Rudd v. Gillard

[EvangelionZeta]

Disclaimer: the following opinion is personal speculation, not backed by any evidence, but it makes sense. Unless you can give good logic (not "bs that's bigoted as hell") to convince me otherwise, I am going to hold the same opinion without justification.

@EvangelionZeta, I believe the separation of rich and poor is similar to the natural selection, but on a social and intellectual level. Many people believe in the ideal of equality, I don't. Some people are naturally more 'resourceful' than others, and are able to gather greater income no matter how rich or poor they are at the time. Some people are naturally more 'conservative', and are able to save a fair money no matter how rich or poor they are at the time. Some people are naturally less 'money minded' and often end up spending more than they can afford. On the assumption that we don't force the latter group into classes and educate them about how to use their money, they will poorly manage handouts. [I am against government handouts, especially Centerlink bonus payments. My housemate, for example, is a compulsive spender, he can barely keep up with rent, but as soon as centerlink trickle some money down (read: my tax), half of it goes in weed, alcohol and lingerie for his girlfriend].

I am also against high industry taxes, i.e. taking money out of corporations and then redirected by the government. For people who's been here for too long, you might remember Brendan, he made a good point that when spending other people's money [tax] on other people [tax payers], you don't care about quality or price. So instead of shuffling money out of the corporations and dumping it in where the Govt see fit [where people whinge the most], my ideal is to lower taxes and raise wages. Let people decide for themselves, and you'll see that people who can manage money will do better than before, people who can't manage money will pour that extra income straight back into the economy, into the pockets of people who can, voila, natural selection.

TL;DR, the summary is I don't like taxes, I like removing safety labels on things as much as possible [not deliberately hurting], and let natural selection do its job.

What about people lacking in education, who simply have no clue as to how to save money etc.?  From a humanitarian perspective, wouldn't it be nicer to keep them alive than to just go "natural selection rules you live in poverty, gg"?  From a utilitarian perspective, their interest in not living ****house lives is probably stronger than the rich's interest to just keep getting richer, right?

And even if some people are genuinely idiots who have been taught how to spend efficiently but still can't do it, what's the advantage in neglecting their quality of life?  Again, I don't necessarily see any need for the rich to keep getting richer when there are people who would potentially be living off the streets.

[Mao]

Disclaimer: the following opinion is personal speculation, not backed by any evidence, but it makes sense. Unless you can give good logic (not "bs that's bigoted as hell") to convince me otherwise, I am going to hold the same opinion without justification.

@EvangelionZeta, I believe the separation of rich and poor is similar to the natural selection, but on a social and intellectual level. Many people believe in the ideal of equality, I don't. Some people are naturally more 'resourceful' than others, and are able to gather greater income no matter how rich or poor they are at the time. Some people are naturally more 'conservative', and are able to save a fair money no matter how rich or poor they are at the time. Some people are naturally less 'money minded' and often end up spending more than they can afford. On the assumption that we don't force the latter group into classes and educate them about how to use their money, they will poorly manage handouts. [I am against government handouts, especially Centerlink bonus payments. My housemate, for example, is a compulsive spender, he can barely keep up with rent, but as soon as centerlink trickle some money down (read: my tax), half of it goes in weed, alcohol and lingerie for his girlfriend].

I am also against high industry taxes, i.e. taking money out of corporations and then redirected by the government. For people who's been here for too long, you might remember Brendan, he made a good point that when spending other people's money [tax] on other people [tax payers], you don't care about quality or price. So instead of shuffling money out of the corporations and dumping it in where the Govt see fit [where people whinge the most], my ideal is to lower taxes and raise wages. Let people decide for themselves, and you'll see that people who can manage money will do better than before, people who can't manage money will pour that extra income straight back into the economy, into the pockets of people who can, voila, natural selection.

TL;DR, the summary is I don't like taxes, I like removing safety labels on things as much as possible [not deliberately hurting], and let natural selection do its job.

What about people lacking in education, who simply have no clue as to how to save money etc.?  From a humanitarian perspective, wouldn't it be nicer to keep them alive than to just go "natural selection rules you live in poverty, gg"?  From a utilitarian perspective, their interest in not living ****house lives is probably stronger than the rich's interest to just keep getting richer, right?

And even if some people are genuinely idiots who have been taught how to spend efficiently but still can't do it, what's the advantage in neglecting their quality of life?  Again, I don't necessarily see any need for the rich to keep getting richer when there are people who would potentially be living off the streets.

Of course not, there is already a solution for that, voluntary charity donations. [Think about the mechanism, I'm a bit caught up in ridiculous amounts of organic reactions to explain myself atm.] =]

[EvangelionZeta]

Disclaimer: the following opinion is personal speculation, not backed by any evidence, but it makes sense. Unless you can give good logic (not "bs that's bigoted as hell") to convince me otherwise, I am going to hold the same opinion without justification.

@EvangelionZeta, I believe the separation of rich and poor is similar to the natural selection, but on a social and intellectual level. Many people believe in the ideal of equality, I don't. Some people are naturally more 'resourceful' than others, and are able to gather greater income no matter how rich or poor they are at the time. Some people are naturally more 'conservative', and are able to save a fair money no matter how rich or poor they are at the time. Some people are naturally less 'money minded' and often end up spending more than they can afford. On the assumption that we don't force the latter group into classes and educate them about how to use their money, they will poorly manage handouts. [I am against government handouts, especially Centerlink bonus payments. My housemate, for example, is a compulsive spender, he can barely keep up with rent, but as soon as centerlink trickle some money down (read: my tax), half of it goes in weed, alcohol and lingerie for his girlfriend].

I am also against high industry taxes, i.e. taking money out of corporations and then redirected by the government. For people who's been here for too long, you might remember Brendan, he made a good point that when spending other people's money [tax] on other people [tax payers], you don't care about quality or price. So instead of shuffling money out of the corporations and dumping it in where the Govt see fit [where people whinge the most], my ideal is to lower taxes and raise wages. Let people decide for themselves, and you'll see that people who can manage money will do better than before, people who can't manage money will pour that extra income straight back into the economy, into the pockets of people who can, voila, natural selection.

TL;DR, the summary is I don't like taxes, I like removing safety labels on things as much as possible [not deliberately hurting], and let natural selection do its job.

What about people lacking in education, who simply have no clue as to how to save money etc.?  From a humanitarian perspective, wouldn't it be nicer to keep them alive than to just go "natural selection rules you live in poverty, gg"?  From a utilitarian perspective, their interest in not living ****house lives is probably stronger than the rich's interest to just keep getting richer, right?

And even if some people are genuinely idiots who have been taught how to spend efficiently but still can't do it, what's the advantage in neglecting their quality of life?  Again, I don't necessarily see any need for the rich to keep getting richer when there are people who would potentially be living off the streets.

Of course not, there is already a solution for that, voluntary charity donations. [Think about the mechanism, I'm a bit caught up in ridiculous amounts of organic reactions to explain myself atm.] =]

Point taken, but it still seems a bit more responsible for the government to contribute a bit as well.  There's only so much voluntary charity donations can do.  =/

[Glockmeister]

Disclaimer: the following opinion is personal speculation, not backed by any evidence, but it makes sense. Unless you can give good logic (not "bs that's bigoted as hell") to convince me otherwise, I am going to hold the same opinion without justification.

@EvangelionZeta, I believe the separation of rich and poor is similar to the natural selection, but on a social and intellectual level. Many people believe in the ideal of equality, I don't. Some people are naturally more 'resourceful' than others, and are able to gather greater income no matter how rich or poor they are at the time. Some people are naturally more 'conservative', and are able to save a fair money no matter how rich or poor they are at the time. Some people are naturally less 'money minded' and often end up spending more than they can afford. On the assumption that we don't force the latter group into classes and educate them about how to use their money, they will poorly manage handouts. [I am against government handouts, especially Centerlink bonus payments. My housemate, for example, is a compulsive spender, he can barely keep up with rent, but as soon as centerlink trickle some money down (read: my tax), half of it goes in weed, alcohol and lingerie for his girlfriend].

I am also against high industry taxes, i.e. taking money out of corporations and then redirected by the government. For people who's been here for too long, you might remember Brendan, he made a good point that when spending other people's money [tax] on other people [tax payers], you don't care about quality or price. So instead of shuffling money out of the corporations and dumping it in where the Govt see fit [where people whinge the most], my ideal is to lower taxes and raise wages. Let people decide for themselves, and you'll see that people who can manage money will do better than before, people who can't manage money will pour that extra income straight back into the economy, into the pockets of people who can, voila, natural selection.

TL;DR, the summary is I don't like taxes, I like removing safety labels on things as much as possible [not deliberately hurting], and let natural selection do its job.

That sounds suspiciously like eugenics, Mao.

[Noblesse]

Smooth RSVP, real smooth.