:
Originally posted by Danny
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...
|
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?
:
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.
|
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).
:
|
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.
|
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.
:
|
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...
|
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