It does?!? Really! Oh crap...

It does?!? Really! Oh crap... </font>[/QUOTE]:ROTFL: [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

ah, well, sorry to post twice, but apparently being a communist would be why your last post sounded communist in nature (this is why you shouldnt start at the end and read backwards).

to shamrock:

"the tax breaks are directed towards those that do not need it - heavily subsidised US industry and large corporations."

agreed, but at the same time, doing varying percentages for taxation isnt fair either. large corporations should be charged a percent scale equal to that of small corporations. they also need to straighten out the income/property tax iniquities. how is it fair that in CA we pay 30% tax if you're middle class, and 35% if youre rich? ONE STANDARD!!!

"not sure whether that's good either, witness the energy crisis in the US caused by a lack of capacity and a worryingly similar trend in the UK"

haha, i did witness it, first hand. i live in CA where the energy crisis all started. you know the funny thing? it was actually a weather anomoly which caused the energy deficit... not economic policy at all. the economic/purchase system is the same as it was then, and there arent any problems right now. (and yes, as a physics major, we actually studied what happened).

"the introduction of the minimum wage here has coincided with a near unprecedented stage of economic success"

case in point, however, i would like to ask about this conjecture: that the standard of living on average increased more for americans in the timespan prior to the introduction of minimum wages than after. I'm not sure if thats true or not, but i think it is...

but the issue was social programs, so, why should the government provide medicare? medicare is known accross the industry as the worst coverage a person can possibly have. the government isnt doing anybody a favor by taxing them until they cant afford their own medical coverage, and then giving them the same half assed substitute that they give every bum who doesnt want to work and lives off welfare. its an injustice.

"whilst charity may be a virtue, forcing people to rely on it is not"

well, i counter: if someone takes something from me, and i dont want them to, (even if they give it to someone who needs it) it is still stealing. there, i said it, i view the welfare system as stealing (for most cases). i would gladly GIVE the money i put into welfare directly to the people. with 0 middlemen to take their cut, the people would see more of it anyway. but i dont want to be sent a mandatory help people out bill with each of my pay checks, that cuts my ability to be virtuous through the act of freely giving. it makes me a victim of anyone who doesnt want to work and can just take my money through welfare. its ridiculous.

Promethius, what disgusts me is that you don't even seem care much about the poor. I just can't stand it when people like you say crap about welfare. It goes mostly to the working poor and those disabled. Just because some of the bums don't work doesn't mean they're lazy, they may have pschological problems or are disabled and unable to work.

I've never believed in communism and I never will believe in such radicalism, but I'm sure not a fan of capitalism.

well, first off, i care very much about the poor. what i would rather see, however, is money going through my church, or directly from me to the poor. I have no problem giving to the poor. my objection is that i am forced to do so by the government.

when you say "when people like you" you prejudge me into a class which (most likely) doesnt fit. you dont even see the key to my point. the working poor wouldnt even need welfare if the horrendous taxation program we have now were to be righted. the only people who want more taxes to pay for extensive welfare are those who are unwilling/unable to work. for those who are unwilling to work, cut the benefits and see how long they don't want to work. for those who are unable to work, again, i would rather see charity come from voluntary sources like the church than through government sponsored "redistribution"(robbery) of wealth.

ask a working poor person if they'd rather get half their income tax, massively reduced sales and property tax, and pay less than half than what they do, or remain on welfare... i guaruntee that they'd rather keep their money and pay less than have to suffer the shame of food stamps. i mean honestly, food stamps are an insult to working people who could otherwise afford to purchase ALL of their needs if their money wasnt being "redistributed."

speaking of which, when they pay more in taxes than they get from food stamps, where does that redistributed wealth go? straight into the beuruecracy and politician's pockets.

finally, the reason i take a somewhat detached tone is because there are LOTS of people out there who blame their poverty on the fact that no one will give them a hand up. they dont get medical coverage because they get on medicare, and my tax dollars, which could go to help people who are actually in need, go to paying for food stamps for someone who could otherwise be earning an adequate ammount of money. yes, i am offended by the current system. no, if the system were made how i said, i would not abandon the poor to starve, i would do what i could to help those around me, without middlemen beurocrats taking their cut out of the middle.

hmmmmm.... probably not Islamic... but similar mindset... Catholic? Perhaps Presbytarian?

Doing what?

Like who?

heirophant,

1) yes, catholic. not rich however. i am allowed to say that i think a little exploitation builds some character if i'm supposedly on the recieving end though, right?

2) in answer to your question "doing what?" -- well, just about anything. i dont think youre getting the math. under the current tax system earning ten dollars an hour gets you 2.50 in capitol purchasing power. the rest goes back to taxes in some way, shape or form. If we cut taxes back by half, reduced the responsibility of the government to cover superfluous items, then earning 10 dollars an hour would get about 2.5 +(10 - 2.50)/2 or, simply put you would have 5.75 dollars in capitol purchase power. that represents more than DOUBLE the purchasing power that you had before. Imagine for a second that what you are earning right now, buys TWICE as much capitol... do you think you could afford to cover your own healthcare with the provider of your choice? would you be on food stamps? no, under that system, earning 10 dollars an hour would be equivalent to earning 22.5 dollars an hour in the current system. and i think that 22.5 dollars an hour TODAY is enough to put a small family out of the "working poor" class.

3) In response to "like who?" -- do you mean who would i help, or who are the beurocrats? im assuming the first case. i would help the homeless and crippled, especially those who had served in the military. there are always going to be enough poor people out there that i cant help them all, but at least i could help those whom i have the most compassion for, instead of resenting the welfare system for taking my money and redistributing it however they choose to whomever "needs" it. That way, each person gives because it has value to them, not because they HAVE to. THAT is how you foster charity.

Hey, sure man, if you say so. You seem to have it all planned out. Surely it's just human ignorance that's keeping this sort of wisdom from becoming a working reality...
[img]graemlins/laughsaywhat.gif[/img]