BF2S Forums It seems not even Obama can argue for socialism any longer.

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Things like benefits aren't there for "failures" they're there for people in need of them. That's not to say that the system isn't abused and flawed, but the motivation and reasoning isn't.

the examples I gave in my last post, is the exact same thing, so is the logic, do you agree with it or not?

Honestly, partly.
I think they're not exactly the same though. If you're in serious financial trouble, you're not going to be eating at a restaurant, going on a plane, buying a car or a house. However I wouldn't deny someone in need basic human needs to food, shelter or health just because they couldn't contribute as much money as someone well off.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Yes, you aren't going to starve to death or not be able to afford what you want because the government has skimmed a few thousand off your £60k salary, whereas if they take a few thousand off your £10k salary it's more likely to have an impact.
It isn't punishing success and rewarding failure, it's taking a proportional amount of your income which isn't going to affect your quality of life in order to provide services for everyone.
So would you rather tax everyone the same amount of money a year?

Ahhh so you would be fine if you charged MORE for a new car, simply because you can afford to pay more, while someone who cant afford it should be charged less for the same car. 

Maybe, you would be fine if paid more for your meal at your favorite restaurant, because you can afford to pay more.

Ahhhh I bet when you buy a plane ticket, you would be fine if the first thing the ticket agent asks you is, "and how much do you make so I can adjust the sale price"?

Maybe the price of your house should be determined, not by the fair market value of the property, but by how much you can afford to pay.

You really think that logic is fair huh?

The world doesn't work this way.
Like presidentsheep said, we're talking about basic human needs, not luxury items.

How is a house, a car or eating food luxury items? They fall into shelter, transportation and sustenance respectively. All of which are necessary for human success. His point is valid and he found the primary flaw in any socialist system.

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

the examples I gave in my last post, is the exact same thing, so is the logic, do you agree with it or not?

Honestly, partly.
I think they're not exactly the same though. If you're in serious financial trouble, you're not going to be eating at a restaurant, going on a plane, buying a car or a house. However I wouldn't deny someone in need basic human needs to food, shelter or health just because they couldn't contribute as much money as someone well off.

You want a system where the more you make the more you pay. a car a ticket a house food, insurance are all products.

You want to say that my health should cost me more to maintain than someone not as "lucky" as me. How exactly, do you think that is not rewarding failure and punishing success?

Because he's poor and he benefits from it obviously.

A new car?
A favourite restaurant?
Plane ticket?
Buying a house?

These things aren't necessities for the most part. You can buy second hand, you can cook your own food, you can rent a house. We as a society have just become dependant on our lifestyle to the point where these things are necessities. Whilst in other countries even basic health care and clean drinking water is hard to come by.

All I'm really saying is the examples given aren't really valid when comparing it to real needs. And pricing structures in the market place generally have nothing to do with your income, it isn't a sliding scale.

Human society is hivelike, and we are all expected to contribute if and what we can. Like it or not, that's the way it works.

Yes of course, everyone in favour of sensible taxation tax is poor and in receipt of dole

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."
Warren Buffett

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
Warren Buffett

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-23 18:00:51)

Jaekus wrote:

A new car?
A favourite restaurant?
Plane ticket?
Buying a house?

These things aren't necessities for the most part. You can buy second hand, you can cook your own food, you can rent a house. We as a society have just become dependant on our lifestyle to the point where these things are necessities. Whilst in other countries even basic health care and clean drinking water is hard to come by.

All I'm really saying is the examples given aren't really valid when comparing it to real needs. And pricing structures in the market place generally have nothing to do with your income, it isn't a sliding scale.

Human society is hivelike, and we are all expected to contribute if and what we can. Like it or not, that's the way it works.

and suppose the worker bees get sick and tired of working harder and harder for less and less reward and move to a different hive with less taxes? What becomes of the hive at that point?  THAT is the reality of how things work. Do you need proof?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yes of course, everyone in favour of sensible taxation tax is poor and in receipt of dole

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."
Warren Buffett

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
Warren Buffett

DO you realize how many people Warren Buffet is responsible for their employment? I will also bet he did not become rich by following liberal ideology.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

A new car?
A favourite restaurant?
Plane ticket?
Buying a house?

These things aren't necessities for the most part. You can buy second hand, you can cook your own food, you can rent a house. We as a society have just become dependant on our lifestyle to the point where these things are necessities. Whilst in other countries even basic health care and clean drinking water is hard to come by.

All I'm really saying is the examples given aren't really valid when comparing it to real needs. And pricing structures in the market place generally have nothing to do with your income, it isn't a sliding scale.

Human society is hivelike, and we are all expected to contribute if and what we can. Like it or not, that's the way it works.

and suppose the worker bees get sick and tired of working harder and harder for less and less reward and move to a different hive with less taxes? What becomes of the hive at that point?  THAT is the reality of how things work. Do you need proof?

It depends on the size of the hive to begin with, the conditions of the new hive (not just taxes lol) and a whole lot of other motivations. If taxes are your primary motivation for where you live, move to Korea, their taxes are low.

Also, to put this discussion in perspective as we're talking about the US primarly here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom … ountry.svg

presidentsheep wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Americans (seemingly) tend to prefer the "work for yourself" attitude, ie keep most of your salary and spend it where you need to. Why should you, a man with no children, pay for other people's kids to go to school? Why should you, a man who's never sick, pay to cure other people's illness? Why should you, a rich man, not be allowed to pay top-dollar for a premium elementary school education for your child?

Just two different ways of seeing things. Europeans tend to be a lot more socialist than Americans. A socialist economy would never be (democratically) implemented in the US, not now anyway.

The way I see it is that you pay taxes and therefore get to have decent roads, free healthcare if you need it, free education if you have kids, all manner of perks.
Sure it's a bit shit the government takes lots of your money and spends it on shit you don't need sometimes, but overall it works well imo.

We have been smart enough to Contract out road repair to private contractors. Any one who has seen the NYC pothole repair crews at work knows why. State Highway isn't much better. When we need it done Right, Fast and Cheap, we hire private contractors.

Government housing hasn't worked to any one's benefit or we wouldn't have families living in it for several generations. Public schools are dependent on the neighborhoods and the parents of the children who attend them. Just throwing money at education is not the answer. ( not that you actually suggested that ) Everyone has access to health care in America. A hospital will treat you. Health insurance is a different story. If it had been mandatory when I was a young man I wouldn't have gotten anywhere in life. I poured every waking hour and dime into my professions and businesses. As for Medical and Dental, I took my chances and paid out of hand. I had to tough out some wisdom teeth, aches and pains but to me it was worth it. I had other plans for my money. I would prefer to keep it that way in light of my government's handling of my mandatory retirement plan 'Social Security'.

Why don't they fix that up first. Show me they are indeed capable and then Tackle fine tuning one of the worlds best, most advanced medical systems.

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

He's an idiot that thinks what he does is easy and thus the money he has earned isn't rightfully his. Nevermind that millions of people have tried to copy his investment strategies and haven't come close to him. He's a ridiculously huge outlier that truly believes he's nothing more than your average joe. Seriously, anything he says should be taken with a giant grain of salt.

Yes of course, he proves the theory wrong and therefore must be an 'outlier' so doesn't count.
Sometimes you sound like lowing.

Would you say that Warren Buffet and the success he's had in his life is normal or abnormal?

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

A new car?
A favourite restaurant?
Plane ticket?
Buying a house?

These things aren't necessities for the most part. You can buy second hand, you can cook your own food, you can rent a house. We as a society have just become dependant on our lifestyle to the point where these things are necessities. Whilst in other countries even basic health care and clean drinking water is hard to come by.

All I'm really saying is the examples given aren't really valid when comparing it to real needs. And pricing structures in the market place generally have nothing to do with your income, it isn't a sliding scale.

Human society is hivelike, and we are all expected to contribute if and what we can. Like it or not, that's the way it works.

and suppose the worker bees get sick and tired of working harder and harder for less and less reward and move to a different hive with less taxes? What becomes of the hive at that point?  THAT is the reality of how things work. Do you need proof?

It depends on the size of the hive to begin with, the conditions of the new hive (not just taxes lol) and a whole lot of other motivations. If taxes are your primary motivation for where you live, move to Korea, their taxes are low.

Also, to put this discussion in perspective as we're talking about the US primarly here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom … ountry.svg

I don't care how much YOU pay in taxes, we are not a socialist country, ( or aren't supposed to be). You are obviously comfortable under the thumb of your govt. Most self reliant Americans have the mind set that they go to work for themselves and not for the "hive"

Not sure what the size of the hive,or the condition of the new hive has to do with anything in context of my analogy.( actually your analogy).

People will move for all sorts of reasons, but inevitably it boils down to THIER over all quality of life, better schools, keeping more of their money, working for themselves instead of working to support someone else, etc...

lowing wrote:

I don't care how much YOU pay in taxes, we are not a socialist country, ( or aren't supposed to be). You are obviously comfortable under the thumb of your govt.

This is one of your bizarre linkages which make no sense.

In social democracies people aren't 'under the thumb' of anyone, they're free to elect the KKK if they want to, they just choose to vote for someone else.

Generally speaking groups of people working together can achieve more than groups of squabbling individuals and journeymen can.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

and suppose the worker bees get sick and tired of working harder and harder for less and less reward and move to a different hive with less taxes? What becomes of the hive at that point?  THAT is the reality of how things work. Do you need proof?

It depends on the size of the hive to begin with, the conditions of the new hive (not just taxes lol) and a whole lot of other motivations. If taxes are your primary motivation for where you live, move to Korea, their taxes are low.

Also, to put this discussion in perspective as we're talking about the US primarly here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom … ountry.svg

I don't care how much YOU pay in taxes, we are not a socialist country, ( or aren't supposed to be). You are obviously comfortable under the thumb of your govt. Most self reliant Americans have the mind set that they go to work for themselves and not for the "hive"

Not sure what the size of the hive,or the condition of the new hive has to do with anything in context of my analogy.( actually your analogy).

People will move for all sorts of reasons, but inevitably it boils down to THIER over all quality of life, better schools, keeping more of their money, working for themselves instead of working to support someone else, etc...

In this then they are wrong. Every job is a cog in the wheel of society, it's how it is. Remove a couple cogs around your cog and all of a sudden you're without a job.