1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI would think that the state would provide for you in Cuba- keeping you out of absolute poverty.
Few poor people in America remain poor their entire lives. Moreover, being "poor" in America beats the hell out of being poor somewhere else, say like Cuba, Egypt or Zaire.
"Few poor people remain poor"- ? Thats just untrue!
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat, der schwarze, is the only way to survive in this world. By becoming a
Careful stocken, if you keep thinking like that, one day you're going to grow up and become cynical.
cynical and slightly deranged fool.
"Stocken, because it takes one to know one."
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenOf course £1m is a good personal wealth, but in the uk people would laugh at you if you were only worth £1m and announced you were 'rich'. We are defining rich, of course the very poor would consider well off to be rich in comparison to their situation, but we are attempting to define 'rich' in generally, not rich as defined by the very poor. For the purposes of this debate I am of course narrowing the defination of rich to only financial items (ie not rich in love, happiness etc)
Say that to the poor bugger struggling for a few hundred pounds a month.
Or the guy who has to perfect the art of thieving because he can't make a
decent living (food on the table and roof over his head) any other way.
Puts! Of course a millions pounds is a great personal wealth. It's more than
you really need to survive and then some. Now, if every ou can get rich without having
to exploit others. But really, that's not the truth, is it?
Originally posted by stockenWe don't have shares here. You're rewarded by you're own labors, unless of course you're a member of the governing class or lawyers, in which case you cleave to the credo of: What's yours is ours.
You're saying that everyone involved in the incredible wealth of the US
nation is getting their equal share? Is that what you're saying? Careful now.
Originally posted by wedgehead2The antithesis to the economic model you've described is called communism and it doesn't work.
You can only get rich through exploiting other people. Resources are finite- those who get more than their fair share are sending others into poverty. This applies with, for example, manufactering- manufactered goods are sold for more than the cost of the labour, capital and raw materials used. That extra money doesn't go to the labourer- it goes to the o ...[text shortened]... g. global capitalism, has lead to poorer nations becoming the labourer, and the west the owner.
Originally posted by stevetoddIf it's so important for you to define rich, how's this: "If you got more
Of course £1m is a good personal wealth, but in the uk people would laugh at you if you were only worth £1m and announced you were 'rich'. We are defining rich, of course the very poor would consider well off to be rich in comparison to their situation, but we are attempting to define 'rich' in generally, not rich as defined by the very poor. For the purpo ...[text shortened]... arrowing the defination of rich to only financial items (ie not rich in love, happiness etc)
than you really need to survive, you're rich"? And, yes, I'm talking about the
things you need to support your basic needs. Happiness, love and
friendship are secondary needs that can be supported no matter what.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterwhy is everything either capitalist or communist?????? There are alot of other economic models out there. Socialism does not equal communism anywhere in the world other than some folks in the US.
The antithesis to the economic model you've described is called communism and it doesn't work.
Originally posted by wedgehead2What if your punk rock band, The F-holes, got signed to a contract and you found yourself at the top of the charts with your hit song: "God loves a commie!" and all of a sudden you were earning in excess of U.S. $196,000? Would you feel the same way? How would you feel if the British government came in and took $96,000 right off the top for a windfall profits tax, then cleaved another $50,000 off the remainder for income taxes? Don't forget the so-called jock tax you'd have to pay depending on the venues you played. Lastly, you'd have to pay your roadies and management. So you're looking at about $20,000 at the end of that first year. Not bad, eh? If I were you, I'd start looking for a tax haven.
I don't see any reason for a wage higher than £100,000. Anymore than that I would class as excessive and rich.
Originally posted by wedgehead2I would support a law which dictates that the highest paid person in an organisation cannot be paid more than 10X that of the lowest paid.
I don't see any reason for a wage higher than £100,000. Anymore than that I would class as excessive and rich.
If you want to pay a CEO £10million a year, you have to pay the cleaners £1 million a year.
Originally posted by stockenWhere in the Western world does someone have to turn to thieving as opposed to going out and doing and honest week's work? Even people who begin their careers at McDonalds earning minimum wage receive a salary increase within the first two months. I think your attitude is all that's holding you back.
...Or the guy who has to perfect the art of thieving because he can't make a decent living (food on the table and roof over his head) any other way.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterMost people can live within their means now. They want tax cuts so they can extend those means further than they are now. How many people here own a LCD or Plasma TV? Or a 40K car instead of 20K car?
The problem for governments is not a lack of revenues but rather profligate spending. Governments should learn to live within their means.
Do you really need it? Or do you just want it?
Maybe people should learn to live within their means before they start on about tax cuts and government spending. When you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones.