Quote:
Originally Posted by NTJedi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithras
BTW I was just saying I'd rather argue over the morality of Robin Hood as apposed to what type of taxing system we should use. Seeing as I knownothing about taxation and any fool who's read half the Bible (or other holy book) or in fact lived in society can argbue about morality. And before you say anything I wont stop because what I lack in expertise I make up for in having a slightly differant pointof view.
I noticed you used the word returned, there may be hope for you yet  . |
Even Robin Hoods morality can be questioned depending on what version is being referenced. |
It would be a dull argumant if there was only one side to take. And as far as folk legends go he's one of the not so contreversial, discussion on wether Hansel and Gretal did the right thing anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTJedi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithras
Oh and because the tax row is boring me, a summery of my stance.
Any current system of taxation leaves someone unhappy (rich, poor, government, or all of them) any other system of taxation would be costly to change to and cause at least one of the above groups unhappy. There will always be ineffiency and to a lesser degree corruption.
|
I'm sure my taxation system would primarily upset the very wealthy which would have deep pockets for fighting against it. In the end however the people and markets in the USA is where they're probably getting all their money so they'd have to live with the fact of giving more money because they're earning millions a year. Now a better checks&balances system would reduce many of these ineffiencies and corruptions. Its only after someone reports an issue to the police or FBI does the government realize a problem exists. |
You've managed to make the whole thing more apealing, the thing is its still going to come with the cost of changing the system. And the rich pretty much run the US government, or so I have been led to believe... So you'd have trouble anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTJedi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithras
As long as people who could reasonalbly be saved aren't dying(this means no over taxation of the poor, a decent police service, free/affordable universal healthcar etc) Then the tax systems ok for me. But as I said I neither pay taxes nor vote, so take it all with the boring spice of your choice |
I've described multiple problems with a universal healthcare within another post. Basically the US government is not wise enough or experienced enough to accept such a critical responsibility. Within previous posts I listed my suggestions for moving forward. |
On this basis alone I would disagree with the policy, as stated above, any form of universal healthcare is better than none at all. I refuse to attach any worth to human life, except in terms of other human lives. (any 3 is always greater than any 1, any 2 is always greater than mine. Incase you were interested) So I can't stand for the it would be inefficient argumant.
Oh and Omni, thanks for clearing that up. At first I just thought you were using lots of words to not say much (one of my favorite tricks
) but it started to make sense in the middle, so I'll just stick to that.
I'm still confused though, I present my view that taking the life of another human is wrong as a final interpritation. It is a fact, I'd happily help anyone who didn't agree into a high security mental asylum. And I can't accept any other opinion on that matter.
I guess my point is, we all have absolute truths. Perhaps conservatives have more of them and they are more contreversial but we still have them. And the thing about final interpritations is its kind of hard to accept that other people have differant interpritations.