A 'wealth tax', in God's name! Heaven forfend people should be able to spend the money they've earned in order to help their kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ity-capitalism
A 'wealth tax', in God's name! Heaven forfend people should be able to spend the money they've earned in order to help their kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ity-capitalism
Apart from the sheer envy underpinning the whole thing, what I find mystifying is their persistent belief that - contrary to a century of evidence - the state is competent to effectively redistribute wealth. It isn't. It takes money, pisses 90% of it up the wall on admin and jobs for the boys.
:hehe: They don't believe that; they just want your money. Or at least, they want you *not* to have it.
Convincing everyone not to have children was genius really, as it took away the main reason, or injunction, anybody had to fight against high taxation, low wages and long working hours.
Oh, but they do. At least the younger, idealistic ones do. They actually think that, by taking your money away and giving it to the state, we will end up with a happier, healthier and wealthier society. I mean yes, it's motivated by the initial desire to take your wealth away, but that doesn't mean they don't genuinely believe that the state is best placed to provide despite all the evidence to the contrary.
:nod: They're like cultists predicting the rapture. And, like such cultists, on June 9th (or, more accurately at about 10.30pm on June 8th), when it is apparent they were horribly wrong, they will explain this failure as being due not them being wrong, but to a lack of faith on the part of others.
Oh, young people are stupid; it doesn't matter what they think. They don't have any money either and until they do, they won't hope to understand. It's actually everybody else that's the trouble.
As I say, the only reason you fight for the money in your own pocket is because you have, or demand to have, a stake in the future and a personal responsibility for that future. No children, means no future anyway so therefore, what difference does it make how much of your cash they take away from you and what they spend it on. What does anybody care so long as you have successfully avoided responsibility for the consequences by not having children.
I don't see that. Presumably you were a children, or child anyway, and you turned out alright. Why would you imagine children were a bad thing, if not for the reasons I've outlined?
Of course, naturally, I too believe children are bad, which is why the sensitive man has as little to do with them as possible; as we agreed before, that's what wives are for. However, that is, imo, no excuse for actually not having them.
My dear old dad used to advise me as a small child: "Never have kids, Ash. They're a nightmare and a millstone round your neck. If I hadn't had kids I'd have a villa in the south of France by now."
Sound advice, really. Especially as I struggle to even look after myself properly, let alone anyone else.
Inheritance tax to 90%?? FFS......
I can't say I would view my parents' house as unearned wealth. They mortgaged themselves up to their eyeballs in their late 30s and worked like lunatics for 20 years to pay for it. Not only is it not unearned, but the earnings that paid for it were also taxed.
I haven't see a penny of it (and quite right too) but if I had, purely to help with a first deposit, that apparently would have made me some kind of middle class ****.
****ing Guardian :mad:
I find your view of women's role in society hugely offensive. Or, rather, I would if I gave a **** about that sort of thing.
I find children incredibly annoying. Why would I want one? Also, as I am a **** I am assuming they would be. So one **** fewer in the world and all thanks to me. You should thank me.
Apologies, p. I don't really know what a liberal is, it's all just varying degrees of leftyism to me.
But of course you are right. It is up to families to make provision for families so that they can pay for food, schools, housing, medical care and old age, and it is for the state to repair the roads and employ policeman and soldiers.
You really are ready to join us :cloud9:
Filthy statism!
I'm not really sure about policemen, tbh. I feel they are an oppressive instrument of the state who exist merely to circumscribe my ability to protect my self, family and property. Allow me to arm myself and give me the freedom to act in self-defence and there would be no need of police.
But we need an oppressive instrument of the state to keep the oiks in check.
Here's the deal. People earning less than £50,000 per annum will pay a special police tax which will be used to subjugate them. Those earning more than this amount have no need of subjugation and will therefore be exempt the tax.
Compromise, you see? That's how to do politics.
That's the point I'm trying to make though; without kids you don't actually *need* a villa in France,
do you. And are probably fairly happy to have spared yourself the trouble and expense. Even moreso as such dwellings always seem to attract wives and children :-\
So it doesn't much matter if the government takes all our money away in any case