Re: Um
 

Let me try and explain... Social Services benefit many people. A very very very tiny minority of them are not seeking work. However, the fact that so many of them are seeking work justifies giving money to the few scroungers out there, as efforts to police the system would cost more than that which is lost to scroungers anyway. Clear now? If not, I'll try again, but I'm running out of ways to rephrase things...

No, I'm not.

I am defending Communism because it would be the ideal system by which to run the world. The fact that it has not been tried does not detract from that.

You, on the other hand, are saying that the existing system is fair because everyone in Germany could get richer without anyone getting poorer if the system were changed. I don't see how you can make this sort of justification.

No, you're thinking of Income Tax, which is a tax on a person's income, rather than on the amount of money they actually have. Therefore, it hinders the efforts of the Poor to gain money as much as it hinders the rich. If, on the other hand, people above a certain wealth were to be taxed substantially more, they would barely notice the difference.

An example: Bill Gates (last year) was the proud owner of the equivalent of £34 billion. To live the rest of his life with the same luxury he enjoys now would cost him £10 million, at the least. Therefore, at least £33 billion could be taken from him, and he would never even notice an difference in lifestyle. And yet he still has all of this cash, and is still earning more. Why? He is never, ever going to need it. That is my point here. People should be taxed what they can afford to lose...

Re: Re: Um
 

This "small minorty of people" will never look for work. I'm sure so much has struck through. Thus, they will be sapping the state they live in for the rest of their lives, much unlike those people who look for jobs (they tend to find some, most of the time). Thus they are robbing much greater amounts of money from the state than a normal person would, and the bad thing about is they don't care. It's a crime, Danny, why don't you see that?

Let me explain. You defend communism, which has never been tried out before. A state has never tried to live in a communistic way. We don't know what flaws would arise, you just assume none would, right? Fine, assume this.
Yet, if you do, realise that Capitalism can also be discussed in theory. Capitalism in itself is not a bad thing, I repeat. The way it is being practised is slightly flawed because of details in laws that are hard to change. So why am I not allowed to discuss in theory, when you keep defending Communism on the same basis? I don't think that's quite fair (pun intended).

Go figure, it still means the people who are richer and get more money get taxed more heavily, unless you have a normal income person who is a let's-save-money genius, which would be the famous exception to the rule.

Sure, why not? But how do you want to know what they can afford to lose, if you go by your argument of "to live the rest of his life with the same luxury" thing. Wouldn't that be just as hard to find out as the people who don't look for work?


- TyA

Re: Re: Re: Um
 

It may be a crime, but my point is that it is a Victimless Crime, and costs the state so little money that it is far more economical to let them go on doing it than to waste money on stopping them.

I think we've already discussed this. I have already outlined what I see as the fundamental flaws in the concept of Capitalism, haven't I? If I haven't, then I will...

My point in this case is that you said that people in Germany were getting Richer without anyone else getting Poorer. Then I pointed out that that was wrong, because all economies are linked. You then claimed that it would be possible for Germany's economy to be severed from the world's. Leaving aside the fact that I am becoming increasingly doubtful that such a thing would be possible, that still means that you are claiming that the people of Germany are getting richer without affecting anyone else, even though you have accepted that, in order for this to happen, the system would have to be changed.

Meh, my language skills have gone to pot today... If you don't understand what I'm saying, that's not your fault, I'm just unable to construct a logical sequence of sentences today... :(

You're ignoring those who have very little income, and yet absurdly large amounts of money. Lords, for instance. To provide another example, say if Bill Gates sold off Microsoft, so that he no longer had any income. He would suffer no Income Tax, even though he would still be one of the richest men in the country.

Forgive me, but I don't quite understand what you're saying here...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Um
 

Danny, I don't care if you wish to laugh into your fist and feel like you triumphed now, but I wish to resign. We are both speaking in circles, and it seems there is no way we can make the other realise something. Capitalism and Communism seem to be too different in my opinion to find any common ground of argumentation.

So I am not going to reply to the details, because I would just repeat myself too.

As for not making sense due to sentance structure - I think your sentance structure makes sense, but I don't kapish you anyway! So I've given up.

I can't understand you, you can't understand me, let's keep our individual beliefs and try not to see another thread coming towards us about economics, or at least not meet in one, for all I care.

I.
Resign.

I'm tired of abusing my mother's keyboard like this.

*chuckles*

Though it was amusing whilst it lasted.


- TyA
*directed at no one in paticular, maybe someone off-screen* Okay, I bet 10€ that Danny will visciously interpret this as being out of ideas. Do I win this bet? Hmm? Do I, do I?
(There's something to think about, not only for yourself, but people in general. Isn't "i resign" always seen as "i have no more ideas" by most people? [mind you, maybe not you, I don't know, I'm assuming again])

Coward... :p ;)

I won't pretend that I'm not disappointed - a debate dropped is one lost by both sides... I had hoped that we'd eventually be able to come to some consensus, but you're right, we don't seem to be getting through to each other... I accept your resignation...

Hey! I'm not a coward, Danny (yea, you were kidding, but I feel the urge to defend myself anyway), I actually was busy replying to the points when I realised it wasn't getting anywhere.

And I don't think it was lost by both sides. It would have been lost if we'd continued forever and ever (which is where it was headed as far as I can tell). We'd have had no more life because of the debate! Horrible! Er... okayokay, so I'm over-doing it. *laughs*


- TyA

To be honest i'm not really sure if i'm left or right winged here are my stats again:


Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.33



So does that mean i'm left or right? I'm happy to be either but can someone please tell me?

You're a lefty, Leon... ever so slightly.

And to get Danny going the subject on communism again:
1. If certain people don't pull their weight in a communist society, than wouldn't they eventually become poor and be dropped into a lower class?
2. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism? We haven't got around to socialism in schools.

I was just curious. Sorry if question 1 doesn't make sense...

I'm a lefty?? Ha.. I don't know what to say speechless at this point.