Question for every one

[Invader Zim]

You walk down the road, you see a man starving and freezing, do you: -

A. Go to the local shop and buy the person a meal and give him your small change.

B. Give him all the money youhave on you, and take him to the salvation army hostal.

C. Go up to the bastard kick him and tell him to get off his ass and help himself.

D. Ignore him and cross over to the other side of the road.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:02 PM
You walk down the road, you see a man starving and freezing, do you: -

A. Go to the local shop and buy the person a meal and give him your small change.

B. Give him all the money youhave on you, and take him to the salvation army hostal.

C. Go up to the bastard kick him and tell him to get off his ass and help himself.

D. Ignore him and cross over to the other side of the road.
The issue is not which of these four you chose, but whetheror not you actually have the right to chose.

[Bolshevist]

Give someone fish, you make the problem temporarily. Teach the person to fish, you make the problem dissapear. Or something like that :)

I would not give this person any money, since that would be like trying to fix a longterm problem over the night, but rather help him get to the nearest salvation army, and if he asked for it give him a simple job on the counstruction site.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 21 2004, 10:07 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 21 2004, 10:07 PM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 10:02 PM
You walk down the road, you see a man starving and freezing, do you: -

A. Go to the local shop and buy the person a meal and give him your small change.

B. Give him all the money youhave on you, and take him to the salvation army hostal.

C. Go up to the bastard kick him and tell him to get off his ass and help himself.

D. Ignore him and cross over to the other side of the road.
The issue is not which of these four you chose, but whetheror not you actually have the right to chose. [/b]
bollocks.

Of course you have the right to choose, you do every time you walk past a begger in the street.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 11:23 PM

The issue is not which of these four you chose, but whetheror not you actually have the right to chose. [/QUOTE]
bollocks.

Of course you have the right to choose, you do every time you walk past a begger in the street. [/quote]
Stop paying your taxes (that subsidise these bums) and see how much "choice" you are given.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

No, you got it wrong again! It's the poor who pay the taxes and the rich who profit of it. Maybe you should ask Arnold Scharzenegger how much taxes he pays.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Pretty-Much A.

Usually, but I won't buy him a meal, I would just give him the change. I know it is for booze, but it will let him escape his misery for a little while, and I continue to enable his dysfunction, thus ensuring one less person competing against me in the labor market.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2004, 11:28 PM


The issue is not which of these four you chose, but whetheror not you actually have the right to chose.
bollocks.

Of course you have the right to choose, you do every time you walk past a begger in the street. [/QUOTE]
Stop paying your taxes (that subsidise these bums) and see how much "choice" you are given. [/quote]
If taxes were aboliushed, you would still be in the exact same position of choise.

[Louis Pio]

A. Go to the local shop and buy the person a meal and give him your small change

I wouldn't have the money.


B. Give him all the money youhave on you, and take him to the salvation army hostal.


I would take him to the shelter were my grandad do volentary work. (plus give him half of the very few money I have on me)

[timbaly]

You walk down the road, you see a man starving and freezing, do you: -

A. Go to the local shop and buy the person a meal and give him your small change.

B. Give him all the money youhave on you, and take him to the salvation army hostal.

C. Go up to the bastard kick him and tell him to get off his ass and help himself.

D. Ignore him and cross over to the other side of the road.


I would probably give the guy some change if he looked like he was in a real terrible position. If I had seen the man blow money on alcohol frequently I probably wouldn't do anything for him besides tell him to get indoors. So what I would do is similar to A and D. Option C is ridiculous and B is going further than what I think I would do.

[John Galt]

I would offer him a job in my factorie$. This way, he gets a job, and I get another pea$ent to exploit for my evil kkkapitali$t de$ire$. I would pay him pennie$ so I can take all the profit of my worker$ and u$e them to make more factorie$ so I could opre$$ more people.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 22 2004, 12:54 AM
I would offer him a job in my factorie$. This way, he gets a job, and I get another pea$ent to exploit for my evil kkkapitali$t de$ire$. I would pay him pennie$ so I can take all the profit of my worker$ and u$e them to make more factorie$ so I could opre$$ more people.
You spelt: -

factories
peasant
capitalist
desires
pennies
workers
use
oppress

incorrectly, and quit fucking up my thread, with your rather lame attempts at sarcasm.

[John Galt]

So substituting a $ for an S is incorrect?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 22 2004, 01:17 AM
So substituting a $ for an S is incorrect?
If you had said say: -

peadollarsignant

Would you not consider that a spelling error?

And you spelt a number of words wrong, for example your use of "opress" and "peasent".

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I give occasionally money to beggars. The risc that the money is beeing abused is too big. I'd rather give money to organisations which effectivly organise help for beggars on the long term. Giving job training to beggars, social skills training, a non-religious organisation, existing out of volunteers or workers without excessive paychecks. Unfortunatly such organisations are hard too find.

Giving money or buying a meal, is helping them for a couple hours, too ineffective.

[lucid]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 11:46 PM
No, you got it wrong again! It's the poor who pay the taxes and the rich who profit of it. Maybe you should ask Arnold Scharzenegger how much taxes he pays.
Dude, your so stupid it's painful. Maybe you should wait until you start paying taxes before you open that idiotic hole in your face.


Some tax stats for you. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html)

Since you are probably to stupid to understand what it says I'll explain.

Top 1% income makers pay 33 percent of all income taxes while they only earn 17 percent of total income earned in the US. There tax rate is 27 percent.

Bottom 50% pay 4 percent of total taxes and earn 14 percent of all income.

Also look at the numbers of people in each class.

You simply don't know what your talking about.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Enigma+May 22 2004, 01:20 AM--> (Enigma @ May 22 2004, 01:20 AM)
John [email protected] 22 2004, 01:17 AM
So substituting a $ for an S is incorrect?
If you had said say: -

peadollarsignant

Would you not consider that a spelling error?

And you spelt a number of words wrong, for example your use of "opress" and "peasent". [/b]
Its hard to $pell with $s.


My post wasnt directed to you, but im just getting pissed off at all the people that go

"omg, teh evil Bu$s and the U$A are teh evil capitalists!"

[fuerzasocialista]

I'd give him the change and perhaps a little more if I felt he wasn't gonna misuse it

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by lucid+May 22 2004, 02:05 AM--> (lucid @ May 22 2004, 02:05 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 11:46 PM
No, you got it wrong again! It's the poor who pay the taxes and the rich who profit of it. Maybe you should ask Arnold Scharzenegger how much taxes he pays.
Dude, your so stupid it's painful. Maybe you should wait until you start paying taxes before you open that idiotic hole in your face.


Some tax stats for you. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html)

Since you are probably to stupid to understand what it says I'll explain.

Top 1% income makers pay 33 percent of all income taxes while they only earn 17 percent of total income earned in the US. There tax rate is 27 percent.

Bottom 50% pay 4 percent of total taxes and earn 14 percent of all income.

Also look at the numbers of people in each class.

You simply don't know what your talking about. [/b]
It's harder for a working class guy to pay 1500 dollar taxes, when he earns 1000 a month. It wouldn't cost Bill Gates any problems if he had to pay 10 million a month. So your stats only show how big the income differences are. Taxes do not affect everyone as much.

The war in Iraq is a good example of what I mean. The war is "sponsored" by the poor with men and taxmoney and the rich receive the "award", a lot of money and oil.

[lucid]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 22 2004, 02:51 AM
It's harder for a working class guy to pay 1500 dollar taxes, when he earns 1000 a month. It wouldn't cost Bill Gates any problems if he had to pay 10 million a month. So your stats only show how big the income differences are. Taxes do not affect everyone as much.

The war in Iraq is a good example of what I mean. The war is "sponsored" by the poor with men and taxmoney and the rich receive the "award", a lot of money and oil.
Ok your little more dense that I thought. Lemme give you an example.

Before we where married my wife, with three children, went to school full time (Completely paid for by the government and I am not talking about loans) and worked part time. She worked for fedex and made about 12k a year part time. At the end of the year, when she filed her taxes, she would get a check for about 5 grand. Ok here comes the math part, pay attention. She MAYBE paid 2000 in taxes for the year and recieved 5000 back. She recieved a refund on taxes she didn't pay. I don't care what you read about the US the poor people here have it well. The evil rich support a huge part of the government and the poor people get money back that they never paid taxes on.

Your wrong, period. Whatever you have heard about our tax system is bullshit.

Now that we are married she still goes to school full time and now she doesn't work. Because of my income she will only be able to get loans instead of grants.

[DaCuBaN]

There is nothing wrong with the tax system for the poor. Everyone has to pay taxes to make government and infrastructure possible, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume those who earn more money pay more money - after all, we all need approximately similar quantities to survive.

I think they point that's being made is that the rich aren't taxed enough


I would just give him the change. I know it is for booze, but it will let him escape his misery for a little while, and I continue to enable his dysfunction, thus ensuring one less person competing against me in the labor market.

CI... as ever thinking of yourself. Only you could figure out how to make giving a person change work in your own benefit :rolleyes: :lol:

On topic, I'm almost alway broke, but they would undoubtably end up with if not all, then the vast majority of money I had on me plus whatever was left in my tobacco pouch, a pack of papers, lighter and a bit of weed if I had any.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2004, 11:28 PM


The issue is not which of these four you chose, but whetheror not you actually have the right to chose.
bollocks.

Of course you have the right to choose, you do every time you walk past a begger in the street. [/QUOTE]
Stop paying your taxes (that subsidise these bums) and see how much "choice" you are given. [/quote]
Subsidize bums? explain this to me.

[Raisa]

I usually dont have the money to give away, but if I do then i will share the money.

[DaCuBaN]

I usually dont have the money to give away, but if I do then i will share the money

Personally, whether I can afford it or not doesn't come into the occasion - I've almost always given away more than I can afford, and I'd kick the living shit out of them if I found out they'd thrown that money away on booze or somesuch, or (as you see lots in this area) they were simply kids looking for some extra pocket money.

I have a nasty habit of trusting people - I don't think this is necessarily bad, but it certainly is not practical in a looking-out-for-#1 society

[dark fairy]

well i would have to say that i would give him all the change i have on me... but i won't go as far as taking him to a salvation place... but that is the most accurate answer i can give you... :)

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 03:58 AM
There is nothing wrong with the tax system for the poor. Everyone has to pay taxes to make government and infrastructure possible, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume those who earn more money pay more money - after all, we all need approximately similar quantities to survive.

I think they point that's being made is that the rich aren't taxed enough


I would just give him the change. I know it is for booze, but it will let him escape his misery for a little while, and I continue to enable his dysfunction, thus ensuring one less person competing against me in the labor market.

CI... as ever thinking of yourself. Only you could figure out how to make giving a person change work in your own benefit :rolleyes: :lol:

On topic, I'm almost alway broke, but they would undoubtably end up with if not all, then the vast majority of money I had on me plus whatever was left in my tobacco pouch, a pack of papers, lighter and a bit of weed if I had any.
Saying that the rich are not taxed enough, which I disagree with, is completely different that saying that the poor pay all of the taxes. Especially when the poor get all of there paid taxes plus some at the end of the year. The first statement is just your opinion and the second is just another lie invented by the left to incite hatred among classes. At least be honest.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:02 AM
You walk down the road, you see a man starving and freezing, do you: -

A. Go to the local shop and buy the person a meal and give him your small change.

B. Give him all the money youhave on you, and take him to the salvation army hostal.

C. Go up to the bastard kick him and tell him to get off his ass and help himself.

D. Ignore him and cross over to the other side of the road.
I would take option A, but I dont always do that, because I dont always have money. I never give money to people, I will always buy them food, or a can of beer if they need it. I never just ignore people, I will always say that I dont have money. That's in sheffield though..

In Chimoio town it is a lot different. There are scores of people begging for money, usually young kids who walk around with blind people. You also get disabled people and old people begging for money. Because you're white everybody knows that you will have money, so you are swomped. When I walk around I usually have some small change which I give out, or soemtimes we give bread. The problem is with Chimoio, if you dont ignore opeople, they will just follow you around. If you give them a look in there eye, then they know your soft, so they will pester and pester until you give them money, so you have to ingore them, especially if you dont have any money.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 11:46 PM
No, you got it wrong again! It's the poor who pay the taxes and the rich who profit of it.
Explain how this happens. While you're at it, explain how paying 40% income tax is "profiting".


If taxes were aboliushed, you would still be in the exact same position of choise.

No, there would be no government demanding money from me and threatening me with jail if Irefused to give it to them.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by lucid+May 22 2004, 03:18 AM--> (lucid @ May 22 2004, 03:18 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 22 2004, 02:51 AM
It's harder for a working class guy to pay 1500 dollar taxes, when he earns 1000 a month. It wouldn't cost Bill Gates any problems if he had to pay 10 million a month. So your stats only show how big the income differences are. Taxes do not affect everyone as much.

The war in Iraq is a good example of what I mean. The war is "sponsored" by the poor with men and taxmoney and the rich receive the "award", a lot of money and oil.
Ok your little more dense that I thought. Lemme give you an example.

Before we where married my wife, with three children, went to school full time (Completely paid for by the government and I am not talking about loans) and worked part time. She worked for fedex and made about 12k a year part time. At the end of the year, when she filed her taxes, she would get a check for about 5 grand. Ok here comes the math part, pay attention. She MAYBE paid 2000 in taxes for the year and recieved 5000 back. She recieved a refund on taxes she didn't pay. I don't care what you read about the US the poor people here have it well. The evil rich support a huge part of the government and the poor people get money back that they never paid taxes on.

Your wrong, period. Whatever you have heard about our tax system is bullshit.

Now that we are married she still goes to school full time and now she doesn't work. Because of my income she will only be able to get loans instead of grants. [/b]
I admit that I don't know much about the US Tax System. But the example of your wife is a bad example, it's not like the Gov't allways gives more money then it receives. It seems to me that there has been a mistake with your Taxpapers. The Gov't wouldn't have tax income if that was the daily story.

The Taxes that the poor pay, affects them a lot more then the taxes that the rich pay. Instead of letting a poor guy pay 500 dollar tax out of an income of 1500, let a millionair pay 90% or even more of his income. That money can be used in a more organised and effective way by a social-minded Gov't to improve the country in it's whole. Leaving that money on the guy's bankaccount would or widen the gap between the rich and poor or it the money would just stay there. Not beeing used.

It seems to me that you can't come around with 500-1500=income and you can with a 1.000.000x10%=income. It's not like the poor people aren't hard workers.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 22 2004, 12:42 PM
it's not like the Gov't allways gives more money then it receives.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 22 2004, 01:10 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 22 2004, 01:10 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 22 2004, 12:42 PM
it's not like the Gov't allways gives more money then it receives.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b]
I fail to see why, it is quite logical, the government hands out far less than it recieves. If it did not the the government would go bankrupt. the very fact that a government can afford to prosecute a war is proof of his fact.

[DaCuBaN]

Saying that the rich are not taxed enough, which I disagree with, is completely different that saying that the poor pay all of the taxes

I agree entirely, and if you remember correctly I tried to move the original point (that I personally did not post) aside to my own meaning.

We interpret this in a different way. Does this surprise you?

The point I am trying to make is that the rich could be taxed far more than they currently are without really impacting their quality of life, and the poor could be taxed less with a significant impact on their quality of life

Bread costs the same no matter how rich you are.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Enigma+May 22 2004, 01:28 PM--> (Enigma @ May 22 2004, 01:28 PM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 01:10 PM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 22 2004, 12:42 PM
it's not like the Gov't allways gives more money then it receives.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I fail to see why, it is quite logical, the government hands out far less than it recieves. If it did not the the government would go bankrupt. the very fact that a government can afford to prosecute a war is proof of his fact. [/b]
Ever hear of the national debt?

[DaCuBaN]

Ever hear of the national debt?

Yup.. it's how much all the people of the nation owe the various financial organisations. What you perhaps intended was the budget deficit - sometimes the government makes money, others it loses it. It too is a business.

[Nas]

now, im not ready for anything, so i guess even though i dont really like it
i would choose choice "D"

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:20 AM

I usually dont have the money to give away, but if I do then i will share the money

Personally, whether I can afford it or not doesn't come into the occasion - I've almost always given away more than I can afford, and I'd kick the living shit out of them if I found out they'd thrown that money away on booze or somesuch, or (as you see lots in this area) they were simply kids looking for some extra pocket money.

Its not so much affording to give it to people. When I say I dont have money to give people, I mean there is nothing in my pocket. And if there is its a special thing, and I'll gladly share my money with them.But im usually not presented with that cause I have no money myself.

Some times I dont care if you buy booze. Like veterans. I dont care, they deserve to be bought booze forever. No one is in their heads but them, and it makes me so mad to think that those people have to walk around having to cope those horrendous things.

[elijahcraig]

In my experience, merely "giving homeless people" (if that's what we're talking about pretty much) money usually doesn't do much; they just use it to further their addictions, which most have, as I know from living around them for a very long time. You should most likely either help them get food, and set up somewhere to get healthy if they are sick, and eventually get them started at a job they can get. It would also depend on how well-off I was, if I had money to give, a place to live, etc.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by John Galt+May 22 2004, 11:30 PM--> (John Galt @ May 22 2004, 11:30 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 01:10 PM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 22 2004, 12:42 PM
it's not like the Gov't allways gives more money then it receives.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I fail to see why, it is quite logical, the government hands out far less than it recieves. If it did not the the government would go bankrupt. the very fact that a government can afford to prosecute a war is proof of his fact.
Ever hear of the national debt? [/b]
Ever heard of ridiculous high spendings on the military? The US spends more money on the military then the BNP of most countries.

Ever heard of the current NASA Mars developments, which are bond to cost a lot.