The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
People are annoying
They moan when taxes go up to help public services
They moan when they have low taxes but have crap public services
Labour lost the '92 election because the Tories whinged to 'The Sun' reading morons that they'd put up taxes... however Old Labour would do this to aid the country... but no the Tories won. Creating New Labour and now all parties are neither left nor right wing, just want to stay in power.
Or something like that.
They moan when taxes go up to help public services
They moan when they have low taxes but have crap public services
Labour lost the '92 election because the Tories whinged to 'The Sun' reading morons that they'd put up taxes... however Old Labour would do this to aid the country... but no the Tories won. Creating New Labour and now all parties are neither left nor right wing, just want to stay in power.
Or something like that.
Page:
Perfectly equal proportion of taxes for all. 1% to 99%, it makes no difference, as long as EVERYONE is charged the same, irrespective of earnings. It's fair.
I've read most of The Republic, but I'll have to look into the other.
Stryke, would what you propose as the tax system then?
Stryke, would what you propose as the tax system then?
If you're interested in the possibility of how an ideal world would be run, I'd recommend two books. Utopia and Plato's The Republic. They're available from any decent-sized library. Brilliant read, both of them.
Stryke wrote:
> Oh, I see. That would be ideal, I agree. But unfortunately greed in
> part of human nature. I reckon that the only way utopia i.e. Communism
> at it's purest form, could happen would be unlimited resource
> availability,
I haven't read that book no, do you recommend it?
Unlimited resource availability would work because what we have been discussing all boils down to one thing - economics. And the basic economic problem of any society is that of scarce resources, and how society resolves unlimited human wants - of course, unlimited resources solves that particular problems (assuming of course, everyone can acces them properly).
I don't see how Utopia can ever be achieved, because everyone has their own definition of it.
> Oh, I see. That would be ideal, I agree. But unfortunately greed in
> part of human nature. I reckon that the only way utopia i.e. Communism
> at it's purest form, could happen would be unlimited resource
> availability,
I haven't read that book no, do you recommend it?
Unlimited resource availability would work because what we have been discussing all boils down to one thing - economics. And the basic economic problem of any society is that of scarce resources, and how society resolves unlimited human wants - of course, unlimited resources solves that particular problems (assuming of course, everyone can acces them properly).
I don't see how Utopia can ever be achieved, because everyone has their own definition of it.
Oh, I see. That would be ideal, I agree. But unfortunately greed in part of human nature. I reckon that the only way utopia i.e. Communism at it's purest form, could happen would be unlimited resource availability, gene therapy for behavioural traits and a lack of any possibly nation identity.
Have you read Thomas More's Utopia?
Have you read Thomas More's Utopia?
Stryke wrote:
> RM18 wrote:
> . Basically, what you advocate is fine in a perfect world
>
> --
>
> No. No it's not. It's unfair bias towards those who earn more, for the
> only reason that they have money and others don't, therefore -surely-
> the poor deserve it more than the rich, whose money it actually is.
* * * * *
No, you misunderstand my statement.
You are talking about re-distribution of income - I am referring to re-distribution of WEALTH. Like I said, advocating redistribution of wealth, irrespective of income, is fine in a *perfect* world, but this is the real world.
> RM18 wrote:
> . Basically, what you advocate is fine in a perfect world
>
> --
>
> No. No it's not. It's unfair bias towards those who earn more, for the
> only reason that they have money and others don't, therefore -surely-
> the poor deserve it more than the rich, whose money it actually is.
* * * * *
No, you misunderstand my statement.
You are talking about re-distribution of income - I am referring to re-distribution of WEALTH. Like I said, advocating redistribution of wealth, irrespective of income, is fine in a *perfect* world, but this is the real world.
RM18 wrote:
> . Basically, what you advocate is fine in a perfect world
--
No. No it's not. It's unfair bias towards those who earn more, for the only reason that they have money and others don't, therefore -surely- the poor deserve it more than the rich, whose money it actually is.
> . Basically, what you advocate is fine in a perfect world
--
No. No it's not. It's unfair bias towards those who earn more, for the only reason that they have money and others don't, therefore -surely- the poor deserve it more than the rich, whose money it actually is.
SHEEPY wrote:
> Tax the people who earn millions, take all their money off them.
To an extent that is occuring, what with so-called 'stealth' taxes and higher inheritance tax, not to mention windfall taxes on big business.
You argue for taxing the rich more, but then what would that achieve? I tell you - lots of rich people emigrating abroad, taking their businesses with them - there would be what is called a 'brain drain' i.e. everyone clever would go and work abroad where they can make more money. Basically, what you advocate is fine in a perfect world, but this is the real world - there is the economic, and political, aspect to consider.
> Tax the people who earn millions, take all their money off them.
To an extent that is occuring, what with so-called 'stealth' taxes and higher inheritance tax, not to mention windfall taxes on big business.
You argue for taxing the rich more, but then what would that achieve? I tell you - lots of rich people emigrating abroad, taking their businesses with them - there would be what is called a 'brain drain' i.e. everyone clever would go and work abroad where they can make more money. Basically, what you advocate is fine in a perfect world, but this is the real world - there is the economic, and political, aspect to consider.
Exactly, people turn down higher wages sometimes so they can be in a lower tax bracket, in the end earning more money than a higher wage would get them
SHeepy, your "Tax the rich" schemes are utter crap. It's just not fair. Fine, tax the rich 75%, but you've also got to charge the poor 75%, otherwise it's just discrimination. You can't realistically think people will earn large amounts of money if it's all going to be confiscated. This is the reason Communism doesn't work - human nature.
Page: