Printable View
ummmm,okay.
selfishness, right.i believe it was the United States who donated billions and billions of dollars to the tsunami victims(however not fast enough for the bitch about everything crowd).that would be more than all the other countries combined.
we havent done well either??we are the richest most powerfull nation on earth.our general quality of life here trumps our english brothers and we all get paid way better than ya'll do.what can we say?when you got it ,you got it.sorry to brag.
lol, no need to apologise, it's fair enough. But what I was trying to say that if you consider wealth as a measure of greatness than yes, America is great. Personally wealth doesn't impress me. I just want enough money for the things I need, nothing more.
Anyway, back to the subject.. The UK is so fucking boring compared to the US. Every time i've been there I didn't wanna leave. I haven't been for years and the last time I went I was still young enough to have to go with my family... this time I wanna go alone (probably just for a holiday at first) and do whatever the fuck I feel like. Maybe hang out with some of you Cannabis.commers :)
well i want wealth and money and lots of it.rich people are in the best position to be the good guys,because only the rich have the resources to really help those who are need.if thats selfish than oh well.
Yeah, that's true.. But more often than not rich people become rich by a complete lack of selflessness or by being selfish. Agreed?
but i would not lump all those people into a "most of" category.sure some do.thats life.no matter where you are in the world that happens.
hell,even our poor people in America are fat,that should tell you something.America is the first mass affluent class in history.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by amsterdam
Okay, so not all rich people are greedy/selfish.. but then again, if they weren't selfish wouldn't they redistribute their wealth to people/places less fortunate? I can't say that I definately would, because I don't know what it's like to be in a position to do so, but I would like to think that even if I became a multi-millionaire I would still share out all my money (charities, funds, etc) until I just had enough to keep myself content and alive. But I suppose everyone has a different definition of 'content'. To some being content is having a £3million mansion and 15 cars.. lol
i strongly disagree with the idea that it is the govts. job to redistribute resources from rich to poor.that is unecessary altogether.whenever we have a tax cut here people always say it for the rich.OF COURSE ITS FOR THE RICH,THE RICH PAY MOST OF THE TAXES HERE.i wonder how many americans know that the top 10% of all income earners in this country pay two thirds of ALL income taxes?meanwhile the bottom 50% pay less than 5% of the income taxes.
Thus,if a rich guy makes 250,000$$ and pays 100,000$$ in taxes,and the(relatively) poor guy makes 40,000 and pays 5000$$ in taxes,a ten percent across the board tax cut will cut the rich guys taxes by 10,000$$ and the poor guys taxes by 500$$.This is where the liberals wail,"But the rich guy is getting twenty times more than the poor guy."One does not have to be a math major to figure out that it is not even possible to cut the poor guys taxes by 10,000$$ because he pays only 5000$$$ in the first place,contrary to liberal demagoguery,proportional tax cuts are just because they benefit citizens in proportion to what they have been paying in taxes.
Liberals usually oppose tax cuts and advocate higher taxes for the rich because they are convinced,as the old liberal mantra has it,that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer."But is that really true?For the past half century,and especially for the past two decades,it has not been true in America.In reality,the rich have grown richer,and the poor have also grown richer,but not at the same pace.
What this means is that lots of people who used to be middle class,or the lower middle class have moved up.In moving up,they have increased the economic distance between themselves and the rest of the population.So,inequality is greater.But the exclusive liberal focus on inequality misses the larger picture,wich shows that more and more people are moving into the ranks of the affluent class.
i had to type this fast but my conclusion is that Capitalism has done more to raise the general standard of living,and to equalize the circumstances of rich and poor,than all the govt. and philanthropic programs put together.this fact undermines the liberal view that aggressive govt. redistribution is needed to preventing inequality.
Ironically I'm liberal but if they would actually raise min wage to match cost of living increases across the board , the "poor" might actually stand a chance. Capitalism does work like ANY other system of government well, without corruption. Unfortunately by the very fact of what I stated at the beginning of this , it obviously is very corrupted or else it(the wages) would have matched standard of living, thats how capitalism is SUPPOSED to work.
Surprisingly I completely agree. Economical politics have never interested me, to be honest, so alas I don't know enough about thje subject. However, I completely agree with you on that. What we define as 'poor' in the west is not entirely poor, just relatively poor. Whenever I talk about "poor" people I am referring to homeless people and the like.. people who are truely poor, not people who are just not rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by amsterdam
Weirdo.. you're right. Most governmental systems are a great idea, but sadly most of the fail or become corrupt because of mans greed. That is why communism will never succeed, though it seems, on the surface, to be the best idea.
I'm a commie too ;), Just in the most basic way. The layers that many "leaders" of certain countries added to it just don't fly with me though (much like republics are gold to me unfortunately they always degenerate, nature of power I guess....)