You CANNOT judge a person's worth like this. It is so immoral it's pathetic.

In response to something you said earlier I didn't counter:
Money never sits stagnant as long as it is in the bank. Your idea of government would work, but what stops people moving out of the country to die? And what if their inheritance can't pay the tax - you're either suggesting the rich pay more than the poor, or that you don't mind that there is someone who is conveniently dead and owes the state a few hundred thousand dollars.
Plus, when people start to know they're going to die, they'll waste all of thier money on holidays and chocolate - because they don't really are if the state loses out of a few millon dollars that they've already spend on you.

Too easy to take advantage of. Hard to stop.

Why not?
If someone outside the country with a great degree, who has spend a third of their life studying for it, why shouldn't they replace a moron who dropped out of school at 16, and makes his living bagging groceries?

There's nothing wrong with that.


It makes them different, it does not make one inherently better than the other. Judging others and taking away their chooses in life is immoral.

Also, you still haven't responded to the rest of my points.

This is what we do with the criminals: Not all flights are full. There is a few spare seats on most planes leaving the country. You put them on a plane, and forget about them. That's if they can't afford the plane flight to choose their destination (There is a system where you can give money to the Government, who keep it untill you need to pay for a flight out)
Counting money? Seriously, who uses cash anymore when there are Debit cards? Working it out can be done on a calculator in about ten seconds - and there would be a big fat computer system to work it all out for you anyway.
If someone manages to get caught twice on the same statement, then what's the chance? Hell, if it's THAT unreliable we can ask them to say it again. And again. And again. Until it hits 10 or they confess their lying.
Sure it will. No they won't. The people will love me because now, instead of paying 40% income tax (or whatever $15,000,000 earners have to pay %), they only have to pay around £900.
And anyway, how are you claiming to know what every single person on the planet would think about it? If they don't like it, they can leave. Plenty of people want to take their place.

You're right about the discrimination, I think I'll remove that.

And guess what? If they don't like the job, they can quit - that's how they stand up for themselves. And anyway, it's called competition. If you're worth more than 15p an hour, then someone else will offer you more. If you are worth 15p an hour, then you'll get deported pretty soon anyway.



Anyway, you sound religious - and that means your opinions are clouded by morals and that you're opinions are effected by a book (most religions have some kind of holy scripture).

Trying to pretend the rich have less power than justified is ridiculous. Your goal is not to make an efficient and just society, but to maximize your own power at the expense of anyone and everyone else. The people would be justified in using their force to remove inherited power.

Free trade only works so long as there is scarcity in the market, but you fail to realize we live in an industrialized world, there is no scarcity in the market, just an unsustainable and increasing amount of debt.

Not inherited power. When people think of rich people, they think of Earls and Lords and people with massive houses. That is a very small minority. I simply believe it is wrong that the rich pay more than the poor for the same things - which the rich probably don't use anyway.


The very fact that money is being unjustly taken away from them means that they have less power than they should have - since money=power.

Only if over 95% of the richest 1% that came from rich families could be considered a minority of rich people.

I have no problem with rich people, I have a problem with massive inheritances.

Yes, people get large amounts of money without trying to work for it. Kind of cheap isn't it?

Is that true? Source please.

And you're right, massive inheritances is kinda bad, and inefficient. Impossible to get rid of, though. Without taxing inheritance hugely that is.


EDIT: So there is no way to stop inheritance, and no way to tax it. Its impossible.

But then, what's to stop them spending all of thier money on gold and giving it to your children? Isn't that allowed? How are you going to stop it.

Infact, how are you going to stop rich people who are near dead putting everything he owns in a Swiss bank vault, and giving his children the key?

As for the whole "Lol how'd you put a house in a vault" argument, you can "release equity on your house" (If you're old, they give you the money for your house and when you're dead they have it).
There are better ways, but I'd rather not state them.

Edit:
WHOOT! NO POSTING FOR THIRTY SEVEN MINUTES! No one can think of anything to insult me with! I've answered every argument they can think against me... for a while, at least.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 25 2007, 7:23 pm by Viii_iiiV.

I am so not religious you don't even know. If you read any other topics around here, you'd know that.


This is a joke. I'm sure other countries will get along really well with you when you deport all your criminals to them, to boot. Also, you still haven't answered the other questions I posted to you under "law".


I'm just saying your system of fining based on the damages done isn't very practical.


If someone can defeat a lie detector once, then who's to say they can't do it 10 times? What if they pass it 7 times, and fail it 3 times? What if the fail it 5 times, and pass it 5 times? What if they pass it nine times, but fail it once? etc. etc. The point is, it's not that reliable, doing it over and over again won't change that.


It sounds like your saying rich people have the only opinions you care about, to me. As for the rest of your worker policy, I'm a little more open to it than I was before, but I still don't see it being very successful. Wouldn't it just create a lot of dispute? More than there already is?

I couldn't find the study of the top 1%, I don't remember the journal it was in, but I do recall it attributed as much of the correlation to education, connections, and environment, as to bequest.Why can't you tax inheritance? Phase income tax and sales tax out and estate tax in slowly over the next 50 years, with attention paid to safety nets for children(education would require reform, and enough investment to make teaching desirable to highly qualified people).capital would not be exempt, but the will would specify where the flat exemption goes(say around $100K-1M per estate) Large transactions would be tracked and a gift tax imposed if you cannot show it was a legitimate exchange of goods or services. Anyone complicit in the tax evasion would face jail time, not to mention there would be far more scrutiny associated with the taxes, simply because there would be 1/70th the number of tax statements filed, and because they would necessarily be simpler, without having to worry about deductions and credits.

I didn't say you were, I just said you SOUNDED religious. See, I always leave an escape route.
Who said their criminals? They have all the proper passports, etc, so who would actually notice? And if they did. then how would they stop them claiming refugee status or applying for citizenship? Anyways, we have nukes.
Why's that? This way, THE WHOLE POLICE SERVICE GETS FUNDED WITHOUT THE PUBLIC PAYING, and they get punished.
If they get past it once, the whole thing is discounted. Hell, if there is a 10% chance of fail (it is more like 1%) , then .1*1=.000,000,000,01%. That is a one in 10 BILLION. So, even if EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet goes through this, the chances are no one would be wrongly convicted. AND, if there is a 1% chance of fail, the there is a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance. That's a big number.

That's because rich people's opinions matter the most because they have the most money.
What dispute?

Why is it that every time a hyper conservative (to the degree of being cartoonish) member gets banned or scared off, another one takes their place in a matter of days?

[/QUOTE]
How do you propose stop evaders - THERE ARE NO RECORDS. Are you suggesting that every single piece of mail be checked for anything of value? Are you suggesting that every single box that goes through the mail that comes positive on a metal detector should be investigated? How do you propose to stop me selling a computer to someone in Switzerland, but filling it with gold instead, to be put in a vault so my children can go there, sell it, bank the money and come back? Hell, can you even track every single good inside the country, and stop me giving it away?

The last thing we need is another religious battle.

Hyper-Conservative?
I'm Fascist, and I merely believe that the rich should pay the same as the poor for the same services. Well, recently I've been trying to tell AntiSleep that YOU CAN NOT STOP INHERITANCE!


Correct.

No, you can't totally stop anything. Someone somewhere in a country will give inheritance. But one can severely limit it with some form of communism.

I guess....

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 25 2007, 9:09 pm by Viii_iiiV.