It's not a case of a few people imposing morality on the rest because it is what has
been voted for by the majority in every social democracy in Europe.
Granted, that's a imposition by oligarchy, but that's democracy for you.

More broad assumptions, and backhanded insults too. You firstly assume that any person who is in favour of a commonly termed 'left wing' ideology is somehow not trying or is not participating in the process. You proof? Do you know me personally, or all of the other lefties out there? Are you assuming this based on your personal unprovable prejudice about the nature of left wing thought? You are very confident in your ideas but you constantly make assessments that cannot be proven, nor are likely to be true if proven. If I were not trying then I wouldn't be listening to my pinko-commie professors would I? As you said yourself higher education is the key to a greater net worth ergo people such as myself go to school. But then if in the process I adopt ideas which are against the grain of society I am branded as somehow not a participant in society. And even then you're assuming I didn't believe anything before my so called lefty classes. Apparently being a progressive thinker is a game of brainwashing or neurotic desire to avoid work. You again emphasize 'class envy'. You assume things about me without proof. You don't disprove the validity of my ideas but rather impeach the assumed motivation behind them. This is a very well thought out and written ad hominem, but it is still just that, be it about me or the body of left minded individuals.

So now it isn't an absolute but a generalization. 'Some'. So if some people are poor because they choose to be then that implies quite obviously that some are poor despite trying, or at least aren't there because of your outlined reasons. Can you account for this in anyway other than an unfair economic paradigm that keeps them where they are? And even then you don't get specific in terms of ratio. Further you place the entire burden of responsibility on those that engage in behavior counter to what leads to affluence. So all criminals choose crime. Nice and simple. The dynamics of poverty are absent here. The psychological effects of life as a poor person mean the likelihood that these people are going to be affected somehow in a way that limits their ability to make mature sensible decisions is much greater. Add to that the fact that most solutions to severe dysfunction relating to these things, such as abuse of many kinds, are expensive and hard to get when they're needed or for a sustained period. The secret to much success isn't just effort but also support. This is where class divisions are most acutely obvious. And that is just in regards to choosing poverty. That doesn't touch on the inequality of opportunity which faces a willing man which many people believe in, despite it being an unpopular idea.

So you can be derisive about my ideas all you want but don't pretend to know me and my motivations, or assume that I don't parse the ideas thrown at me. The old idea that being young dismisses my ideas is prejudicial. Assuming its all also class prejudice or envy is a generalization that isn't part of an intellectual argument of facts. You side step the arguments about the mechanics of the system and instead attack the people who argue about it.

I very much agree. I however rarely meet a person of conservative belief that deigns to argue rather than just smite my character. See above.

I very much enjoy real arguments with people that disagree with me, but I don't find much of an argument most of the time. Usually it degenerates into an angry polemic against the commies. Theres so much anger, on both sides. In my experience no person with a reasonable opinion reads word for word from their ideological prophet(s). I might have freinds on the left but I don't wholesale accept every idea or proposed action by any one party or author. The thing that bugs me is the universal blurring of all left wing ideas into one single dangerous entity. That would be like calling all Republicans Neo-Conservatives. Its a failure of intellectual imagination or energy to discuss ideas in such broadly narrow terms (if you get what I mean).

I don't think I've ever read a single left wing pamplet in my life, and I really dislike my college anti-war group for lacking any sensibility about armed forces abroad (yes lets just dissolve the military and all the others will do so too). I think that young persons' ideas start like a blunt heavy hammer and narrow to a fine dagger as time wears on. I don't see the betrayal of progressive quasi-socialist ideals as the only natural course for a man.

EDIT. btw Letum is brilliant in his own words. Like I said, not nearly as verbose as moi.

I did not intend to apply insult to you. So this is rather a broad generalization of me as well. But yes, unless you participate in the economy, you won't make it. And just participating doesn't translate into success. You may fail. Maybe once or twice. Maybe more. But what's great is that you can get back on the horse and ride again. Also, if you don't pursue greater educational goals, you will only get so far. And have nobody to blame but yourself. Also, choosing a field of study that doesn't pay well...means you won't make the bucks. That's reality. But if you're happy doing what you do...who cares. Money doesn't necessarily mean happiness. But it's the left that seems to think confiscating my money is the answer.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself here. But nobody says you can't have other ideas. But I have a problem with ideas which limit the freedom of others. That's the essence of left-wing views. Using the government as a means to correct perceived "injustices". And in doing so, controlling people's property, and perhaps redistributing other people's property to correct social inequalities. This is wrongheaded totally. And yes, it seems that most of the time class envy is a motivator or a tool pushed by politicians to get people to give them power. So we hear things like "the rich not paying their fair share" despite the rich actually paying the bulk of all income taxes. We get luxury taxes on items...like my own boat because dopes down the road don't have one. And they've employed government by their votes to enact one on me. :nope: If you can't see the class envy in politics, I don't think you're looking very hard for it. It's in broad daylight there.

No not all. But your actions will largely determine your outcome. I see it all the time. How far do you think you'll get as a dropout? Unless you're highly innovative and can invent something that drives demand for your idea.....I don't expect you'll get very far. And yes, despite trying you may fail. But does that mean give up and remain poor? Does that mean go running and screaming to the government that other people have stuff, and you have nothing, therefore they should make it right for you? That's economic tyranny you're looking for, if you are this kind of lefty. And what dynamics of poverty and crime are you looking for. I used to be poor. I didn't commit crimes. Many people used to be poor and were not inclined to criminality. That argument does not wash. Yes, criminals choose crime. There are other choices to make, despite hard times. I think your portrayal of poor people being more inclined to criminality is insulting in a way. You are attacking my roots. Nobody, in America at least, is trapped in poverty. There are ways out. I'm living proof of that. This all or nothing pardigm is yours, not mine.

In addition to the above, people are totally responsible for their own behavior, and are responsible for pursuing their own outcomes. That is what living in freedom is all about. But I have problems with lefty's because their answer is always limiting somebody else's freedoms to right a perceived wrong. Look. You want textbook answers. And are repulsed by common sense. That's your choice. But the world is a truly living classroom. When I went to college I learned alot about living on my own. And I learned that some things are just pushed on the students. It was always the lower division general ed.coursework that was pushed/mandated on the student despite major field of study. Mine being in engineering. And it was always pseudo-marxist in nature. And you rationalize alot like those professors by throwing up things which challenge notions of common sense and attempt to blur the lines of reality. You try and seperate people from their own responsibilities by providing excuses for their failures. I'm not saying you are like them, but yes, you sound like them.

That basically boils down to your interpretation of the essense of left-wing ideas. Left-wing ideas, to put them all in one big gravy boat of anti-goodness, are pursued because of an interpretation that the status quo is a contributor to the limitation of freedom. You can disagree with the practise of many iterations of left wing ideas, communism being the dead horse oft flogged, but the basic premise of them is not the elimination of freedom. Speaking specifically of taxes, many people claim that the rich already pay more than their share since their contributions to the pool of tax revenue is so large in figures. However looking at the proportion of disposable income available to average people versus those who have more (such as in the millions+) the 'rich' don't pay nearly as much, proportionally, as the average person. And even Adam Smith, father of the free market so they say, said that the Rich should pay at least as much proportionally, and even more hopefully, to support the government in maintaining the necessities of society. Here we would diverge into another thread headed by wastegate about the role of government in society.

So the concept of taxation of the rich in such a great way isn't so alien or new.

Portrayal that poor are more inclined to crime? That was yours. Stating that people ought to work rather than choose crime. So being a criminal and being poor was your connection, not mine. And in fact it is true to a degree, poverty ridden areas are laden with crime, compared to more affluent areas. Thats a reality well documented. How can you criticize those who choose crime over success and then turn it on me that I'm insulting them when I rebuff your own remarks?

Yeah, but the bottom 50% are paying only 3% of all income taxes now. And they also qualify for tax-payer ripoffs like WIC, and the EITC which are basically giveaways. The middle class to rich are the ones keeping the ship afloat. What you suggest is punitive, because you think the current system doesn't hurt those who have more income. You seem to want to correct a perceived inequity with the power of government confiscation. That's tyranny friend. Which is, you seem to want to limit the freedom of those who make more. You basically want to limit success and punish innovation. You want to depress investment by eliminating incentive. Well history shows that when you do that, job growth and economic growth as a whole slows. You wish to punish those who are actually at the forefront of economic growth and job creation. This is why I say, lefties worry too much about other people's success. They got their noses in everyone's chili. I say mind your own damn business and focus on your own life. And take responsibility for your own outcome. (Not you personally). This is why I say those on the left are wrongheaded about any tax policy. Because it all seems to be about punishing acheivement, empowering government over people's lives, and the limitation of freedom. You've proven that with your own words.

Nope. I said choosing crime will usually limit your success and acheivement. That is, failure is a result of choosing criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is not a result of being poor or failing at anything. You got it backwards. Could it possibly be that criminal types can only afford poorer, more depressed areas because they are, well, poor? Poor as a result of their bad choices? Poor as a result of being in and out of a jail cell rather than a school? So of course you see more crime in these areas. It's not ingrained...only that criminals (former/reformed) can only afford the low cost areas? But even they are free to pursue better education, tech school skills, etc. to lift themselves out of poverty if they wish to do so. Freedom, and the ability to succeed are great things. If we could only get alot more people to see the value in it.

Im just copy and pasteing my second post here really.....

I think you are wrong Sea Demon.
In an enviroment where everyone is competative, not everyone can be a winner,
even if everyone is equaly as good.

If every person in the world worked as hard as he/she could you would not end up with
everyone being a millionaire. You would still need the same amount of people scraping
s*** of the floor of the public conveniences.

The way to get more money is not to work hard; this is evident when you compare the
work loads of the rich and poor. The way to get rich is to control the means of
production whilst exploiting the workforce and both exploiting and manipulating the
consumers.

Those who actually work hard tend to be in the lower social and economic groups and
have a tendency to die young of industrial related illness.

It is quite clearly exploitation and manipulation of others that gets money, not hard
work.
In Europe, the rise of unions and strict control of enterprise via regulation, tax and
fines as well as compulsory competition has attempted to both restrict the explotive and manipulative
power of corporations and counter it by allowing the customer and employee to
manipulate the cooperation to some extent.
Both business and personal, tax plays a vital role in this; both the extraction and
allocation of those tax funds.

I can't and won't argue with that, and I'm not implying that people can't use their government for good purposes. While in America I feel that things like government-instituted health care are better kept at the lower State levels (I hear Hawaii's is very good) and don't want to see it at the Federal level, I agree that something can and should be done.

Here in Utah the main services are privately run (the Catholic church, believe it or not, is the main provider for the homeless [trust me on this one]).

I said taxes are necessary, but they're still evil. The opposite is also true: taxes may be evil, but they are still necessary. I just believe that if someone doesn't want to help, you have no right to force him to. If you can do that, try all you want to convince yourself, but you have no freedom. At all.

To Letum - I have yet to personally know a wealthy person (And there are a ton in my family and their friends) that doesn't put in massively long days and works their skin to the bone. That is how they got wealthy in the first place. Show me a CEO that doesn't work 12+ hours a day.

Rich people however are not wealthy people. They inherited their riches and will someday turn poor given they don't work to stay rich. So basically, your argument has a friggen big hole in it.

The point is, you simplify what is not simple and that is simply not possible. People do not get wealthy sitting on their *ss like you describe. Maybe in a communist nation they do, but not in America. You get out what you put in here. That is why everyone wants to come to this country.

http://forum.osnn.net/avatars/avatar3998_13.gif

-S

1 It has nothing to do with this tax topic.

2 It's hearsay , Rep. Dennis Hastert.

3 It's just one line out of a long quote. :down:

Disclaimer: I am not a Hilary Clinton adept.

Read this. :smug:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...otes102407.DTL

I can post as many examples of poor people working to death for rich employers who
are not. Including a few relations of mine.
For the best examples see England before the late and post Victorian social reforms.
It is ridiculous to argue that wealth is a product of hard work.
In many cases hard work may be necessary for wealth, but that is very different.


In short:
It is totally impossible for everyone to achieve wealth through hard work in a system
where the means of production or service are, to all intents and purposes, owned by
a minority in a competitive system.

This isn't in it's self a bad thing.



I can see the logic you have got there....

1) Taxes take money away from people.
2) Taking money away from people is evil.
3) Therefore tax is evil.

and

1) Taxes pay for [military/government/roads/whatever else].
2) [military/government/roads/whatever else] is necessary.
3) Tax is therefore necessary.

Conclusion: taxes are necessary, but evil.

That all makes sense.
"Taxes are bad, but they do good."

That would lead us to conclude that there is a balancing act to be made. At some point
the bad that taxes do will be equal to the good that they do and that is the point where
taxation should stop.

I don't disagree, but it still leaves the amount of taxation as more or less subjective
and I suspect it is the location of the point where the good outweighs the bad that we
disagree upon.

The problem over here is that tax dollars are often used to buy votes and create goverenment dependancy. I suspect it may be similar over there unfortunately.

Well, you cant use tax...err...pounds to fun your election bid.
The money from that has to come from either the party's funds or personal funds.
A lot of the money comes from large private donations. Recently this has caused
contrivers because some of the benefactor's have got titles after a donation.

The indirect route to buy voters with tax is to sedgiest that those reviving money
might receive more. However, as those receiving are in a huge minority to tax payers;
this would be political suicide.

As far as government dependency goes, there are plenty of people dependant on the
government for food and housing as a result of high local unemployment, illness,
disability or full time dependants (.etc).
There is a logic to saying that if these people could not get help, then less of them
would end up in a situation where they needed help. (Clearly this does not apply to
all of them).
However, in practice the number of ill, unemployed and/or people with full-time dependants
(etc.) shows no good collection to the amount of social welfare projects when different
countries are compared.

Of course a government can't run without money. I also see government as a necessary evil. My original point isn't that taxes can't be used for good, it's that the people in charge of making them and using them often see that if some is good, then more is better. It's THEM I want to see taxes as evil, so they don't run amok with someone else's life.

Of course this applies to both, any and all parties; they all have their "If I only had enough, I could save the world types".

Or, as with Blue Oyster Cult: "Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more".

I have to disagree strongly.
I can name thousands of good deeds made possible by the tax from almost any
country in the world.

You misread me. "My original point isn't that taxes can't be used for good..."

As in "My point is NOT that taxes etc..."

I know they can; I've seen many cases as well. Reread the rest of the sentence. I don't trust people who honestly believe they know better than I do what's good for me.

First they came for your cigarettes;
Then they came for your alcohol;
now they are coming for your food.

The nanny state. Someone always seems to know what is best for you! The arrogance of the left. Lets face it it is a left/progressive paradigm.

:doh: So I did! Sorry!

I think you're not giving the right credit for their own paradigm. The military budget of the US that balooned in the days of Reagan and out does the other 12 largest budgets combined (figures from a few years ago that I remember so I'm not sure what the actual one is today) and which created a massive deficit, which was again brought on by Bush Jr. is a far greater waste of tax dollars than any of the leftist nanny state policies. And historically right wing governments have violated the creed of the balanced budget far more and in much greater excess than most leftist governments.