<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Nov 8 2004, 08:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Nov 8 2004, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Nov 6 2004, 07:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Nov 6 2004, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry Marik, majority of the wealthy people I've met that built it through companies, etc, do not want and certainly have little interest in paying excessively high taxes to pay for people that are many times unwilling to better themselves.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's easy to blame the poor and just concern oneself with one's own skin. But you cannot be serious to put *all* blame on the poor's shoulders, it's capatalism, and someone *has* to pay for the wealthy. It's jungle law basically, and I dont see no initiative from the conservative side on how to avoid the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I haven't put all the blame on the shoulder's of the poor. Obviously it isn't a poor boy's fault that he's poor. However, it is a poor man's fault if he's poor. The government isn't needed to stop the poor from being poor. The poor are the only ones that can, obviously with the help of many community run programs.
I mean, honestly, at some point you have to stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Don't forget, capitalism didn't create wealthy and poor. All it did was create a world in which, theoretically, anyone could be wealthy or poor through his/her decisions, relationships, etc. Obviously, someone's always at the top and someone's always at the bottom. But the guy at the bottom could always get financial aid, take some classes, get an Associates Degree in something, and now he's not at the bottom! That's what capitalism's about.
But, in all honesty, I'm ok with paying a small percentage from my already small paycheck to help out someone else. I think most people are ok with that. Even die hard conservatives don't mind, as long as there is a huge accountability factor involved. If you're paying for your digital cable from my tax money, I'm not pleased. If you're feeding your family while taking classes, you deserve my money.
But the government is, and shouldn't be, the end all be all for helping out those less fortunate. Charities are some of the best ways to help out those in need, without screwing all of society over.
The Holidays are coming up, and there's something really special about dropping a buck into the red Salvation Army container and knowing you're helping some child get a coat that keeps him warm. There's nothing special with having that money taken right from you. It's my money. I'll give it to whom I deem fit. The government can have a part in helping out people who need help, but making the government the majority in such a situation simply will lead us into a true welfare state.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Nov 8 2004, 06:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Nov 8 2004, 06:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Nov 6 2004, 07:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Nov 6 2004, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry Marik, majority of the wealthy people I've met that built it through companies, etc, do not want and certainly have little interest in paying excessively high taxes to pay for people that are many times unwilling to better themselves.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's easy to blame the poor and just concern oneself with one's own skin. But you cannot be serious to put *all* blame on the poor's shoulders, it's capatalism, and someone *has* to pay for the wealthy. It's jungle law basically, and I dont see no initiative from the conservative side on how to avoid the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Blame the poor? Why is it now such a abhorrent idea that maybe, just maybe, a majority of the blame <i>does</i> have to do with the poor and not the rich businessman. There is always mitigating circumstances that might prove otherwise, but I think it's a good rule of thumb to say that somewhere along the lines they made a decision.
And we're not talking about a small little bit either. We're talking exhorbitant, non-voluntary, non-consumption taxes. There's really only two ways of using your money: burying it, or putting it back into the economy. So if you let the "rich" take their money and spend it, you're going to see tax income and direct investment in business and products.
Charity is great. Just as long as it's not ineffective, involuntary, government run charity.
Vertihandi... it would run on revenue through a national sales tax. Voluntary, consumption based taxes.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Nov 8 2004, 11:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 8 2004, 11:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Nov 8 2004, 06:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Nov 8 2004, 06:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Nov 6 2004, 07:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Nov 6 2004, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry Marik, majority of the wealthy people I've met that built it through companies, etc, do not want and certainly have little interest in paying excessively high taxes to pay for people that are many times unwilling to better themselves.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's easy to blame the poor and just concern oneself with one's own skin. But you cannot be serious to put *all* blame on the poor's shoulders, it's capatalism, and someone *has* to pay for the wealthy. It's jungle law basically, and I dont see no initiative from the conservative side on how to avoid the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Blame the poor? Why is it now such a abhorrent idea that maybe, just maybe, a majority of the blame <i>does</i> have to do with the poor and not the rich businessman. There is always mitigating circumstances that might prove otherwise, but I think it's a good rule of thumb to say that somewhere along the lines they made a decision. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I sort of thought this argument was already refuted in this thread. To paraphrase it: imagine where the wealthy would be without the "poor."
I also don't get the sales tax. Isn't it like a tarriff on your own population? Wouldn't it make sense to say, "consumption is good, it runs our economy. Lets tax the capital that isn't working for us." (Or at least, not working as hard.)
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've worked for a nunber of charities and they generally replicate each other's work, advertising and infrastructure, resulting in a colossal expenditure of money that employs a relatively small number of people.
The very existance of charities blatantly underlines the failure of the current government and social order.
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Nov 9 2004, 08:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Nov 9 2004, 08:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've worked for a nunber of charities and they generally replicate each other's work, advertising and infrastructure, resulting in a colossal expenditure of money that employs a relatively small number of people.
The very existance of charities blatantly underlines the failure of the current government and social order. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it shows the success in that we do not need government to help the poor.
Churches for example have been helping the poor for centuries....
Also great debate guys. The only thing I think we should have taxes are for basic things;
- Federal government - Policemen - Firemen - Transportation (this is already a huge sinkhole for taxes I'm pretty sure but nessesary) - Other protection based services
And by protection, I mean "Phsyical" protection, not protection against society.
Furthermore, you could do away with the IRS and income taxes, in reality we just need to tax our businesses some and there you have it.
Remember that the top 5% pays 50% of our taxes, get rid of the welfare state and you can do away with taxes altogether.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy to blame the poor and just concern oneself with one's own skin. But you cannot be serious to put *all* blame on the poor's shoulders, it's capatalism, and someone *has* to pay for the wealthy.
It's jungle law basically, and I dont see no initiative from the conservative side on how to avoid the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't put all the blame on the shoulder's of the poor. Obviously it isn't a poor boy's fault that he's poor. However, it is a poor man's fault if he's poor. The government isn't needed to stop the poor from being poor. The poor are the only ones that can, obviously with the help of many community run programs.
I mean, honestly, at some point you have to stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Don't forget, capitalism didn't create wealthy and poor. All it did was create a world in which, theoretically, anyone could be wealthy or poor through his/her decisions, relationships, etc. Obviously, someone's always at the top and someone's always at the bottom. But the guy at the bottom could always get financial aid, take some classes, get an Associates Degree in something, and now he's not at the bottom! That's what capitalism's about.
But, in all honesty, I'm ok with paying a small percentage from my already small paycheck to help out someone else. I think most people are ok with that. Even die hard conservatives don't mind, as long as there is a huge accountability factor involved. If you're paying for your digital cable from my tax money, I'm not pleased. If you're feeding your family while taking classes, you deserve my money.
But the government is, and shouldn't be, the end all be all for helping out those less fortunate. Charities are some of the best ways to help out those in need, without screwing all of society over.
The Holidays are coming up, and there's something really special about dropping a buck into the red Salvation Army container and knowing you're helping some child get a coat that keeps him warm. There's nothing special with having that money taken right from you. It's my money. I'll give it to whom I deem fit. The government can have a part in helping out people who need help, but making the government the majority in such a situation simply will lead us into a true welfare state.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy to blame the poor and just concern oneself with one's own skin. But you cannot be serious to put *all* blame on the poor's shoulders, it's capatalism, and someone *has* to pay for the wealthy.
It's jungle law basically, and I dont see no initiative from the conservative side on how to avoid the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blame the poor? Why is it now such a abhorrent idea that maybe, just maybe, a majority of the blame <i>does</i> have to do with the poor and not the rich businessman. There is always mitigating circumstances that might prove otherwise, but I think it's a good rule of thumb to say that somewhere along the lines they made a decision.
And we're not talking about a small little bit either. We're talking exhorbitant, non-voluntary, non-consumption taxes. There's really only two ways of using your money: burying it, or putting it back into the economy. So if you let the "rich" take their money and spend it, you're going to see tax income and direct investment in business and products.
Charity is great. Just as long as it's not ineffective, involuntary, government run charity.
Vertihandi... it would run on revenue through a national sales tax. Voluntary, consumption based taxes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy to blame the poor and just concern oneself with one's own skin. But you cannot be serious to put *all* blame on the poor's shoulders, it's capatalism, and someone *has* to pay for the wealthy.
It's jungle law basically, and I dont see no initiative from the conservative side on how to avoid the problem. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blame the poor? Why is it now such a abhorrent idea that maybe, just maybe, a majority of the blame <i>does</i> have to do with the poor and not the rich businessman. There is always mitigating circumstances that might prove otherwise, but I think it's a good rule of thumb to say that somewhere along the lines they made a decision. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I sort of thought this argument was already refuted in this thread. To paraphrase it: imagine where the wealthy would be without the "poor."
I also don't get the sales tax. Isn't it like a tarriff on your own population? Wouldn't it make sense to say, "consumption is good, it runs our economy. Lets tax the capital that isn't working for us." (Or at least, not working as hard.)
The very existance of charities blatantly underlines the failure of the current government and social order.
The very existance of charities blatantly underlines the failure of the current government and social order. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it shows the success in that we do not need government to help the poor.
Churches for example have been helping the poor for centuries....
Also great debate guys. The only thing I think we should have taxes are for basic things;
- Federal government
- Policemen
- Firemen
- Transportation (this is already a huge sinkhole for taxes I'm pretty sure but nessesary)
- Other protection based services
And by protection, I mean "Phsyical" protection, not protection against society.
Furthermore, you could do away with the IRS and income taxes, in reality we just need to tax our businesses some and there you have it.
Remember that the top 5% pays 50% of our taxes, get rid of the welfare state and you can do away with taxes altogether.