AdventureRacing said:
I spend a lot less time playing games now than i used to but i still spend a lot more time with games than movies or tv.
Yeah because that is the same as this:
If you don't want to be misinterpreted than just post what you mean and don't fill every sentence with hyperbole which you apparently don't mean.
I won't even bother responding to another post of yours, if you just petulantly want to masquerade as being incredibly stupid, unless it's not a show. If you want to debate the topic, that's fine, and i'm only too happy to, but if all you're going to do is try to pick apart the semantics, and not the actual content, then please don't bother.
Personally i just find the implication that somehow working on weekends means you're incapable of having found a partner laughable.
You can further your career and your personal life and it's your own fault if you weren't able to do this.
I understand that you're trying to say that you deserve to be rewarded for making sacrifices but i can only respond to the examples you give.
Or you could apply some reasoning and thought. The person who worked the extra time on the weekend obviously doesn't have as much free time. I feel like i'm belittling you to break this down so far. I obviously by having worked many weekends, have given up much of my own spare time, time that would other wise be spent socializing. That's my own choice and i'm happy to have made it, my company would be in a considerably worse off position (quite possibly have folded) if i didn't. My personal life, is perfectly fine, but i am not how ever, married or have a family of my own. Whether related to personal failings of my own, is sort of irrelevant. Some chose to socialize and prioritize that aspect of their life, others chose to work on their careers. One shouldn't be punished for making either choice.
Nor did i say i should be rewarded for making sacrifices, i just shouldn't be punished.
Why is the spare cash of someone worth a billion dollars worth less than someone working a minimum wage job?
I thought talking in hyperoble was confusing? the extreme of the case here, is obviously different. Does bill gates stop to pick up a muddy $50 note? possibly not. My self? Yes.
Do you agree that to some extent people with more money need to be taxed more? If so than you have already answered your own question and it becomes a question of how big the disparity should be.
I already answered this question earlier, and pointed out why your quite succinct answer is not the point i'm arguing. But again, Thanks for completely missing the point.
Let me put it another way for you. Have you heard the tale about the 6 friends who go out to dinner and agree to split the bill according to their income. It's a simple way of explaining the tax system and repercussions. They go out to dinner, and the bill is $600. They agree to split the bill according to their income, so the weekly bill for these guys for their weekly dinner out goes something like this
1. 200
2. 150
3. 100
4. 75
5. 50
6. 25
Total: 600
Now suppose friends 1, 4,5 & 6 figure, hey, i'd like a really expensive bottle of wine tonight, but friends 2 & 3 don't. But, because they're all friends, they don't say anything and agree to just pay to make everything fine, that $200 bottle of wine? it's only going to add a proportion of the money to their bill. friends 4,5 & 6 whilst knowing they could never normally afford this, figure that they're not really having to put in a whole lot, indeed friend 6 is only paying $8, so why not!
So now the bill looks like
1. 266.67
2. 200
3. 133.33
4. 100
5. 66.67
6. 33.33
Total: 800
Next week, everyone gathers again, and they all order dinner, and the wine again. But now, friends 1, 3, 4 & 5 turn to the group and go "Guys, lets get dessert this time too!".
Friend 2, who had been saving to go on holidays and knows this is going to cut into his savings goes "look, i'm all happy to get dessert, but i think we should all pay an equal share, not distributed, split 6 ways, 1/6th of the cost each, just dessert."
Friend 5 goes "no way, i couldn't afford it on my own, and you're going to eat dessert, and it's no different to the rest of the meal, we should continue to do it the old way, and i don't think friend 6 should pay any extra, they already pay enough"
Friend 2 "well, then, i don't think we should get dessert, if you can't afford it, i don't want to rub it in your face, but i don't really have the cash to spare in paying for your dessert either, I've got that money put aside for other things".
Friend 4 "no way, you're only saving for your trip, you can totally pay for it, and as the majority of the group want dessert, we're getting it, and you're paying your normal rate for it, and friend 5 shouldn't have to pay either".
Friend 2 "well yes, i am saving for my trip, but all these extras are really starting to cut into my ability to save, and i don't really want any of the extras anyway"
Friend 4 "too bad, the group has spoken".
And so they order desert, and the total is now up to $900.
The split now looks like
1. 306
2. 228.5
3. 152.3
4. 113.2
5. 66.67
6. 33.33
Total: 900
At the end of it, friend 2 looks at it and thinks, i'm now paying more than friend 1 started out paying, and i didn't even really want any of the other extras. I enjoyed them, but really, i'm sort of annoyed that all of the extras i didn't ask for, i'm expected to pay for more than my fair share. Next week, friend 2 doesn't show up.
You can think of Carbon Tax, and the Gillard Governments attempt to buy a second term by promising continual tax breaks/subsidies to families and pensioners as the dessert. Group 5 could be families, and 6 pensioners. You can think of me in this scenario, as person 2.
