Metal Reviews

Exactly right.

This is a democratic country, if they don't like the taxes put on them they're free to take their funds elsewhere...oh wait, they already do overseas banking to keep money from tax laws which they consent to by living here. I thought the insurance comparison would make it clear to you. These people are rich by luck not by some inherent skill. Whatever.

The tax cuts are government mandated and legal. So what's the issue. Government decides people should pay less tax and you view it as some sort of illefal dodge.

I don't know of anyone who keeps their money outside the country. I used to work in stockbroking/derivatives trading and dealt with some filthy rich people ($10-$20 million in assets and cash flows of about $500k - $1 million per annum).

Most invested in Australian companies. A lot even invested locally cause they'd get warm and fuzzy from investing in local firms.



Not a valid comparison.

Most people whom I have met that are rich were usually not supported by the government. In most cases they paid for their own educations and worked hard to get where they were.



So nice of you to undermine achievements of others.

I know people who are wealthier than most and a lot of them worked their guts out to get there and very often sacrificed their personal life for it.

People work their guts out every day and sacrifice everything they have and often times it doesn't get them anywhere. The few who are able to make it and become rich are lucky. It is a lottery as to who puts out the effort and to who is able to get a return on that investment of sweat and time. You'll surely respond that well those people who bust their asses each and every day and who don't make it, they must lack some knack or ability that kept them from making it like that other guy. Bullshit. Tons of people who were incredibly competent and who did everything right end up out on the streets.

Government's power should be rooted in the people and last time I checked people didn't vote for Bush's tax cuts. And you'll say well they aren't voting for Obama to get rid of those either when in fact insofar as it was a platform he ran on people did support it as what we needed. The real issue is I don't know how you intend on paying a deficit by not taxing those who have the most resources to help compensate for that deficit. Surely, they benefited out of some dumb fuck thing that caused that deficit.
How come? These people were such hot shots that they were paying for their own elementary education on their own? If people can't afford to pay for their own education, like student loans for example, does that mean they worked less hard? Wouldn't the person who went to shitty public schools who raised himself up to the possibility of going to Harvard have done more work than the guy who had the silver spoon in his mouth who ended up with the chance to go to Harvard?

Bollocks.

I work with Doctors (specifically Psychiatrists). Each one of them earns big bucks (AUD$200,000- $300,000). Why?

They went to school and did a degree that's in high demand. They can charge top dollar. Many of them became doctors to earn the money.

Most of our wealthy clients when I was a stockbroker were lawyers, judges, doctors and dentists.

The other people I know who did it without qualifications were usually very entrepreneurial and were good at developing rapport with people and managing their business.

Shit kicker whose working as a cleaner or office rat or even nurse won't go anywhere even if they're working 80 -100 hours a week because they're in an average career and don't have the business acumen to make a successful business.




Politicians lie. Our red headed bitch of a PM promised no carbon tax before the election and is now promoting a carbon tax.

A previous prick of a PM promised no value added tax and then introduced one. At least he slashed income tax.




Governments racked up those deficits through bad decision making including bad economic management, pointless wars and bad social welfare policies.

At the same time I don't agree with government bailing out companies. That's bad practice.



I was referring to the people who worked themselves up through school.

Most of them didn't go to public primary/elementary schools. They went to private SCHOOLS and their parents often worked hard to get them placed in those exclusive schools.



One of my friends is doing this right now - he's a prison guard, his wife is a receptionist and his ex-girlfriend is a stay at home mum.

Despite this he is paying for his daughter to go to an exclusive private school to get the opportunities he didn't have.

Another friend went to a private school and his father was an electrician. He didn't do anything with that education unfortunately.

My boss in the broking firm came from humble beginnings too. His father was a mechanic who sent his kid to a prestigious private school.

Interestingly enough most of the guys I knew who came from upper middle class backgrounds became drug addicts hooked to speed and ice.

The Bush tax cut was a coup orchestrated by politicians in the control of rich donors, don't kid yourself. I much prefer the Canadian/European tax structure and the society it produces.

Like Warren Buffet said .. pay taxes so you have a nice country to make money in.

*vomit* I need Chuck back.

Why are top-earners getting tax breaks with such a huge deficit as it is? You need both spending cuts and steady taxation in order to pay that down, any tax cuts should be directed at low earners and small businesses before anyone else. Land value taxation > income tax, anyways.

So a social democratic tax system is now "pinko communism"? Fuck me, that's stupid.

Look, it doesn't matter WHOSE money it is. Society functions because it demands that those it enables to wealth give back enough to make things work, so that we can actually be a country where someone comes by to scoop the dogshite off of the sidewalk.

No, pretending to be foreign nationality (and even going to the length of typing phonetically in it's hijacked brogue) when you're not is what is stupid.
But, let's not get sidetracked.

You say that, until they come and start taking your money, I mean you seem to have plenty of disposable income, what with nothing to do but go out and get drunk and spend it on whores every single night. Do you actually work? Do you opt to send more of your money to the government voluntarily? Or send it back, if on the dole?

And what the hell do you know about how this country functions?


The rich already pay almost 70% of the tax as it is. The lowest income bracket pays just about 3%.
Can't you read? They already pay tax, and far and away the bulk of it to boot. the poor already pay virtually nothing.
And the problem is not that we can't afford the necessities to make society run, it's because the government uses it to pay back their special interests and entitlements. Oh and corporate stimulus pacakages.
If there were any evidence that the government was willing to act in a somewhat responible manner with money, perhaps I could understand (even though it's still creeping socialism), but there sadly is no such evidence

Why should the government just be allowed to steal it? It's not theirs, they have proven to be absolutely incompetent when it comes to handling money and they would just flush it down the toilet as always. Thta's what is stupid.
We had a $223 Billion deficit just in one month (this Febuary), and somehow we are expected to just trust this government with our money?

But, I am mostly curious if you even have a full time job.
If you are living on the dole and have so much time and money to waste on pub crawling every night, then you'll excuse my not really caring what you think on the subject.

I'm a student, actively searching for a part-time job so I can stop relying on my parents to fund my boozing and love of overpriced balsamic vinegar. But my personal life has no bearing on the issue, nor on the obvious fact that the rich in America are undertaxed. The whole reactionary argument of BUT WAIT 'TILL THEY COME FOR YOUR MONEY is ignoring the actual facts, and in the US, everything is tainted by a misunderstanding of what socialism and communism actually are- i.e, nowhere near having any similarities or causal relationships at all.

I get the small business tax cuts, but how can you cut the lower income earners when they already basically pay a drop in the bucket of all tax as it is?
Any cut to their tax would be less than symbolic.

This country is based on the idea of property rights (income is property, after all) individual freedom and the right of the pursuit of happiness. The phrase "god-given" was used to declare that right as opposed to state-given, if you will, meaning that it is beyond the authority of the state.
The rich are not why this country is in dire straits; the reason is because of out of control spending.

Oh it has a bearing, very much so.
It's easy to spend other peoples money, is the whole point.
Which is why I suspect so many jobless "students" that spend all their time partying think so highly of welfare; without it, they'd have to actually WORK while going to school. Unless they have a rich mommy and daddy, of course.
Basic self interest.

Socaialism and obviously communism, are theft. Taking from one group to give it to another without consent is basically theft.

The rich in america are undertaxed?
How so?
They pay 70% of the tax while being a mere 10% of the populace.
Sounds like they are already paying their fair share.
You see, most of them (or their ancestors) actually worked very hard to get where they are, as opposed to waiting for someone to give them a handout or sitting around wasting their time with booze, broads and drugs.

Not sure of exact tax rates over there, but it makes sense in terms of giving them more of their basic income back rather than having it taxed and then returned to them in benefits. I agree with you that state spending needs to be cut way back if taxes are not to be vastly increased to cover the deficit, but it makes sense to encourage low earners to earn more by removing the income tax burden from them. Heck, over here we have problems with over-generous state benefits meaning that low-income jobs are simply not worth taking, trapping people on unemployment and state dependency. I'm sure you guys have the same problem.

Ideally, of course, income wouldn't be taxed at all. Governments should lean towards taxing 'bads' like pollution and unearned wealth more than 'goods' like income - taxation is usually done with the aim of reducing it, after all.

No, it doesn't. Almost every other student I know currently works half-time or has worked in the past saving up, and those without jobs are looking for one. It's not welfare, it's a government funded social investment program designed to construct a strong international academia in Scotland. It's an investment because the universities produce the elite minds that will then go on to run the country and give back to it, drawing on their free University formation. Which is the whole point- you pay taxes so the government can help out those that need it.
You think I'd behave any differently if I had a job? Again, reactionary ad-hominems à la "if you had a job you'd think like me" have no bearing on the actual problem here.
And for the record, socialism is NOT communism, and it is definitely not theft.

haha, is that what you call it? The more couched in high-toned sounding jargon a phrase is, the more full of shit it usually is.
It's like an axiom.

Anyway, I highly doubt that that government funded whatchamacallit is intended to be used in conjunction with booze and broads and pub crawls.

But, whatever.

Do you take your extra money (surplus) that you would otherwise spend on yourself (luxuries such as CDs, beer, eating out at pubs, shows, travelling, guitar gear and whatnot) and give it to a third party (one that is heavily in debt, has a blatant history of not only fiscal mismanagement but outright corruption) who in turn claims that it is going to help those less fortunate?
Do you?
If not, who in the hell are you to mandate that others do so?

No, because I'm the third party receiving said surplus, because gee, the nuclear budget didn't really need that extra warhead.

And again- SAAS (Student's Award Agency of Scotland) is not welfare. Welfare would be jobseeker's allowance. Take your ridiculous urbanite skepticism to an Alex Jones convention.

Yeah, I thought as much.



that's you're big rebuttal? Ooooh you really put me in my place, dintcha?



You're completely full of shit, as I suspected.
And a hypocrite, to boot; easy to talk, not so easy to follow up with action, I guess.
You seem to have plenty of dough to waste on your hedonism, but only think others should be required to have their money taken from them.

Dismissed.

Seriously, Fridge, it is possible to think that lower taxes are better taxes without being a "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theorist.

From the "founder" of capitalism Adam Smith:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

The rich pay more tax because they don't need the money, pure and simple. So far, it has proved to be the best way to create equality within society. Some may think the US has the balance right, I happen to think they have it slightly skewed in favor of the rich.

FYI I have a full time job and a house, and pay plenty of income and property taxes. And it's my right to demand I pay them, for I think the government for the most part is vital, important, and does a good job.

Feel free to leave your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.