--- Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Sunday 25 March 2007 21:56, ken barber wrote:
> > some of the circumstances that one has is
> accidental
> > and under no ones control while some of the
> > circumsstances that one finds themselves in are no
> > accidents, but rather a result of choices made. 
> 
> Some "choices" are forced...

agreed some are, some are not. i think i at least
aluded to that. i agree some choices are made are the
best of serveral bad alturnatives, but then again some
choices are made with a bad one over a obvious good
one available. 
> 
> > ie: 
> > your education did not just happen. you chose to
> stay
> > in school and so on. so yes, i agree that you do
> help
> > some of the less fortunate, however those that got
> > where they are by their own choices should be
> helped
> > to correct the results of their choices and get
> them
> > back on the road to self sufficency in as much as
> they
> > want to better themselves. i find myself with no
> dudy
> > to help someone who shows no desire to be helped
> to
> > get to the point that they no longer neeed help. 
> 
> You are trying to make a distinction between
> "Deserving" and "Undeserving" 
> poor, a very Victorian ethic.

victoria had some good ethics. they probably help
enland during her time. 




> > feel a duty to help people who are genuinely in
> need
> > and have unforunate circumstances that prohibit
> them
> > from making it on their own. we in america are not
> > supposed to have class separations. but don't fool
> > yourself, it is there.
> 
> If someone is in need then I'm happy for my tax
> pounds to help them, it does 
> not matter how they got into that position. My only
> beef on tax is that it 
> should be "fair", and to be fair it should be based
> on our income. If the 
> govt take 40% of my income, ok, but please also take
> 40% of the £12,000,000 

if they did not have those nasty loopholes then they
could get the 40% of the 12,000,000 pounds. why not
60%? 

> bonus the chap upstairs got last month (in fact take
> all of it - he's an 
> idiot - but that wouldn't be fair!!).
> 
he's an idiot? who got the 12,000,000 pound bonus. we
all could hope to be idiots, i'd say. 

> >    how much of ones wealth is enough to put pack
> into
> > society? half? 75%?
> 
> Well, if you include indirect as well as direct
> taxation, I pay well over half 
> my income as tax. In some European countries income
> over £100,000 are taxed 
> at 99%.
> 
> > what did you think of the pre-bate idea in the
> fair
> > tax proposal?
> 
> I think you know. ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Deri
> 
> hey deri, promise to read it and give me a mailing
address, and i'll send you a couple of books. get your
blood pressure way up. -:)
> > --- Deri James <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > On Sunday 25 March 2007 16:41, ken barber wrote:
> > > > although i do think no tax at all is better.
> > > >
> > > > why should distributing wealth be one of the
> > >
> > > purposes
> > >
> > > > of taxes?
> > > > i agree that it is, but why should it be?
> > >
> > > Hi Ken,
> > >
> > > Is it not a duty (as a member of the human race)
> to
> > > consider "others" as well
> > > as ourselves? (I know you will agree). ;-)
> > >
> > > The fact I have a comfortable life has very
> little
> > > to do with whatever meagre
> > > talents I may have been born with, and an awful
> lot
> > > to do with
> > > the "circumstances" of my life, i.e. my
> upbringing,
> > > education, family wealth
> > > & influence ("class" as this is the UK!!),
> health,
> > > and serendipitous
> > > opportunities. All things over which I had very
> > > little control.
> > >
> > > Just as it would be false for me to claim much
> > > credit for my wealth, equally,
> > > someone with a much less comfortable life should
> not
> > > be "blamed" for that
> > > fact.
> > >
> > > Given that too great an inequality in society is
> > > inevitably destructive,
> > > leading either to social unrest (crime,
> revolution,
> > > war), or loss of freedoms
> > > (as the State attempts to quell social unrest),
> a
> > > healthy society should
> > > ensure the gap between rich and poor is kept at
> an
> > > equitable balance. Direct
> > > taxation of wealth and high public spending on
> > > education, health, and
> > > welfare, is the most efficient way to
> redistribute
> > > this wealth.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Deri
> > >
> > > -----------------------
> > >
> > > To change your mail settings or leave the
> C-PALSY
> > > list, go here:
> >
> >
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
___________________________________________________________________________
> >_________ Expecting? Get great news right away with
> email Auto-Check.
> > Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> >
>
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
> >
> >
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
> 
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy