giri said:
You're right, but also seeming to be wilfully ignorant that extra time spent on one thing is much more likely to develop that thing. It's entirely possible to do both yes, they aren't mutually exclusive. But prioritizing one, usually leads to a hinderance of the other.
Of course. The problem is you're assuming that people who are married haven't put the same time into work as you have.
giri said:
You gave an example of complete extremes. An example so extreme, it doesn't make a point, it hinders yours in its completely unrealistic application. If the topic were child safety, you compared a child born africa under a tribal warlord whose parents are of a different heritage to the warlords who just got a new shipment of guns, to the kid whose dad enjoys a six pack on the weekend.
It does make a point and is directly relevant to what you said. You asked why your spare cash is less important than someone elses as if to imply that everyones should be equal. In the example i provided the 2 peoples spare cash clearly weren't equal. You can say that it's a massively extreme example but that doesn't make it irrelevant.
The question should be how different should peoples spare cash be treated and what limits should be placed on this.
giri said:
So no, i reject your premise, and the baseless foundation you're building it upon.
Just because you dismiss it doesn't make it baseless.
giri said:
Is the spare cash of someone who puts aside $200 worth less to him than the guy who puts aside $50? no. no it's not. Both are small sums that don't have a large margin of tollerance, every dollar that is missing from it is noticed. The guy who is putting aside $50 might get in trouble first, but that just rings more alarm bells for the person putting aside $200.
I think it's impossible to make any sort of judgement without knowing their income. If they both make the same amount of money they should be treated the same. If the one putting away 200$ is earning 200K whilst the one putting away 50$ is earning 50K a year then there is no question in my mind that they should be treated differently.
If the 2 people are earning a similar income they should be treated pretty much the same, which as far as i know, is how the system works now.
giri said:
If you then put a new tax in, levying the person putting aside $200, so that the other person is back in the black by $50, meaning the first now only has $150, the other $50 again, you think this fair?
Again i think it's very difficult to discuss this without knowing what their income is. It also depends on exactly how much this new tax will affect someone at those salaries and what the levy would be.
Without knowing exactly what that would be i can't really answer your example.
giri said:
I disagree with your argument, because of the illogical way you're arguing it. On this point anyway. Do i think if you earn more, you should pay more tax? yes, i do. Don't have a problem with that.
Doesn't this mean that you accept the premise that everyones spare cash should be treated differently? If so why were we even arguing that point?
giri said:
Do i think every new tax should be only targeted at those of "apparent" wealth? no, i don't. If society as a whole wants to keep adding new sides and additional perks to their meal, its no longer about making sure people are getting fed.
First of all i just find it hard to believe that every single new tax is solely targeted at people with wealth (though i'm sure most are and i agree with that).
What do you mean that society just wants to keep adding new sides? It's not like we as a collective are trying to buy an expensive set of wine from France. Sure this tax may not specifically be about feeding the starving but it is something that affects our whole society and has the potential to impact future generations.
giri said:
No, you did completely miss the point.
I don't think i did.
giri said:
Sigh, again, apply the story. We don't all need the carbon tax, some of us don't want it, but if the majority have decided we should, then we should all accept the equal burden. It's not a tax that if it doesn't happen, people will starve and children next year will wake up mutated with cockroach limbs. It's a complete luxury tax. You don't NEED dessert to enjoy your meal, the steak you just had isn't diminished by not having dessert.
How is it a luxury tax? Taking action against climate change (or whatever it's called now) is important and does have the potential to cause some pretty significant impacts.
If you want to argue that you don't think the carbon tax is the right way to go then you can have your say when you vote.
How is a tax aimed at reducing carbon emissions with the purpose of preventing severe problems in the future in anyway comparable to having dessert with your dinner.
I don't need to apply the story again, i already stated my position regarding it. I don't think it's comparable because unlike you i don't view this as a luxury tax.
giri said:
I'm saying, that if we as a society want to continue to add new taxes, taxes that aren't about our standard of living, or basic human rights, but are completely redundant, then we as a society should start all paying equally for them.
Except this is a tax which very well could impact the standard of living. Maybe if this was some random luxury tax i would be more accepting of your position but i disagree with the premise that it is a luxury tax.
giri said:
I'm sick of being one of many demographics that has been targeted as a ATM that can just continually be taxed unmercilously purely because of a mis-conception that i'm rolling in cash. It speaks of a entitlement state that perpetuates throughout this country. Maybe if society as a whole had to start paying for everything they "wished for", they would all stop treating the government and elections as santa and their wishlist.
Come on really? I'm sure that's exactly what everyone is hoping for. "Please santa the one thing i want for christmas is a tax on carbon".
I also disagree that they just unmercilously tax people with lots of money because of a misconception that they're just rolling in the cash.
When a new tax is coming in they have to choose who to tax the hardest. I think the person earning more money is the likely candidate to be taxed more for fairly obvious reason.
giri said:
And i don't know who you are that you think you can sit back and judge my level of sacrafice.
Except you're the one doing this. By talking about how you've made massive sacrifices and even implying that people who are married or have kids haven't made the same sacrifices. You're making judgements about them whether or not it was intended.
I also don't understand how you expect to sit here and say how you've sacrificed more than most (as stated above) and not expect to have that commented on.
You're the one who brought up your apparent level of sacrifice in the first place (as a pretty significant part of your argument btw), i simply responded to that.
