--- 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