:
Originally posted by pinkgoth2
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?
|
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.
:
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).
|
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...
:
|
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.
|
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.
:
|
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?
|
Forgive me, but I don't quite understand what you're saying here...