By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Do you approve your president/prime minister?

 

Do you approve your president/prime minister?

Yes 36 23.08%
 
No 103 66.03%
 
Not sure 14 8.97%
 
Total:153
osamanobama on 02 August 2011

i have a solution to make everything equal.
upon death all property is burned, not giving to someone or the government, they dont deserve it
upon birth, the child is sent out to the wild, like everyone else, to ensure equality in the manner they are raised.
upon the unlikely survival of childhood, everyone goes to the same school with the same teacher, being taught the same thing.
upon completion of schooling everyone is paid the same wage for their job because it is unfair to deem any job more worthy than another.
furthermore everyone must eat the same food, where the same clothes, and live in the same size house
upon twilight years of ones life they are killed at age 65, so that no one person may have unfair longer life than the next



Around the Network
Viper1 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

You answered your own question there. THEIR PARENTS did well in business. Unless the parents have some way of taking their wealth with them in the afterlife, whos to say it belongs to the undeserved? At least the society is what got them to such a status, shouldn't society get it back after the deceased have had a good life?

100% means 100%. It's not discriminatory. You die, it's no longer yours.

How did society make the parents rich?  Did society decide those people were going to be rich and make it that way for them?   Or did those parents use ingenuity (as you noted earlier) to achieve their wealth?  Did their ingenuity also perhaps provide that society with a very well valued product or service?  How do you separate the diligent wealthy from the exploitative wealthy?

Let's look at it from an employment perspective.  Those wealthy parents may have employed other workers enabling them to live a decent life.  Is that not payment enough?   Is it not a gift to society the enabling of work itself?   Keep in mind that I say work, not exploitation.  You must separate the two.  I sincerely hope you do not consider all those who are wealthy to have gained it solely through exploitation?  



The rEVOLution is not being televised

fordy on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
i have a solution to make everything equal.
upon death all property is burned, not giving to someone or the government, they dont deserve it
upon birth, the child is sent out to the wild, like everyone else, to ensure equality in the manner they are raised.
upon the unlikely survival of childhood, everyone goes to the same school with the same teacher, being taught the same thing.
upon completion of schooling everyone is paid the same wage for their job because it is unfair to deem any job more worthy than another.
furthermore everyone must eat the same food, where the same clothes, and live in the same size house
upon twilight years of ones life they are killed at age 65, so that no one person may have unfair longer life than the next


Reported for trolling.



osamanobama on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
i have a solution to make everything equal.
upon death all property is burned, not giving to someone or the government, they dont deserve it
upon birth, the child is sent out to the wild, like everyone else, to ensure equality in the manner they are raised.
upon the unlikely survival of childhood, everyone goes to the same school with the same teacher, being taught the same thing.
upon completion of schooling everyone is paid the same wage for their job because it is unfair to deem any job more worthy than another.
furthermore everyone must eat the same food, where the same clothes, and live in the same size house
upon twilight years of ones life they are killed at age 65, so that no one person may have unfair longer life than the next


Reported for trolling.

lol k?



fordy on 02 August 2011
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

You answered your own question there. THEIR PARENTS did well in business. Unless the parents have some way of taking their wealth with them in the afterlife, whos to say it belongs to the undeserved? At least the society is what got them to such a status, shouldn't society get it back after the deceased have had a good life?

100% means 100%. It's not discriminatory. You die, it's no longer yours.

How did society make the parents rich?  Did society decide those people were going to be rich and make it that way for them?   Or did those parents use ingenuity (as you noted earlier) to achieve their wealth?  Did their ingenuity also perhaps provide that society with a very well valued product or service?  How do you separate the diligent wealthy from the exploitative wealthy?

Let's look at it from an employment perspective.  Those wealthy parents may have employed other workers enabling them to live a decent life.  Is that not payment enough?   Is it not a gift to society the enabling of work itself?   Keep in mind that I say work, not exploitation.  You must separate the two.  I sincerely hope you do not consider all those who are wealthy to have gained it solely through exploitation?  

Society are the consumers. Yes the wealth was collected through ingenuity, and as a reward, they live the rest of their life enjoying it. Does that mean their children deserve the same? Depends. What was their ingenuity? If they display ingenuity, what are they worrying about. That should be enough confidence that they could follow in their parent's footsteps. If they're particularly lazy and believe the world owes them, why should they get it? Society has most likely done more to get the parents where they were.

Work itself is what generates wealth, not enabling the work. If the work wasn't there, people would use the incentive of being paid hansomely for ingenuity to work towards it. 



Around the Network
osamanobama on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

You answered your own question there. THEIR PARENTS did well in business. Unless the parents have some way of taking their wealth with them in the afterlife, whos to say it belongs to the undeserved? At least the society is what got them to such a status, shouldn't society get it back after the deceased have had a good life?

100% means 100%. It's not discriminatory. You die, it's no longer yours.

How did society make the parents rich?  Did society decide those people were going to be rich and make it that way for them?   Or did those parents use ingenuity (as you noted earlier) to achieve their wealth?  Did their ingenuity also perhaps provide that society with a very well valued product or service?  How do you separate the diligent wealthy from the exploitative wealthy?

Let's look at it from an employment perspective.  Those wealthy parents may have employed other workers enabling them to live a decent life.  Is that not payment enough?   Is it not a gift to society the enabling of work itself?   Keep in mind that I say work, not exploitation.  You must separate the two.  I sincerely hope you do not consider all those who are wealthy to have gained it solely through exploitation?  

Society are the consumers. Yes the wealth was collected through ingenuity, and as a reward, they live the rest of their life enjoying it. Does that mean their children deserve the same? Depends. What was their ingenuity? If they display ingenuity, what are they worrying about. That should be enough confidence that they could follow in their parent's footsteps. If they're particularly lazy and believe the world owes them, why should they get it? Society has most likely done more to get the parents where they were.

Work itself is what generates wealth, not enabling the work. If the work wasn't there, people would use the incentive of being paid hansomely for ingenuity to work towards it. 

yes, the owners of that property (in this case the parents) have full right to give said property to any one they choose, if its their son little timmy, then so be it.

also answer this.

should kids be allowed to go to a school that their parents pay for, should they be able to play with toys that their parents pay for, should they get food from their parents, should they be allowed to get allowences. all these things the kid did nothing to deserve, yet becuase the parents had their own capital they were able to give it to their child. is that fair for a child of a family that cant afford much of that.

also some people are better at parenting than others, is it fair for one child to have better parents than another, did they do anything to deserve it?



fordy on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

You answered your own question there. THEIR PARENTS did well in business. Unless the parents have some way of taking their wealth with them in the afterlife, whos to say it belongs to the undeserved? At least the society is what got them to such a status, shouldn't society get it back after the deceased have had a good life?

100% means 100%. It's not discriminatory. You die, it's no longer yours.

How did society make the parents rich?  Did society decide those people were going to be rich and make it that way for them?   Or did those parents use ingenuity (as you noted earlier) to achieve their wealth?  Did their ingenuity also perhaps provide that society with a very well valued product or service?  How do you separate the diligent wealthy from the exploitative wealthy?

Let's look at it from an employment perspective.  Those wealthy parents may have employed other workers enabling them to live a decent life.  Is that not payment enough?   Is it not a gift to society the enabling of work itself?   Keep in mind that I say work, not exploitation.  You must separate the two.  I sincerely hope you do not consider all those who are wealthy to have gained it solely through exploitation?  

Society are the consumers. Yes the wealth was collected through ingenuity, and as a reward, they live the rest of their life enjoying it. Does that mean their children deserve the same? Depends. What was their ingenuity? If they display ingenuity, what are they worrying about. That should be enough confidence that they could follow in their parent's footsteps. If they're particularly lazy and believe the world owes them, why should they get it? Society has most likely done more to get the parents where they were.

Work itself is what generates wealth, not enabling the work. If the work wasn't there, people would use the incentive of being paid hansomely for ingenuity to work towards it. 

yes, the owners of that property (in this case the parents) have full right to give said property to any one they choose, if its their son little timmy, then so be it.

also answer this.

should kids be allowed to go to a school that their parents pay for, should they be able to play with toys that their parents pay for, should they get food from their parents, should they be allowed to get allowences. all these things the kid did nothing to deserve, yet becuase the parents had their own capital they were able to give it to their child. is that fair for a child of a family that cant afford much of that.

also some people are better at parenting than others, is it fair for one child to have better parents than another, did they do anything to deserve it?


Is slippery slope arguments the only things you can come up with?

How does any of this have to do with an estate tax?



Viper1 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

How did society make the parents rich?  Did society decide those people were going to be rich and make it that way for them?   Or did those parents use ingenuity (as you noted earlier) to achieve their wealth?  Did their ingenuity also perhaps provide that society with a very well valued product or service?  How do you separate the diligent wealthy from the exploitative wealthy?

Let's look at it from an employment perspective.  Those wealthy parents may have employed other workers enabling them to live a decent life.  Is that not payment enough?   Is it not a gift to society the enabling of work itself?   Keep in mind that I say work, not exploitation.  You must separate the two.  I sincerely hope you do not consider all those who are wealthy to have gained it solely through exploitation?  

Society are the consumers. Yes the wealth was collected through ingenuity, and as a reward, they live the rest of their life enjoying it. Does that mean their children deserve the same? Depends. What was their ingenuity? If they display ingenuity, what are they worrying about. That should be enough confidence that they could follow in their parent's footsteps. If they're particularly lazy and believe the world owes them, why should they get it? Society has most likely done more to get the parents where they were.

Work itself is what generates wealth, not enabling the work. If the work wasn't there, people would use the incentive of being paid hansomely for ingenuity to work towards it. 

Let's focus on the bold for a moment.  If their children do not deserve it, who does?   And why does one deserve something when someone else doesn't?   Further, if you take the inheritence and property away, then doesn't that make the child now poor and just as derserving of their share as anyone else?   Lastely, how do you auction off a mansion, a yacht, a business?   Esepecially if no one else is wealthy enough to afford it?   And say a poor family buys a mansion at auction and then sells it off immdiately for several million.  How did that balance things?   That was a tranfer of wealth from rich, to poor, to rich in very short time.

I want to bring something else in now.  Moral hazard.   You saw that the rich create work and then enjoy the fruits of the labor of their employees.  This is a moral hazard that breeds laziness and contempt to you.  But if people are given a balance of wealth, does that not also breed laziness?   Why strive to work hard if A) the government will take care of you anyway or B) your hard work gives very little to show for it?



The rEVOLution is not being televised

nia-strain on 02 August 2011

Is it only a small percetage who see Islam as the real enemy of all those things you are talking about??
And by that i mean Socialism/left/right wing parties/Capitalism/Corporatism/DEMOCRATIC VALUES!!!!!

Halo FFS wake up u bureaucrats !



fordy on 02 August 2011
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

How did society make the parents rich?  Did society decide those people were going to be rich and make it that way for them?   Or did those parents use ingenuity (as you noted earlier) to achieve their wealth?  Did their ingenuity also perhaps provide that society with a very well valued product or service?  How do you separate the diligent wealthy from the exploitative wealthy?

Let's look at it from an employment perspective.  Those wealthy parents may have employed other workers enabling them to live a decent life.  Is that not payment enough?   Is it not a gift to society the enabling of work itself?   Keep in mind that I say work, not exploitation.  You must separate the two.  I sincerely hope you do not consider all those who are wealthy to have gained it solely through exploitation?  

Society are the consumers. Yes the wealth was collected through ingenuity, and as a reward, they live the rest of their life enjoying it. Does that mean their children deserve the same? Depends. What was their ingenuity? If they display ingenuity, what are they worrying about. That should be enough confidence that they could follow in their parent's footsteps. If they're particularly lazy and believe the world owes them, why should they get it? Society has most likely done more to get the parents where they were.

Work itself is what generates wealth, not enabling the work. If the work wasn't there, people would use the incentive of being paid hansomely for ingenuity to work towards it. 

Let's focus on the bold for a moment.  If their children do not deserve it, who does?   And why does one deserve something when someone else doesn't?   Further, if you take the inheritence and property away, then doesn't that make the child now poor and just as derserving of their share as anyone else?   Lastely, how do you auction off a mansion, a yacht, a business?   Esepecially if no one else is wealthy enough to afford it?   And say a poor family buys a mansion at auction and then sells it off immdiately for several million.  How did that balance things?   That was a tranfer of wealth from rich, to poor, to rich in very short time.

I want to bring something else in now.  Moral hazard.   You saw that the rich create work and then enjoy the fruits of the labor of their employees.  This is a moral hazard that breeds laziness and contempt to you.  But if people are given a balance of wealth, does that not also breed laziness?   Why strive to work hard if A) the government will take care of you anyway or B) your hard work gives very little to show for it?

As I mentioned before, it would not be a full distribution across society more an incentive for people to strive to become entrepreneurs. Ingenuity is stagnant at the moment because the good ideas are being shot down by the semi-good ideas with a lot of money behind them. The current wealthy don't want the best of ingenuity. They want small increments of technology that will promise a higher return, and then introduce the better technology at a later date to slug people again.

I didn't say it was getting evenly distributed. I said the comunity gets the earnings. From them on, what they decide to do with it is another argument altogether. I'd like to see it put up as incentive for ingenuity, promote competition of technologies and let the consumer decide.