:
Originally posted by pinkgoth2
So you're basically saying "ignore them because they cannot possibly be causing harm"? Er, sorry Danny, but this is the point I think we're going to have problems settling on, if it isn't impossible. You're against stealing, you're against the poor getting money drawn from them, but you refuse to acknowledge these problems exist? Er, I'm just lost. *makes a note to try and find some statistical figures, if that is even possible*
|
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...
:
|
Um. Danny? I think you're contradicting yourself a little... er... o_o
|
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.
:
|
As for the rich only being taxed as much as the poor - you lost me again. To my knowledge (and once more, I know at least this to be true in germany), money is taxed. The amount of money is taxed - the more money you have, the less you can keep. It goes so far that some people on the rich end of the spectrum decide not to get any richer. (Someone once made a joke that one is taxed 101% of one's money once one hits a certain limit).
|
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...