Okay BB, try thinking of it this way. Many years ago now I used to work as a butcher, I started out in that trade in a tiny little market butchers in the middle of a poor, underdeveloped, mainly black are of London called Peckham(any fans of 'Only Fools and Horses' here?)
Now my old boss used to work on a profit margin of 33 1/3 %. I still do a bit of butchery, evey Christmas time I work in my brothers high class shop in more affluent area of London. Now because his customers are very much richer than the inhabitantes of Peckham, he works on a profit margin of 200%. By your definition of the word, this then is not 'fair', yes? So my brother is makeing an unfair profit, or when it comes to profit is it fair to make a bigger one if you can? I mean these people can afford to spend more money on food, they don't mind that at all, so is it fait or unfair to make a bigger profit from them? On 20 Aug, 22:44, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 20, 11:54 am, "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The thing with the % tax rate system is that even 50% taken from 200k > > leaves 100k. Which is still far beyond the avarge wage packet yes? > > Yes, and if I had one arm hacked off I would still have one left > > > Now considereing that the highest tax bracket I know of is 45% and > > then also considering that the avarge wage packet is a little over > > 22k, then even you can see just how 'fair' this is? > > No, I can't . I can see how you would want to take more money from > the person with more. There is more to take. > > > I personly see any income above 200k PA as obscence. This is not an > > arbitaury figure, this I have considered with at least 50% tax. That > > is to say after paying my dues, I could more than happliy live on 100K > > PA. > > > Brake it down into weeks, and you'll find it is a little under 2k per > > week. That is £2000 per week, or $ if you prefer. > > > Does anybody anywhere in the world actualy NEED more than this? > > I don't, but I sure as hell would not want to take away the larger > dreams of a fellow human. If they want to work that hard for that > much money, who am I to say what they want to do with it is obscene? > I don't feel that moral superiority to do that myself. > I have no right to control or limit what others want to do if they are > doing no harm. In fact they are doing more good than you or I. They > are paying more taxes. (quantity) Why are they being punished and > limited and their incentive taken away? > Because you can tell them how much is OK to want? > > >Of coures it is fair > > that we ask those who earn more to pay a greater % of tax. > > When and if I find myself in that wage bracket, I'll have no qualms > > about paying a higher % of tax, no sir none at all. After all it is > > only fair. > > You have failed to explain why it is fair, in relation to my > argument. Why is my argument wrong? Could you choose a point and > tell me where I went astray? > > > Now lets get to 'one way to look at money'. Money does not in any way > > shape or form represent work. > > You fail to provide a supporting argument for this. > > > So ask yourself this. Is, lets just say, a round Million pound > > (sterlling) a fair amount of 'promisery renumeration' for an artist > > that writes a book, that lets face it is only meant as entertainment? > > Or a salary of £150k Per week, is that a fair amount of ''promisery > > renumeration' for the skill of being able to pass a football? > > If anyone offered it to him, then it is fair. And if anybody off the > street , say you, could write that book as well or better, and if > that sells just as well, and people want it, well then obviouly it > would be foolish to offer that amount! > > We would all be best selling authors but we would be paid a quid (?) > or whatever, because our skill would have relatively very little > value. > > The baseball player who only throws a ball for a half hour and gets > paid millions? Completely and totally fair. He does it better that > 99.9% of the poputaion of the planet, that is why. People will pay to > watch him, that is why. > > > I would say that these figures are certianly not fair for the end > > produce, so perhaps it is fair that if you earn this you pay a higher > > % rate of tax? > > Since nobody seems to be able to give me a definition of the word? By > my definition, no it is not fair. > > > So in conclusion, it is all about duty. Those better eqiuped(in > > whatever way) have a duty towards those less able. > > Duty is another concept. I don't agree with that one either, we can > save that for later. I don't see what all that had to do with fair. > I do see how it is helpful to care about people. I see how nice it is > for you to sacrifice for those who need help. To force that concept on > all is a bit heavy handed in the taxing dept, I mean they already give > the most, but..... I prefer the "choose" to help concept. But I > agree that it makes for a better society! > > These are wonderful qualities. I don't like that you do not apply that > to rich people too. Like they are criminals or something? > Gosh what do they have to do to be appreciated! They pay all that > money and they are despised as greedy! The nerve! > > > If you deny this, the visulaise the dispare that you may feel if > > circumstances dictate a life of poverty, and entrapment, with no way > > out except the kindness of strangers. What would you personaly give > > to ensure that your own children did not grow up in such a situation? > > I don't have any kids. But let me tell you something that is > important. I would HATE to have to ask anyone for anything. I dread > that . I find it so rude to "expect" or "demand" that I be helped and > someone was forced to give that help. I do not want to burden my > fellow man. He has his life, I have mine. If he chooses to help me? > Great, but I will try and refuse that too unless I was that > desperate, because I do not want to take from him. I don't feel that > is "owed" to me. It is not anyone's "duty" to help me. "Duty" > REQUIRES "someone else" as more important than yourself. I find that > idea untenable without "choice" being in there. Duty contains no > choice. See? > > > Me? I would give everything, and when I DO visualise it, my natural > > empathy for my fellow human ensures that I would do almost the same to > > help those not directly connected with me. > > Even the rich people? Kidding, you are a very nice human. Your > cursing is a bit strong, but you are OK. Thanks for participating! I > don't think I will be winning any points with you, but hey, it was > fun! > > Try saying something nice about a rich person won't you? a simple > thanks? Is that so much to ask? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
