Most of the work force isn't capable of these higher level functions. So you have many people falling into that hole without any social security or outlook on a new job, since they have been replaced over the years.

I hope I explained why I think social security is important, unemployment is unavoidable, even if people want to work. Nobody wants to fall in a hole, or having to worry about falling in a hole. The way of thinking by the people against these taxes resembles the way of thinking during the industrial revolution, people can find work, people have to work, work was relatively easy. That is changingl. If you don't encourage people to get educated, many won't. Since lots of simple labor can be replaced by machines, or can be moved to low-wage countries enabled by new technologies (communication, transport). If people start working for mcDonald's chances are that they will never get above this level of work, which might not be there in the future, which makes that they fall into a downward spiral they can't come out of anymore.

I can't explain myself any clearer than this, if you don't understand my reasoning you won't ever, if you don't agree with me, then we just don't agree and I'll have to live with that. By the way, how did we ever get THIS much off topic?

 

[James2097]

I reckon we should steer clear of the bad metaphors and simplified examples. None really describe the real system with all its complexities... They're just easy ways of making certain points of view SEEM like they make sense easily...

I pretty much agree with everything Smellysocks has said, but he's guilty of some bad examples also that confuse more (some take it the wrong way) than help explain effectively...

 

[Danoff]

so i take it that you give generously to charity then? afterall, as you stated, 'charity is a beautiful thing'.

No. I don’t give a dime to charity for many reasons. One of those reasons is that I’m forced to give to charity at gunpoint by my “progressive” government. So why should I voluntarily give even more to charity when so much is taken from me anyway.

There are a number of charities that I would like to donate to though. I can promise that if my government were not forcing charity on me I would donate voluntarily.

I get your point here and I'm sure there are many noble people who will be willing to donate to charity, which they feel like to support. This type of charity isn't a very "constant" type of income though, and how are you creating insecure social security? Though you like to be free to donate to causes you support, many people simply wouldn't even think about it. If they would they might consider donating, but they don't.

I understand that charity has some flaws. I understand that it may not be a “constant” source of income and may not help everyone who wants it. But it’s all you get. It’s the only way to have any kind of safety net without compromising morals – anything else results in wrongdoing of some kind or another.

In the USA people already more or less have to create that catching net if I'm correct, they have to pay for their own retirement fund. Many people aren't very responsible though, most of the time the people who need it the most aren't, so that's why I'm for a government being there to arrange it for them.

The US has an ever increasing government mandated safety net in an attempt to eliminate responsibility. We’re much more socialist here than you might think. But just because people aren’t responsible, doesn’t mean that it’s right to force me to pay for their irresponsibility. That’s quite simply uncivilized.

 

[skicrush]

The news lately has been the uproar over the president's idea of privatising retirement accounts. (look at that: Privatising. You blasted Brits and Aussies!) I'd rather manage my own retirement than pay into something that still requires me to fund the other half!! But people are blasting the plan because its too hard for people to plan their own retirement!! In other words, most of the politicians that oppose it think people in general are too stupid to plan their own retirement!!

 

[Danoff]

I hope I explained why I think social security is important, unemployment is unavoidable, even if people want to work. Nobody wants to fall in a hole, or having to worry about falling in a hole. The way of thinking by the people against these taxes resembles the way of thinking during the industrial revolution, people can find work, people have to work, work was relatively easy.

The only way to help prevent people from "falling in a hole" is voluntarily - through charity. Any other way is immoral and uncivilized.

 

[Max_DC]

This thread is useless... I just realized that... Talking about religion and ideologies is a waste of time... I'm really tired of talking about beliefs.... What we have here are two totally different views of the world, and both ways exist, nothing is wrong, there are just two models of societies.... I don't like yours, you don't like mine... Fine...

 

[Danoff]

This thread is useless... I just realized that... Talking about religion and ideologies is a waste of time... I'm really tired of talking about beliefs.... What we have here are two totally different views of the world, and both ways exist, nothing is wrong, there are just two models of societies.... I don't like yours, you don't like mine... Fine...

What we have here is a discussion of which nations act in a civilized manner. People started citing how it is "civilized" to help out the poor. I merely pointed out that they use stolen money to do so and that that is not civilized.

Excellent debates ensued.

Bottom line, you can't point to "charity" at the point of a gun as civilized.

 

[DemonSeed]

i think morals dont have anything to do with that danoff. i mean, morals are subjective, to each his own. for some, letting people die on the street 'cos they can't pay for a medic is immoral, for you it is ok and immoral is taking your money to help that person.

even charity, in usual understanding of morals, is immoral - because it is only for self-gratification that we are charitable. there is no altruism in this world. we always get something back - even if it is personal satisfaction.

for me personally, human rights are immoral. but thats another story.

and on topic, seriously, i think japan is the most civilised country.small nation with little land that surived, adapted and evolved and is one of the most advanced on earth currently. [we wouldnt be here if not for japanese making their games and consoles ]. especially i admire the way they keep their old culture alive and blend it with modern. i've never been there, so i only base my opinion on what i've seen on the tv or read [red? sorry] in the books.

 

[Danoff]

i think morals dont have anything to do with that danoff. i mean, morals are subjective, to each his own. for some,

Morals have a lot to do wit the discussion. Whether a government and its citizens behave morally is one of the primary ways of determining how civilized a nation is. In what world is it moral to steal? In whose view is it ok to take someone else's possesions?

letting people die on the street 'cos they can't pay for a medic is immoral, for you it is ok and immoral is taking your money to help that person.

No. For me it is totally ok and moral for me to take my own money to help that person, just not someone else's.

 

[DemonSeed]

why do you say that taxes are stealing? you agree to pay them, so how it is stealing? and almost all nations pay taxes, so it is probably ok with them.

well, if its ok with you, why do you bother wiht someone else's money? i dont see global organization for 'im not paying my money for those bums' so i suppose it is ok with most of the humans.

and what do you think about japan?

 

[Danoff]

why do you say that taxes are stealing? you agree to pay them, so how it is stealing? and almost all nations pay taxes, so it is probably ok with them.

Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. I pay taxes, I pay them because I don't want to go to jail and/or have to flee the country.

well, if its ok with you, why do you bother wiht someone else's money?

It's ok for me to choose what charity cases I want to spend my money on, and how much of my money that gets spent. As it is now I cannot choose what charity cases my money gets spent on, i can't choose how much gets spent and I can't choose how much of a slice the government takes.

Why can't I choose these things? Because other people made it law that I must give to their charities.

and what do you think about japan?

Japan is a good place - has lots going for it. It's way up there on my favorite countries of the world list. But it isn't socially free enough for me to claim that it is more civilized than the US.

Don't worry, in a few more decades the US will have enough laws and enough taxes that it'll be less civilized than Japan.

 

[Max_DC]

What we have here is a discussion of which nations act in a civilized manner. People started citing how it is "civilized" to help out the poor. I merely pointed out that they use stolen money to do so and that that is not civilized.

Excellent debates ensued.

Bottom line, you can't point to "charity" at the point of a gun as civilized.

Ah well, in other topics we discussed if there is a God or not, or if believing the bible word for word makes sense...
Again you think you pointed out sometjing, I say you didn't... "stealing" is taking money from somebody without having the right to do so... Paying taxes is a duty, at least as I " believe "... You say it the other way round... as I said, fine for me...
paying taxes is no charity in my opinion... you want to be protected, you want streets, you want safety and nations want to have fair conditions for the majority of its people... So you wnat something from the government and the government wants something from you.... It is no easy subject, but you know I always talk about reality and not about theories..... So as I can see logic in your pocts ( also in Famine's etc ), the connection to reality ( in MY opinion ) is poor... I say it wouldn't work that way, and you know what ? The whole world is full of nations using my model and no one with yours.... yeah I know that is no point, beacuse the fact that it doesn't exist doesn't mean it is wrong... As I said, different ideologies... but I nevertheless would like you to stop talking of morals and unfairness : Helping the poor by giving money from the rich is much fairer and right ( in a moral way ) than the loss of a few % money is unfair (or morally wrong) for the rich ( they still have a better life )....
If you work hard you will have more, that's fact... if you don't want to work 50 % harder for 20 % more money, don't do it but stop complaining... my personal opinion...
You know what is wasting money ? military and war... yes I know that wars support the economy, but this huge amount of money could be used in a better way... let's take Germany : only little military, but again world leader in exports in 2004, as the years before, with 800 billion dollar exports even in front of the USA...

 

[James2097]

The news lately has been the uproar over the president's idea of privatising retirement accounts. (look at that: Privatising. You blasted Brits and Aussies!) I'd rather manage my own retirement than pay into something that still requires me to fund the other half!! But people are blasting the plan because its too hard for people to plan their own retirement!! In other words, most of the politicians that oppose it think people in general are too stupid to plan their own retirement!!

I don't doubt for a second that "many" people are too stupid (or more likely not long term thinking type) to plan for their retirement! This is just a human trait that exists the world over... you can't brush aside these people (or anyone for that matter), as we should value human life and not let these people die... or do we want a cold "survivial of the fittest, every man for himself, if you lose, you die" system? Surely not.

If everyone were brilliant, moral and really wanted a just society (seperate from personal interest), governments would not be needed. Everyone would just get along and agree to fund what or who needed building/helping/fixing etc.
As personal interest is the most important thing in most people's minds, we really need governments to help keep our countries away from 3rd world type affairs. We may squirm and whinge about tax, but that is what makes your country great, and provides all the infrastructure you need to be productive and let society build on itself and become, well, civilised!

One of the (little) reasons I happily pay taxes is because I live in a society where I never have to trip over a bum on the street, or get haranged for money, like you often are in the states... if I saw loads of poverty in my country it would really make me sad, and unproud of being Australian. A happy country is a good country IMO. You can't be happy in absolute squalour.

If people aren't in abject poverty, theft will drop accordingly also, which benefits those who do have something to steal (funnily enough). There are a thousand benefits for everyone from my point of view. All crime in Australia is nothing compared to in America (yes I'm doing it per capita).

For all the benefits and services you get from taxes, I believe you get pretty good value! Call me optimistic but calling taxes "stealing" is a really silly emotive term, that doesn't look at what you really get for the money... does it make a country that you're proud to live in? Does it make a country that you want to fight to protect, and does it make a country that generates the most patriotism in the history of the world? Talking to most Americans, the answer is a definate YES!
(picks up the guitar and plays the star-spangled banner, Hendrix style...)

 

[Danoff]

paying taxes is no charity in my opinion... you want to be protected, you want streets, you want safety and

Maybe you want other people to provide you with that, I do not. I don't think it's moral.

nations want to have fair conditions for the majority of its people...

Which would mean a flat tax.

Helping the poor by giving money from the rich is much fairer and right ( in a moral way ) than the loss of a few % money is unfair (or morally wrong) for the rich ( they still have a better life )....

...only if you assume that the poor have some kind of right to the money of the rich - which they do not.

but I nevertheless would like you to stop talking of morals and unfairness

How else are we to determine which country is the most civilized?

Call me optimistic but calling taxes "stealing" is a really silly emotive term, that doesn't look at what you really get for the money... does it make a country that you're proud to live in?

Some taxes are necessary, some are theft. The portion of my taxes that represent money that is stolen from me does not make me proud to live in my country.

 

[Swift]

The misunderstanding of economics and the the concept of 'rights' demonstrated by most of the people in this thread would be laughable if it wasn't nearly tragic.

That's about it right there.

I'm not an economics major. But I know that it's ridiculous to over tax the "rich" people. It's like a penalty for success. Not to mention they are the ones that create the jobs for the "working" class.

 

[Famine]

*falls through a wormhole into an alternate reality where he agrees with Swift*


Whoah. What the smeg happened there?

 

[Max_DC]

Maybe you want other people to provide you with that, I do not. I don't think it's moral.



Which would mean a flat tax.



...only if you assume that the poor have some kind of right to the money of the rich - which they do not.



How else are we to determine which country is the most civilized?



Some taxes are necessary, some are theft. The portion of my taxes that represent money that is stolen from me does not make me proud to live in my country.

Ah well... you know... you see it that way... ok... I don't say that taxes can't be unfair and that it wouldn't be good to change tax laws every now and then ( in order to delete the possibilities for abuse etc ), but apart from that we just have a different opinion and why not ? Variety of ideas makes life interesting....

You are

and I am

Why do you care that much ? You won't change the whole system, so just lay back and relax - that is worth a lot more than a few bucks....
I mean Duke said that you are all happy and enjoy life to the fullest, but this "stealing" thing tells me something different... maybe I'm wrong... who cares.... Have a nice discussion 👍

 

[Swift]

*falls through a wormhole into an alternate reality where he agrees with Swift*


Whoah. What the smeg happened there?

heh heh,

When two intelligent people talk in a mature fashion long enough, they are bound to agree on something sooner or later.

 

[skicrush]

You two are great. we all know you're secretly in love!

I tend to believe that if we stopped helping the poor from a gov't welfare perspective, and cut the amount of tax that provided that money, that only a fraction of that money (from private individuals) would make its way back to charities to help the poor.

And that would plenty. Without all the beaureaucracy, the freedom to judge each case on its merits, and the opportunity to provide mentoring and training instead of handouts and inefficient gov't training pgms, I believe private charity programs would be much better suited to helping the poor. Besides being less wasteful of the tax dollars they recieve.

 

[Famine]

And where do you come into it, Swift?



*runs like buggery to the GT4 forum*

 

[Danoff]

Why do you care that much ? You won't change the whole system, so just lay back and relax - that is worth a lot more than a few bucks....

I care because it is unjust. Why don't you care?

 

[Swift]

And where do you come into it, Swift?



*runs like buggery to the GT4 forum*

You can't hide from me there...I'm a SUPER MOD now.

But I'd think you agree with my previous point, correct?

I care because it is unjust. Why don't you care?

Because he doesn't live in America.

 

[Max_DC]

I care because it is unjust. Why don't you care?

Because I stopped getting angry about things I can't change... I study medicine, my father is also a doctor... A relaxed life is a long life... Don't argue about things you can't change because this just creates stress and stress damages your health... My family is not poor, and the situation for future doctors couldn't be better... 20000 doctors already missing in Germany, 10 times more in whole Europe and the USA are next ( over 30000 missing in the future )... It's hard work and not payed like jobs in the economy, but it's enough to drive cars with 300 - 500 hp and fun like that... I will never earn less than 60000 $ a year, I know german doctors who work in the UK and the Netherlands ( they have not enough doctors ) for 28000 $ a month AFTER TAXES.... Honestly, it will be my duty as a doctor to help others, and so I think it is also my duty to pay more taxes than those with less opportunities,... as my parents do... I won't make my life shorter with crying over a few bucks I have to pay more... and you shouldn't do either... Or do you want to provoque an heart attack ? Of course it's not just this subject, it's about how you see your whole life... But who am I to tell you how to live your life ? Also this is a message board, so discussion is its purpose...
But hey you asked

Do your thing...