Things that make you go.......WTF?

[stui magpie]

^
15% tax is still taxed, you're argument is really whether it's been taxed enough.

What do you define as a "large sum" and what, for the record, do you define as "wealthy"?

[David]

ill enter that debate with you again David,

but ill wait a while. when its your money, that you want to leave your kids, or its your inheritance, which im assuming you will be handing over to the government??

as for inheritance tax, the money hasd already been taxed once. that's enough.

gotta love people trying to give other peoples money away!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erSJGrpfnOI

signed: AN ANT!!

It's actually somewhat relevant to my personal situation, as Lola's parents have expressed interest in setting up a bank account for Ingmar (essentially, a trust fund). My instinctive reaction is, no, why would I want him to get money for nothing upon reaching adulthood? What sort of lesson does that teach him about hard work and earning his keep? I don't like it at all.

Lola has pointed out that we might be able to use it for his education, and I came around a bit at that: I might want to send him to a private secondary school, after all. But that just makes me ask myself why I'm thinking that way. Is it because I'm afraid that a public education won't be 'good enough'? And if my fears are justified, how screwed up is it that the question of whether or not he receives this 'good enough' education depends on the wealth of his parents or grandparents? How unjust is it that he might get this free kick in life while others don't, simply by virtue of family name? I want the best for him, of course, and that necessarily means abiding by the rules of the game, but it disgusts me.

[think positive]

It disgusts me the way cows are treated, and I advocate for better conditions for them, but I still eat meat. We all have to play by the rules we don't want in some ways.

And what do you know, just like I've been saying all these years, your attitude changes when you have your own kids. Welcome to the real world.

(Even if you choose against a private educations, there's things like braces - and they are not all fitted purely for aesthetics, etc) it ain't cheap being a parent mate. And the world is getting harder and harder to get a start in. My kids will get a leg up, we've worked hard to get it for them, and even if they change the rules, I'll find a way to do that. They won't get a silver spoon, in deed they have both helped out with the family business, but things like a decent safe car to drive, rather than what they can afford, (ie, not much, not safe enough in my mind) are no brainers for me.

And tannin, the money I got when my Mum passed away, was her savings, She had no super, it was basically what was left when she divorced my dad and the house was sold. So full tax was paid on all of it. So do you want a sliding scale? Or do we just smash the battlers once again?

I got to say David, I'm over this give it to the state crap. Take 95 % of what the Ginas of the world make. I don't know personally how much she donates etc etc, but I know a lot of wealthy people donate a lot of cash. They are playing by the rules they have been given, there's no evil in that. So why slag them off so much.

A lot of things need to change, but unfortunately I reckon 99% of politicians are in it for the power, the glory and the money. I don't reckon to many really give a shit. Or the world would change for the better.

Funnily enough everyone slags of the USA and Obama, but Obama care is something the poeple of the states so desperately need. It may not be perfect, neither is Medicare, but it's a start.

Whilst a certain percentage of the population can stay in bed unless the are paid 10,000 a day to walk a catwalk, or $1,000,000 to make 1 1/2 an hour sitcom a week, or $500,000 to kick a ball around a field, or $1,000,000 for a song they wrote, or a picture they drew, whilst people who go around in the middle of the night and help drug addicts, and pull bleeding dying strangers out of cars for maybe $200 or $300 a day, at risk of being stabbed, or punched, or shot, and our police are on about $50 -$70k, we will get the society we deserve. It's wrong, it's upside down.

A lot need fixing before you worry about the guy living the aussie dream handing a bit to his kids when he's done.

[pietillidie]

They are playing by the rules they have been given, there's no evil in that. So why slag them off so much.

False. Many are very obviously and actively using their capital to interfere in democracy, warping markets, confusing the public through fraudulent media and public relations, buying politicians, making rules which favour themselves, and bullying others who threaten them.

Many others are carried along by the ignorance of being born into wealth and simply don't know much about the wider world, mollycoddled in their gated communes as they are.

Still other are too afraid to say anything, such is the capacity at that level for capital to destroy people who stick their necks out too far.

We could take any business newspaper on any day and demonstrate this in two minutes. It's just so common you've screened it out because it's too stressful to focus on it.

The behaviour of wealth is of course natural and has always been exactly the same. We readily invent all kinds of nonsense to justify where we find ourselves in life, so there's nothing new to see here, let alone deny.

The difference, however, is much like the difference between a pomeranian and a pitbull; both have the same instincts, it's just that only one has the capacity to maul you to death.

The interesting thing is that you focus a lot on violent crime, yet the thuggery of, say, beating an innocent elderly person up, or reducing that elderly person's pension or quality of care purely to reduce your own taxes because "you deserve it" is pretty much a similar violence.

I just don't know why you have so much difficulty dealing with that.

And it gets even worse when you think it through. For instance, think of the many policies which punish poor children by making their parent's lives miserable. It might feel justifiable to punish a "lazy" adult by reducing the services available to them, but what does that do to their children? Well, we know what it does: Every cent of increased stress on adults equates to more emotional, sexual and physical assault against children. Like clockwork, sadly enough.

If you think power is a benevolent dictator, no matter how good a person's original intentions prior to having power, then I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

[think positive]

Uh huh

Where am I advocating anything that reduces the care of the elderly? Surely that comes under my scorn of politicians allowing it to happen? My mum was in a public funded care centre, and the two years she was there, I got an amazing amount of changes made through one hell of a lot of dedication, and at great cost to myself.

Everything needs switching around. No I don't think anyone needs, or even deserves THAT much money, but I alwso don't blame them for taking advantage of the loop holes available to them. How many politicians do exactly the same thing?

Though what the **** this has to do with inheritance tax, or the absolution of inheritance altogether, is beyond me! Or is it once again, the responsibility of those in the top tiers to look after the rest of us? Are we talking all inheritance, or just the really rich? Well that's fair, and will work well, I'm guessing they will just go off shore and live in Jamaica!

[Wokko]

We have a progressive tax system, the poor pay no tax at all (They loan money to the government that gets paid back with a tax return) the lower middle and middle classes pay a small amount.

According to all the leftists the wealthy are dodging tax, so where does all the Tax revenue come from?

I think you need to stop equating tax dodging billionaires and their companies with the far more numerous upper middle and upper class 'wealthy' who are paid a generous salary and are what we'd call 'Rich'. They are the ones who cover the tax burden and should not be continuously hit with more taxes because people at the lower end are envious of their wealth. Those 'rich' people who have worked hard, invested wisely and saved their money and assets to pass on to their children should not have to sacrifice that to the wasteful, monolithic State.

David, give your kid EVERY advantage you can, no matter how distasteful to your personal politics. You don't live in a Socialist Utopia any more than I live in a Libertarian Paradise. Maybe Ingmar, through his private school connections will have a chance to enter politics and make the kind of changes you and I can only dream of. Even Ayn Rand accepted welfare because the State is happy to take your money there is no moral argument to say it's not right to take it back. Just so there is no moral argument against using whatever advantages you and your family have. You can decide to never minimize taxation, fight for your ideals, donate money to things, help out at the local public school even if you think it inadequate (It's not, Private school is for connections, not a better education).

[think positive]

We have a progressive tax system, the poor pay no tax at all (They loan money to the government that gets paid back with a tax return) the lower middle and middle classes pay a small amount.

According to all the leftists the wealthy are dodging tax, so where does all the Tax revenue come from?

I think you need to stop equating tax dodging billionaires and their companies with the far more numerous upper middle and upper class 'wealthy' who are paid a generous salary and are what we'd call 'Rich'. They are the ones who cover the tax burden and should not be continuously hit with more taxes because people at the lower end are envious of their wealth. Those 'rich' people who have worked hard, invested wisely and saved their money and assets to pass on to their children should not have to sacrifice that to the wasteful, monolithic State.

David, give your kid EVERY advantage you can, no matter how distasteful to your personal politics. You don't live in a Socialist Utopia any more than I live in a Libertarian Paradise. Maybe Ingmar, through his private school connections will have a chance to enter politics and make the kind of changes you and I can only dream of. Even Ayn Rand accepted welfare because the State is happy to take your money there is no moral argument to say it's not right to take it back. Just so there is no moral argument against using whatever advantages you and your family have. You can decide to never minimize taxation, fight for your ideals, donate money to things, help out at the local public school even if you think it inadequate (It's not, Private school is for connections, not a better education).

Bravo

I think I'll just delete my posts and leave it to you!

[pietillidie]

They are the ones who cover the tax burden and should not be continuously hit with more taxes because people at the lower end are envious of their wealth.

Are you seriously saying you think children who instinctively want the opportunity to express themselves freely by having access to competitive health, education, safety, stability and opportunity are envious of the wealthy? I mean, really.

That's not analysis you're wielding there; it's a fundamentalist religion that's willing to ideologically trample on, in this instance, the entire demographic of children to preserve itself.

I understand why it attracts you, but you're screening out far too many of its flaws.

For instance, in the other thread, you concede under conditions of natural monopoly the government has a role. But what you don't seem to understand is just how pervasive natural monopoly is, and how pervasive such non-market forces as collusion, insider trading or political and legislative corruption are.

You just can't keep holding that edifice together; I personally strongly recommend an independent mixed model that is less concerned about symmetry, and more concerned to acknowledging and weighting the various forces which exist and holding them in tension, as opposed to denying some and exaggerating others to keep a small set if initial assumptions intact.

[Pies4shaw]

They are playing by the rules they have been given, there's no evil in that. So why slag them off so much.

False. Many are very obviously and actively using their capital to interfere in democracy, warping markets, confusing the public through fraudulent media and public relations, buying politicians, making rules which favour themselves, and bullying others who threaten them.

Many others are carried along by the ignorance of being born into wealth and simply don't know much about the wider world, mollycoddled in their gated communes as they are.

Still other are too afraid to say anything, such is the capacity at that level for capital to destroy people who stick their necks out too far.

We could take any business newspaper on any day and demonstrate this in two minutes. It's just so common you've screened it out because it's too stressful to focus on it.

The behaviour of wealth is of course natural and has always been exactly the same. We readily invent all kinds of nonsense to justify where we find ourselves in life, so there's nothing new to see here, let alone deny.

The difference, however, is much like the difference between a pomeranian and a pitbull; both have the same instincts, it's just that only one has the capacity to maul you to death.

The interesting thing is that you focus a lot on violent crime, yet the thuggery of, say, beating an innocent elderly person up, or reducing that elderly person's pension or quality of care purely to reduce your own taxes because "you deserve it" is pretty much a similar violence.

I just don't know why you have so much difficulty dealing with that.

And it gets even worse when you think it through. For instance, think of the many policies which punish poor children by making their parent's lives miserable. It might feel justifiable to punish a "lazy" adult by reducing the services available to them, but what does that do to their children? Well, we know what it does: Every cent of increased stress on adults equates to more emotional, sexual and physical assault against children. Like clockwork, sadly enough.

If you think power is a benevolent dictator, no matter how good a person's original intentions prior to having power, then I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

I think a fairer answer to tp might have been to point out that some excessively wealthy individuals obtained their excessive wealth by privatising public resources. GR was gifted hers by her late, scarcely-lamented immediate male progenitor. He, in turn, obtained his by (getting other people to do the) digging (for him) up our resources and selling them back to us (or off overseas to the highest bidder). There is, I think, a critical distinction to be made between the massive wealth and power accrued by some such individuals (who may very well not pay sufficient tax because of the accounting advice they get) and the amounts of money scraped and saved by individuals through hard work and adversity over their entire lives.

I see Wokko has also identified the need for the same distinction to be made in this particular area of discourse.

[pietillidie]

^Add that to what could well be a very long list by the time we're through.

The problem with the upper-middle is not having worked hard to become upper middle; it's that dangling carrot (bone?) which makes so many lose their bearings and become the attack dogs of the elite.

[Pies4shaw]

They are the ones who cover the tax burden and should not be continuously hit with more taxes because people at the lower end are envious of their wealth.

Are you seriously saying you think children who instinctively want the opportunity to express themselves freely by having access to competitive health, education, safety, stability and opportunity are envious of the wealthy? I mean, really.

That's not analysis you're wielding there; it's a fundamentalist religion that's willing to ideologically trample on, in this instance, the entire demographic of children to preserve itself.

I understand why it attracts you, but you're screening out far too many of its flaws.

For instance, in the other thread, you concede under conditions of natural monopoly the government has a role. But what you don't seem to understand is just how pervasive natural monopoly is, and how pervasive such non-market forces as collusion, insider trading or political and legislative corruption are.

You just can't keep holding that edifice together; I personally strongly recommend an independent mixed model that is less concerned about symmetry, and more concerned to acknowledging and weighting the various forces which exist and holding them in tension, as opposed to denying some and exaggerating others to keep a small set if initial assumptions intact.

Letting someone's mother leave a modest house to their children at the end of a long life of working hard and paying tax is not really the problem, though is it? It was not taxing the actual rich properly in the first place.

You do your own arguments no useful service by mischaracterising others' views. I have a fundamentally different set of political views and values from Wokko's - but I recognise the point he is making about where the tax burden falls and would rather that other posters dealt with it intelligently, rather than just gain-saying it.

[pietillidie]

They are the ones who cover the tax burden and should not be continuously hit with more taxes because people at the lower end are envious of their wealth.

Are you seriously saying you think children who instinctively want the opportunity to express themselves freely by having access to competitive health, education, safety, stability and opportunity are envious of the wealthy? I mean, really.

That's not analysis you're wielding there; it's a fundamentalist religion that's willing to ideologically trample on, in this instance, the entire demographic of children to preserve itself.

I understand why it attracts you, but you're screening out far too many of its flaws.

For instance, in the other thread, you concede under conditions of natural monopoly the government has a role. But what you don't seem to understand is just how pervasive natural monopoly is, and how pervasive such non-market forces as collusion, insider trading or political and legislative corruption are.

You just can't keep holding that edifice together; I personally strongly recommend an independent mixed model that is less concerned about symmetry, and more concerned to acknowledging and weighting the various forces which exist and holding them in tension, as opposed to denying some and exaggerating others to keep a small set if initial assumptions intact.

Letting someone's mother leave a modest house to their children at the end of a long life of working hard and paying tax is not really the problem, though is it? It was not taxing the actual rich properly in the first place.

You do your own arguments no useful service by mischaracterising others' views. I have a fundamentally different set of political views and values from Wokko's - but I recognise the point he is making about where the tax burden falls and would rather that other posters dealt with it intelligently, rather than just gain-saying it.

I think we're in totally different discussions. I was referring to the nonsense about "envy"; what were you talking about?

Once more, just in case you missed it:

They are the ones who cover the tax burden and should not be continuously hit with more taxes because people at the lower end are envious of their wealth.

Are you seriously saying you think children who instinctively want the opportunity to express themselves freely by having access to competitive health, education, safety, stability and opportunity are envious of the wealthy? I mean, really.

I would rather you deal with that Libertarian nonsense intelligently rather than appointing yourself discussion moderator.

[1061]

It's actually somewhat relevant to my personal situation, as Lola's parents have expressed interest in setting up a bank account for Ingmar (essentially, a trust fund). My instinctive reaction is, no, why would I want him to get money for nothing upon reaching adulthood? What sort of lesson does that teach him about hard work and earning his keep? I don't like it at all.

Lola has pointed out that we might be able to use it for his education, and I came around a bit at that: I might want to send him to a private secondary school, after all. But that just makes me ask myself why I'm thinking that way. Is it because I'm afraid that a public education won't be 'good enough'? And if my fears are justified, how screwed up is it that the question of whether or not he receives this 'good enough' education depends on the wealth of his parents or grandparents? How unjust is it that he might get this free kick in life while others don't, simply by virtue of family name? I want the best for him, of course, and that necessarily means abiding by the rules of the game, but it disgusts me.

David is it really your place to make these decisions for your child. If your son grows up and ends up with your attitude to life then he would possibly donate such a large sum toward a charity of his choice. If not he will be one of the annoying teenagers driving a shiny newish car with a green P plate like they are entitled to drive like an idiot! Or he will invest wisely and get himself into a position to look after you and Lola in your old age.

Either way I don't think it's up to you to say no because if his grandparents are smart they'll just set it up without your knowledge anyway and hand it to him at an age they deem appropriate.

[Pies4shaw]

PTID, I don't want to be "discussion moderator" - I'd just like to see people deal more intelligently with difficult issues. And, no, I didn't miss what you said there - it was the sloppy reasoning behind that particular statement that prompted my comment. Have a look at the entirety of Wokko's paragraph - it makes a quite different and much more subtle point. But, of course, feel free to burn the straw man, if you'd rather.

[HAL]

I always feel completely free.