ITT: People who can't take a joke

[orb451]

Look at the high taxes with the guitar analogy again. Say you have a whole collection of guitars (10 or more for arguments sake) that you worked your ass off for, why should you feel compelled or *be* compelled by government or law, to give up 4 or 5 of them because someone else wants them? Or, say they don't even want them, what if they just want to sell them and use that money for other crap. Think about it. You LOVE those guitars. They're your tools, they bring you happiness and joy, why would you willingly give them up?

Now lets say you *inherited* a collection of guitars from a dead uncle. Same scenario, you've got a bunch on your hands and each one is like a color on an artists palette. They still bring you joy and you *have* an attachment to them, even if you didn't put your blood sweat and tears scrounging to save for them. They still mean something so why would you give 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 of them away?

Lastly, what if you studied, went to school or took a class and *learned* how to build your own guitars? You poured your heart and soul into making these guitars and crafting them precisely till the end product was a beastly machine, why again, would you want to give up the fruits of your hard work? You bought the tools to make them, you educated yourself on how to build them correctly, and the end result is stunning. Why give that up??? Why should the small luthiers feel compelled to give away their products for free, simply because someone is going without?

Now I know some will say, well guitars aren't a necessity, people can and do exist without them, they're just guitars. That's fine. Hopefully no one's going there, but if you were tempted to, *obviously* just substitute guitars for MONEY.

 

[chronocide]

Well that's the thing, no one agrees to what *degree* the abuse should be tolerated unfortunately. I'm sure my standards and yours on that bit would probably differ greatly

Well the point is where it becomes cheaper to pay out than to police, surely?

As to the taxation point, I understand the need for taxes, I just don't understand the need to tax the living shit out of people because to me, it too quickly removes the incentive to be successful in the first place.

That's a case often made in Europe when people argue against increasing taxation or closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and for businesses. "If we tighten things the businesses will move abroad and the people will emigrate". They simply don't. On the contrary, it seems to make people strive even harder and make yet more money.

 

[orb451]

Well the point is where it becomes cheaper to pay out than to police, surely?

Don't call me surely

Joke aside, in trying to find that article with the 61 or 81 million or whatever it was that was spent on EBT (food stamp) fraud in Cali I found some PDF that had $300 million spent annually on general welfare abuse. I don't know how accurate it is, so I'm not going to cite it. Point being though, if *any* money is being wasted it's worth pursuing/policing.

That's a case often made in Europe when people argue against increasing taxation or closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and for businesses. "If we tighten things the businesses will move abroad and the people will emigrate". They simply don't. On the contrary, it seems to make people strive even harder and make yet more money.

Well in the states it has happened where businesses have been driven out of state or country by higher taxes or higher costs of doing business. Perhaps it's not as prevalent in Europe. Or maybe they're just better at hiding their income in tax shelters and flying under the radar.

I think the truth is, it does affect some businesses and wealthy individuals (increasing taxes or the cost of doing business) adversely and others adapt and others go out of business entirely and everything in between.

In other words, I don't think it's all one way or the other.

In other news, my penis is incredibly small.

 

[chronocide]

Don't call me surely

Joke aside, in trying to find that article with the 61 or 81 million or whatever it was that was spent on EBT (food stamp) fraud in Cali I found some PDF that had $300 million spent annually on general welfare abuse. I don't know how accurate it is, so I'm not going to cite it. Point being though, if *any* money is being wasted it's worth pursuing/policing.

Even if the cost of policing is more than the wastage?

Well in the states it has happened where businesses have been driven out of state or country by higher taxes or higher costs of doing business. Perhaps it's not as prevalent in Europe. Or maybe they're just better at hiding their income in tax shelters and flying under the radar.

I think the truth is, it does affect some businesses and wealthy individuals (increasing taxes or the cost of doing business) adversely and others adapt and others go out of business entirely and everything in between.

In other words, I don't think it's all one way or the other.

There's certainly a great deal of tax avoidance on the go. We've had recent extensive protests about a couple of companies in particular, but plenty are at it.

All in though, I find it hard to care if some people go away, if they don't want to contribute at the same level as others that's entirely their right, but those who do want to live in an area should contribute to the society, and I think every society has a right to the very best in health, education, emergency services, public transport and so on. If that means the contribution is significant, that's fine by me.

Should be noted, that even with very high income tax on the rich, the wealthy will still pay less tax as an overall percentage of income than the poor because of the taxes which are paid at the same level for everyone: Fuel duty, VAT or it's equivalent depending on the nation and so on.

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

I really like the new title

 

[orb451]

Even if the cost of policing is more than the wastage?

Absolutely not, if you can't control spending on the *policing* side of things, how can you be expected to control spending on services and benefits?

All in though, I find it hard to care if some people go away, if they don't want to contribute at the same level as others that's entirely their right, but those who do want to live in an area should contribute to the society, and I think every society has a right *and* a duty, to make their lives and environments the best that they can be. If that means the work required is significant, that's fine by me.

See what I've done? That's how *I* feel about people and their ability to succeed. If you want all these services to be paid for like the things you listed as basic "rights" then the money to pay for them has to come from someone, somewhere, I just don't see why the burden should be on the backs of those that can "supposedly" afford to pay for them.

Why say "supposedly"? Because again, this kind of conversation almost always turns into a shit slinging fest about how the Rich are evil and *have* to pay for everyone and everything else, simply because it seems like they should be able to do it without batting an eyelash.

And rarely if ever goes into eliminating the root causes, which all boil down to attitude and drive. A lack of one or a bad iteration of the other can sink anyone. Instead it's all bandaids for bullet wounds.

 

[orb451]

Seems like someone can't handle all the *love*

 

[highlordmugfug]

@ thread title and orb's pink lettering.

 

[orb451]

 

[Chickenhawk]

Seems like someone can't handle all the *love*

Randy.



Rich, shoot me a message tomorrow so I remember to come in here and share my pseudo-conservative views.

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

Absolutely not, if you can't control spending on the *policing* side of things, how can you be expected to control spending on services and benefits?




See what I've done? That's how *I* feel about people and their ability to succeed. If you want all these services to be paid for like the things you listed as basic "rights" then the money to pay for them has to come from someone, somewhere, I just don't see why the burden should be on the backs of those that can "supposedly" afford to pay for them.

Why say "supposedly"? Because again, this kind of conversation almost always turns into a shit slinging fest about how the Rich are evil and *have* to pay for everyone and everything else, simply because it seems like they should be able to do it without batting an eyelash.

And rarely if ever goes into eliminating the root causes, which all boil down to attitude and drive. A lack of one or a bad iteration of the other can sink anyone. Instead it's all bandaids for bullet wounds.

I don't see any issue with the rich being made to pay much higher income tax than those less well off.

 

[orb451]

Randy.



Rich, shoot me a message tomorrow so I remember to come in here and share my pseudo-conservative views.

Don't bother man, this shit'll be closed up tighter than a virgin's honeypot tomorrow

"that's ok.... some people have to play their little games..."

 

[orb451]

I don't see any issue with the rich being made to pay much higher income tax than those less well off.

Me neither, and thankfully, I can afford to do it too!

 

[orb451]

"... our true enemy, has not yet revealed himself..."



Whenever you're ready to join the discussion oh mod of mods, show yourself and join the discussion!

 

[chronocide]

If you want all these services to be paid for like the things you listed as basic "rights" then the money to pay for them has to come from someone, somewhere, I just don't see why the burden should be on the backs of those that can "supposedly" afford to pay for them.

The burden should fall on everyone. From each by his means, to each for his need.

Why say "supposedly"? Because again, this kind of conversation almost always turns into a shit slinging fest about how the Rich are evil and *have* to pay for everyone and everything else, simply because it seems like they should be able to do it without batting an eyelash.

Is anyone saying the rich should be paying for everything? Only that those with the ability to pay most should pay most. 20% of the income of a man earning 14K a year has a bigger impact on living standards than 50% of a man earning 300K.

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

Can someone make all my posts have sharks in them?

 

[The Somberlain]

Your text is pink; your argument is invalid

 

[orb451]

Your text is pink; your argument is invalid

Your text is greyish/white, your post is worthless.

EDIT: And so is mine until it turns PINK!!!!

 

[synrgy]

Well in the states it has happened where businesses have been driven out of state or country by higher taxes or higher costs of doing business.

I thought it was more a matter of cutting payroll costs by paying lower wages to employees overseas.

Working where I do, I have insight I'd rather not have into the mind(s) of corporate structure. Most of these big business owners -- and I can't blame them, really -- will do anything and everything they can to maximize quarterly profits, in order to keep the shareholders/B.O.D happy. Long term outlooks be damned. Honestly, if a 3% shift (in either direction) in taxes so completely destroys one's profit model, I submit one has a shitty business plan to begin with.

 

[orb451]

I thought it was more a matter of cutting payroll costs by paying lower wages to employees overseas.

Working where I do, I have insight I'd rather not have into the mind(s) of corporate structure. Most of these big business owners -- and I can't blame them, really -- will do anything and everything they can to maximize quarterly profits, in order to keep the shareholders/B.O.D happy. Long term outlooks be damned. Honestly, if a 3% shift (in either direction) in taxes so completely destroys one's profit model, I submit one has a shitty business plan to begin with.

That's definitely one component to it, driving profits higher and cutting overhead. But overhead isn't *just* employee wages, that's a huge part of it, but not the whole story.