Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 9:27:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not surprised. Even I'm amazed at the numbers on Europe's social spending, especially countries like Greece or Portugal. There's a difference to be marked between basic government safety nets, and cradle-to-grave daily provision.

If Europe needs to cut back spending, then it's for the best. Look at what the UK is doing - cutting back spending in a lot of unneeded areas and downloading services to regional and private authorities. They save their frontline services and tackle the problem more effectively, without running into Greece-style problems.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 10:43:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
While Eton and Oxford educated son of an aristocrat, Tory PM David Cameron and the Quisling Lib-Dem Deputy PM Nick Clegg are slashing the benefits that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society rely upon, the Tories rich friends are defrauding the country out of £16 billion a year by evading their taxes.

Cameron wouldn't have to make so many "painful decisions" if he asked his wealthy pals if they wouldn't mind, you know, paying some f-cking tax.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 10:52:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 10:43:14 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
While Eton and Oxford educated son of an aristocrat, Tory PM David Cameron and the Quisling Lib-Dem Deputy PM Nick Clegg are slashing the benefits that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society rely upon, the Tories rich friends are defrauding the country out of £16 billion a year by evading their taxes.

Cameron wouldn't have to make so many "painful decisions" if he asked his wealthy pals if they wouldn't mind, you know, paying some f-cking tax.

Has there ever been a real social tax policy that reduces benefits but relives tax or is it just corruption. I've always given in to the Conservatives stealing the workers money story but I'm having doubts. In the history of the Conservatives has this ever been in practice.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 11:16:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 10:52:07 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Has there ever been a real social tax policy that reduces benefits but relives tax or is it just corruption. I've always given in to the Conservatives stealing the workers money story but I'm having doubts. In the history of the Conservatives has this ever been in practice.

Only if you believe, as some Libertarians do, that taxation is a form of theft.

Instead, the Tories say that the country needs to raise a certain amount of money through taxation and that amount should be kept to a minimum by only providing the bare essentials in terms of the welfare state.

Of course, this still costs a lot of money but they would rather the burden of taxation fell upon the ordinary people that are more likely to use those services rather than the wealthy who can afford to make their own provisions for health, pensions, education, etc. through private providers.

They argue that a low tax economy attracts wealth creators and even if the Tories promise not to ask them any awkward questions regarding their tax arrangements, society will benefit from their being in the country because they spend money in posh restaurants, designer clothes shops, luxury car showrooms, etc. which keeps people in jobs. They see this as a sort of blessing in disguise.

Personally, I'd rather the blessing was not in disguise and the rich either paid their taxes or got out - after all, where would they go? There are not many countries that welcomes tax evaders on the off chance that they may keep a few low-paid shop workers in part-time jobs.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 11:24:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 11:16:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 5/24/2010 10:52:07 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Has there ever been a real social tax policy that reduces benefits but relives tax or is it just corruption. I've always given in to the Conservatives stealing the workers money story but I'm having doubts. In the history of the Conservatives has this ever been in practice.

Only if you believe, as some Libertarians do, that taxation is a form of theft.

Nah, not theft, theft would be illegal.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 11:26:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 11:16:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 5/24/2010 10:52:07 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Has there ever been a real social tax policy that reduces benefits but relives tax or is it just corruption. I've always given in to the Conservatives stealing the workers money story but I'm having doubts. In the history of the Conservatives has this ever been in practice.

Only if you believe, as some Libertarians do, that taxation is a form of theft.

It is theft.

However, the thing is, theft can sometimes be justified. ;)

Instead, the Tories say that the country needs to raise a certain amount of money through taxation and that amount should be kept to a minimum by only providing the bare essentials in terms of the welfare state.

Of course, this still costs a lot of money but they would rather the burden of taxation fell upon the ordinary people that are more likely to use those services rather than the wealthy who can afford to make their own provisions for health, pensions, education, etc. through private providers.

They argue that a low tax economy attracts wealth creators and even if the Tories promise not to ask them any awkward questions regarding their tax arrangements, society will benefit from their being in the country because they spend money in posh restaurants, designer clothes shops, luxury car showrooms, etc. which keeps people in jobs. They see this as a sort of blessing in disguise.

Personally, I'd rather the blessing was not in disguise and the rich either paid their taxes or got out - after all, where would they go? There are not many countries that welcomes tax evaders on the off chance that they may keep a few low-paid shop workers in part-time jobs.

mmm... I'd say tax luxury goods. Like Tea perhaps! :)

But, of course only to provide the bear necessities for those people unable to provide for themselves.

I figure when people are in desperate straights just to survive... when they steal food or a bit of shelter from the cold... they're justified.

and if the govt. doesn't back'em/steal for'em then there's a good chance of Violence happening when they try to steal from others.

also spreading the burden of such 'righteous' theft around on those who can apparently most afford it (people buying luxury goods) would be most just.

I figure if you're willing to waste your money... I'd be willing to steal it to feed some starving people... and I'd be for the government doing that.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 11:27:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
theft = taking something that is someone else's without their consent
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2010 7:03:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 10:43:14 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
While Eton and Oxford educated son of an aristocrat, Tory PM David Cameron and the Quisling Lib-Dem Deputy PM Nick Clegg are slashing the benefits that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society rely upon, the Tories rich friends are defrauding the country out of £16 billion a year by evading their taxes.

Cameron wouldn't have to make so many "painful decisions" if he asked his wealthy pals if they wouldn't mind, you know, paying some f-cking tax.

Or maybe we need to inform the growing underclass that they actually are expected to support themselves? I am all for safety nets, but we should not have millions of healthy able bodied people who refuse to work and so are maintained by the public purse.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2010 2:19:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/26/2010 7:03:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/24/2010 10:43:14 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
While Eton and Oxford educated son of an aristocrat, Tory PM David Cameron and the Quisling Lib-Dem Deputy PM Nick Clegg are slashing the benefits that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society rely upon, the Tories rich friends are defrauding the country out of £16 billion a year by evading their taxes.

Cameron wouldn't have to make so many "painful decisions" if he asked his wealthy pals if they wouldn't mind, you know, paying some f-cking tax.

Or maybe we need to inform the growing underclass that they actually are expected to support themselves? I am all for safety nets, but we should not have millions of healthy able bodied people who refuse to work and so are maintained by the public purse.

I agree with that actually. Welfare services should be for those who actually need them. All the people who are abusing the system should be cut off. That includes the people who are recieving welfare money simply to support addictions.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2010 2:29:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/27/2010 2:19:40 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I agree with that actually. Welfare services should be for those who actually need them. All the people who are abusing the system should be cut off. That includes the people who are recieving welfare money simply to support addictions.
It can be hard to realize that a person is pretending to be mentally ill. That is why welfare will not always be a system of justice. In theory, it is, but in practice, it is not.
Andrew27
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 2:34:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There's a fine line between providing a welfare state and a nanny state where people take no responsibility for them selves or there actions. We need the middle ground where the poorest and vulnerable are cared for but where the state doesn't try to control ever aspect of people lives. I agree that the rich should have to pay there share, but penalising people who have done well and have been successful isn't the way forward. Maybe if we stopped wasting so much money on useless IT projects, the monarchy, defense spending, trident, PR companies etc etc we wouldn't be in such a mess
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 2:40:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/12/2010 2:34:09 PM, Andrew27 wrote:
There's a fine line between providing a welfare state and a nanny state where people take no responsibility for them selves or there actions. We need the middle ground where the poorest and vulnerable are cared for but where the state doesn't try to control ever aspect of people lives. I agree that the rich should have to pay there share, but penalising people who have done well and have been successful isn't the way forward. Maybe if we stopped wasting so much money on useless IT projects, the monarchy, defense spending, trident, PR companies etc etc we wouldn't be in such a mess

I agree. The monarchy is useless. It should be abolished. Also, there should be progressive taxation. We can't be over-taxing the poor because in reality they simply can't afford it. Also, the wealthy can afford to pay so should be expected to contribute to society and help their fellow humans out. It's the selfless thing to do.
Andrew27
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 2:55:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
i agree but whilst we still hyave the house of lord, permanent position within whitehall, things wont change. Also we're in consitutional monarchy so untill that changes and we become a republic we cant get rid of monarchy
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 3:08:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/12/2010 2:40:38 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Also, the wealthy can afford to pay so should be expected to contribute to society and help their fellow humans out. It's the selfless thing to do.

Forcing people to help you is selfless now? Most of the rich tend to donate large amount to charity, anyway, and the more they have, the higher of a percentage of their income they tend to give to charity.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 3:24:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/12/2010 3:08:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
Forcing people to help you is selfless now? Most of the rich tend to donate large amount to charity, anyway, and the more they have, the higher of a percentage of their income they tend to give to charity.
For a society and nation to function as one, people need to support each other in some way.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 3:25:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/12/2010 3:08:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/12/2010 2:40:38 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Also, the wealthy can afford to pay so should be expected to contribute to society and help their fellow humans out. It's the selfless thing to do.

Forcing people to help you is selfless now? Most of the rich tend to donate large amount to charity, anyway, and the more they have, the higher of a percentage of their income they tend to give to charity.

Clearly not enough. There's poverty rampant everywhere and people who can't afford basics like healthcare and education.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 4:09:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Need" is wanting what others have,
"Greed" is wanting to keep what is yours,
and "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 5:20:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/12/2010 4:09:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
"Need" is wanting what others have,
"Greed" is wanting to keep what is yours,
and "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

So greed is good and charity is bad?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 5:40:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/12/2010 5:20:08 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 6/12/2010 4:09:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
"Need" is wanting what others have,
"Greed" is wanting to keep what is yours,
and "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

So greed is good and charity is bad?

Greeed is spectacular and charity is usually bad. When it isn't bad most people wouldn't consider you very charitable for it anyway.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Andrew27
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:34:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rich people tend to give a small amount to charity which can be offset against tax, most really rich avoid even paying taxes! Most western governments and international corporations dont want third world countries o get out of poverty as it's competition for them selfs!
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:35:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/12/2010 5:40:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/12/2010 5:20:08 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 6/12/2010 4:09:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
"Need" is wanting what others have,
"Greed" is wanting to keep what is yours,
and "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

So greed is good and charity is bad?

Greeed is spectacular and charity is usually bad. When it isn't bad most people wouldn't consider you very charitable for it anyway.

Lol, typical libertarian. Greed is never good. Greed is part of the problem as to why we have so many problems in society.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:44:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 12:43:32 AM, Atheism wrote:
And still better than the USA. Europe wins.

Yes. I definitely agree. I love Europe. Haha.
Andrew27
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:59:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hahah I do lol and we only give more to poor countries as they are ex colonies and we raped them of the wealth and sold them into slavery over hundreds of years so we have a sense of guilt that we should do something
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 10:29:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 12:59:42 AM, Andrew27 wrote:
Hahah I do lol and we only give more to poor countries as they are ex colonies and we raped them of the wealth and sold them into slavery over hundreds of years so we have a sense of guilt that we should do something

...What? Makes no sense. We give because we actually want people to not die and suffer. Also, where did the slavery bit come from?
I miss the old members.