|
| Thread: The CCP is Exploiting us!! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 19, 2020 05:59 PM |
|
|
PandaTar said:
JollyJoker said:
I hope you spotted the key sentence here, and the contradiction:
My parents worked hard to give me education ... And I used it to get where I am, through hard work. I earned what I have with my own sweat.
See the problem? HIS PARENTS worked FOR HIM, and he earned what he has with THEIR sweat as well.
So what about those whose parents did NOT work hard to give them education? Their fault? As it's not his merit that his parents did work hard for him to get an education. It's his merit that he used the opportunities his parents gave him, but without those opportunities . bad luck.
I don't see contradictions at all. All parents are supposed to work for the benefice of their children, if they brought children to this world in first place
While I read the your whole post and would have a lot to say about it, I got my first hiccup right there. I mean, if everyone would do what they were SUPPOSED to, there wouldn't be any problems in the first place. So I cannot understand , how you refute a point with a purely hypothetical thing here. People are not supposed to do a lot of things, but they do it all the time.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 19, 2020 06:08 PM |
|
|
Any system that operates on what people theoretically should do is going to have large cracks, and it will create crime and violent crime, because people that fall through the cracks of a fictional meritocracy will much more likely become dangerous.
Bernie Sanders wasn't far off in saying that the USA is socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2020 06:18 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 18:20, 19 Nov 2020.
|
Blizzardboy said:
It is pretty cutthroat to create a system that in some cases encourages and rewards slob behavior, and then to call them slobs after baiting them into it.
when i say "slob", i'm talking specifically about people who HAVE jobs, but intentionally do them badly; or don't care enough to do them well.
i've had minimum-wage jobs. i did them well, despite being paid garbage. so it's not always about wages. managers who get paid far more, do far less, by comparison.
since no boss i've ever had has EVER raised pay based off of work performance, it only makes sense to raise the minimum wage so it covers those who deserve it. those who don't deserve it, shouldn't even be allowed to live in the U.S.; they should be shipped to antartica where hard work is essential to even keep themselves alive. as punishment for being slobs.
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted November 19, 2020 06:45 PM |
|
Edited by PandaTar at 18:55, 19 Nov 2020.
|
JollyJoker said:
I mean, if everyone would do what they were SUPPOSED to, there wouldn't be any problems in the first place.
I see different. Two people are a biological conflict by itself. Some agreements issue, and also conflicts. Even if everyone do what they are supposed to do, that is not a guarantee of success, because people are volatile and ever changing. No system is perfect, either hypothetical or not. I see basically little difference between either. People have been blaming each other based on hypothetical things, even when not acting accordingly or even doing the same thing the others do in a different scale. So how would I refute any different anyway? And those who act within the 'ideal scenario', whatever that is, are still bound by those who are not acting on hypothetical scenarios. That's why I see no real distinction between them; apparently, both exist in a sort of balance, as much faulty as it might be. I understand we're experiencing hypothetical situations right now, all the time, because it's mainly shapeless, right and wrong, and so far, no one seems to have a proper answer to that either, which leaves them just hypothetical scenarios to consider, on their own point of view, whilst they live in one hypothetical scenario in the point of view of others; until it changes again.
Blizzardboy said:
Any system that operates on what people theoretically should do is going to have large cracks, and it will create crime and violent crime, because people that fall through the cracks of a fictional meritocracy will much more likely become dangerous.
There are cracks in any scenario. But I believe meritocracy is needed at some extent. I don't see problems at helping the most in need either, as I do that myself. What bugs me are people who are in need because they chose to, are rather accomodate with that, are provided tools to avoid a lot of the problems they have, but choose to blame those that tried a different path and were sucessful, which is not failproof either. At least those who fail tried, know how the 'other side' works and might learn from it, and maybe change something in their lives. If not, they are still being helped. But as all discussions about other people other than ourselves: it's all hypothetical.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2020 07:05 PM |
|
|
Strangely enough I'm much more bothered by people who COULD help (because they earn millions and billions), but don't, by people who are wealthy and STILL evade taxes and cheat people than by people who COULD earn a few bucks but don't bother.
Grown-ups are formed as children, and obviously the spoilt ones are not the poor ones. No child is responsible for their parents and upbringing, one way or another, and as a society we sit in one boat. If we question that - why would I pay health insurance for people with an unhealthy lifestyle, and that includes being fat, eating too much sugar, red meat and fast food and not enough vegetables; yeah, but has a child any influence on what they are served at home, if anything?
We can debate a lot about what is choice and what is learned, but it's pretty obvious to me that people who HAVE A LOT can GIVE A LOT. It's their CHOICE as well, what they do.
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted November 19, 2020 07:58 PM |
|
|
I think that should be their choice, when it goes beyond the values of the highest current tier of taxes. They still pay proportionally, We know a lot of really rich people who creates social programs, charity, donations and customized systems to help communities and people at large. That's not uncommon here. But I don't think those that choose not heartless or any sort of that kind. Giving the history of corruption in my country, I would not, personally, feel happy to oblige or be forced to feed a really unstable and untrustworthy political system, which is, as I said, controlled by the left side for decades, so I really don't feel like this left-winged reasoning would be well-intended or used here. I would, however, try and help personally, which is what happens here. But most of the successful aiding programs they create come when they provide solutions to people's problems directly, and not sugar coating with a social assistance that simply binds them into that routine.
We have currently 73 different taxes in the many levels of public governance. The tributation over salary does not affect people with mensal winnings up to ~ R$1.900,00, which is even a fair value here for a single person. Then we have 7,5%, 15%, 22,5% and 27,5%; over brute values. That's considering a formal work contract and registration that is. Those who are very wealthy have tributations hovering on that 27,5%. That's between a fourth and third of their winnings. For a company, it's 15% + 10% when it surpasses a given amount. These are federal values regarding just this tax over the salary. Adding all those other taxes, especially for companies, which employ people, it makes really costy to maintain a single employee formaly. A worker in a small company with a 1.000,00 salary costs 1.900,00, and that's considering the lower % of the costs. For a small company, that's quite a deal. For bigger, values are even higher and the number of people too. It's pretty common these days someone say that's not advantageous investing/funding a new company in Brazil, because almost half of it are taxes, tributes, contributions or else. If you don't have a reward and feeling of achievement and be benefited from that, people would not go as far as reaching even a low-millionaire level, even more so if you don't see your contribution applied effectively; because it was supposed to be in their hypothetical sense; whilst for others, the current setting is already an ideal situation.
I think the wealthy people should be able to choose and not to be forced. Just like we should be during elections, they're compulsory and you pay a fee if you don't go (or justified why you didn't). That's another small tax to sustain an already bloated public system, a very expensive one. One thing that really needs doing is cutting costs from personal. We have politicians winning nearly R$ 50.000,00, not to mention priviledges, which can cost um to R$ 2.000.000,00 to population, and there are many of those. We have people who get R$ 12.000,00 and does not even go to work. They appear a little, messing in Instagram, and then go home. And that's a fact, my brother had to clash with some of them where he worked. That's not an encouraging thought, even for the less wealthy people, to supply and be tributed to feed such thing, or to trust it with more money, because they get a lot of it already. If there's something lacking in values, it's the value of competence to apply that where it should be. And although I think there are people who simply don't want to help others for their own reasons, it's their reasons, as I have mine when I decided to help, even I'm not being a wealthy person. But I don't resent those who don't act accordingly with my choices with what to do with my earnings.
I think that's all I have to say on the subject.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2020 08:51 PM |
|
|
What you are talking about are not taxes but ancillary wage costs. It's basically not something the state gets, but what the state demands an employer to pay a worker in addition to the wages. It's basically a mix of contributions to
unemployment insurance
healtcare
pension
It's basically a deal that says, do not pay a worker their money in full but pay part of it as some kind of insurance to help them in case of
unemployment
sickness
old age
something most simple people wouldn't think of, especially when they are young.
They make it SOUND as if they'd pay that in addition, but you could see it as part of the wages that is forcibly kept for bad times.
Taxes in Brazil are LOW, and corps should (and probably ARE) happy to operate there.
Don't you think that the general population and especially the poor are hit by your 73% taxes more than the rich? I mean, I'm self- employed, so for me everything I need for work (or claim to need) is tax deductable and that includes sales tax. . When I write an invoice I invoice sales tax as well - and lo and behold I can deduct my paid sales tax from the sales tax I get.
So I write an invoice of 5.000 € + 19% sales tax for computer game translation, so 5.000 + 950 € sales tax. When I buy a laptop for, say, 1200 € + 228 € sales tax, I can immediately deduct the 228 € from the 950 E sales tax. I will also deduct 400 € each year for 3 years from my gross income for the laptop.
Now think about the fact that I'm alone. Think about what a corp can field in that regard. They have all the power to declare whatever they want, and it's up to the tax offices to challenge them on it.
In short, the corps and the wealthy are just telling stories.
|
| |
|
|
