 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^
I disagree with your choice but I agree with your right to make it.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| "it" being Indignation? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Piss off tin tights, I was on a roll then.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Bruno wrote: | Also, if we are forced to give 40% of our wealth over to an institution upon our death, I wan't to at-least have the choice of giving my 40% over to the Catholic Church instead of the Australian Taxation Office.
I consider myself as living under the bosom of the Catholic Church more then what I do living suckling from the teat of "the State".
Not sure who made David, et el the boss telling us if we have to give money over upon death we have to give it to the institution THEY seem to think they can choose on our behalf.
My money is no more the state's money then what it is the Catholic Church's money. To argue the state should simply be able to confiscate it is Stalinist in it's thinking. |
Ah, but can we tax the Catholic Church's income? That's a whole new thread right there! 
In all seriousness, you raise a difficult question. On one level, it seems ridiculous because how can you stop people giving gifts to each other?
I think you need to think outside the box a little here. Why do we give gifts or donations, particularly of money? The answer is because either a) we think they need it or b) we like them and want to help them out, or c) because we want something from them.
My issue with wills stems largely from my issue with part a). We live in a society in which, sometimes, people or businesses depend on donations. While that can certainly have positive immediate effects, what are the broader issues? That is, how does it create unfair advantage and thus disadvantage, and shouldn't we want to create a society in which people don't depend on donations in order to get by? What happens to people without friends or rich relatives willing to give them money? How do they get by?
People will inevitably bring up charities, and that's a fascinating topic on its own. What happens when you make large donations to charity? They're tax-deductible, which means that, by the next financial year, you've essentially redirected a little bit of government money to the charity of your choice. Some people have issues with that, and I used to consider a bit off myself; now I think about it, however, it seems quite logical: it's simply a means of taking charitable revenue out of the caprices of private hands and into the hands of the state. That description may horrify you, but that's what's happening.
Look, I'm not totally gung-ho on this. There are interesting arguments on either side. I just think it's a worthy point to consider.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
I disagree with your choice but I agree with your right to make it. |
Thanks Stui
If only other people would be as similarly less inclined to press their beliefs onto the rest of us.
Just because others want to maximize the size of the state doesn't mean we should be forced to follow them in their wishes.
There are plenty of other institutions people should be allowed to contribute to instead of just the state. As I have said in this thread previously, perhaps the most important of these institutions is one's own family.
If David et el want to give 40% of their net worth to the state upon their death, that's their prerogative. It shouldn't mean the rest of us should have to do the same though. The state is not always benevolent after all. For instance, I am not sure David would be happy giving 40% of his wealth to the Australian state if all we ever had were African styled leaders who take public monies and place them in their own bank accounts. Now this last example is unlikely to happen in Australia, but it nonetheless provides an example of how "society" and "the state" are two very different things. |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Bruno wrote: | Also, if we are forced to give 40% of our wealth over to an institution upon our death, I wan't to at-least have the choice of giving my 40% over to the Catholic Church instead of the Australian Taxation Office.
I consider myself as living under the bosom of the Catholic Church more then what I do living suckling from the teat of "the State".
Not sure who made David, et el the boss telling us if we have to give money over upon death we have to give it to the institution THEY seem to think they can choose on our behalf.
My money is no more the state's money then what it is the Catholic Church's money. To argue the state should simply be able to confiscate it is Stalinist in it's thinking. |
Ah, but can we tax the Catholic Church's income? That's a whole new thread right there!
In all seriousness, you raise a difficult question. On one level, it seems ridiculous because how can you stop people giving gifts to each other?
I think you need to think outside the box a little here. Why do we give gifts or donations, particularly of money? The answer is because either a) we think they need it or b) we like them and want to help them out, or c) because we want something from them.
My issue with wills stems largely from my issue with part a). We live in a society in which, sometimes, people or businesses depend on donations. While that can certainly have positive immediate effects, what are the broader issues? That is, how does it create unfair advantage and thus disadvantage, and shouldn't we want to create a society in which people don't depend on donations in order to get by? What happens to people without friends or rich relatives willing to give them money? How do they get by?
People will inevitably bring up charities, and that's a fascinating topic on its own. What happens when you make large donations to charity? They're tax-deductible, which means that, by the next financial year, you've essentially redirected a little bit of government money to the charity of your choice. Some people have issues with that, and I used to consider a bit off myself; now I think about it, however, it seems quite logical: it's simply a means of taking charitable revenue out of the caprices of private hands and into the hands of the state. That description may horrify you, but that's what's happening.
Look, I'm not totally gung-ho on this. There are interesting arguments on either side. I just think it's a worthy point to consider. |
Fair enough.
Just a couple of issues ...
What you say would apply only to the arguments of the libertarians who want no taxes. I am all for taxes. Just not all of them. I think the tax system would be a lot better (a lot more efficient at least) if almost all revenue raised came simply from PAYE and Company Tax. (Happy for taxes / fines on undesirables to remain in force though ... e.g. cigarettes, speeding fines etc).
Re. Stopping giving gifts ... the government simply puts a limit on the size of a gift before it becomes taxable. E.g. $3000.
Also, a tax deduction is not an example re-directing government money. The deduction is actually there as a way to explicitly say "this is not government money".
As for the Religions ... I agree there are arguments for taxing it. I guess religions are treated similarly to Governments when it comes to taxes though. Just like the ATO can't tax the State or Federal Governments, it has no power to tax religions. I guess it's a way of say "the state" and "religions" have equal status as public institutions. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Bruno wrote: | | If David et el want to give 40% of their net worth to the state upon their death, that's their prerogative. It shouldn't mean the rest of us should have to do the same though. The state is not always benevolent after all. For instance, I am not sure David would be happy giving 40% of his wealth to the Australian state if all we ever had were African styled leaders who take public monies and place them in their own bank accounts. Now this last example is unlikely to happen in Australia, but it nonetheless provides an example of how "society" and "the state" are two very different things. |
If tax is about social access and social quality then there's no choice but to give it to the state which is charged with achieving that end; the whims of people's good intentions on the day won't do. Private groups then become involved when they meet certain criteria and win contracts at the behest of the state (often under very sub-optimal PPPs, but that's for another thread and from memory Tannin is the man for that topic). Remember, we're explicitly talking a tax here on the assets of people who are no longer with us; we're not discussing the entire worth of a living person.
I'm very cautious of the state myself, but the idea that the state is inherently evil and the individual is inherently trustworthy is untenable. If there's no choice but to organise, there's no choice but to form a sanctioned organisation and give it authority; either that or an unsanctioned collective subject to even less scrutiny will usurp authority unto itself.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | how can you stop people giving gifts to each other? |
Gifts are income. Always have been. If I give you $100,000 as a gift, you must declare that income on your tax return the same as you declare your wages and your bank interest, and you must pay the appropriate marginal income tax rate on that income.
Think about it - if it was any other way, no-one would ever have any "income", we would all just accept "gifts" and there would be no income tax.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Sounds fair enough to me. Don't know what the fuss about taxing inheritance is then. Why should it be an exception?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Last edited by David on Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Is that what you meant to say? |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ Sounds fair enough to me. Don't know what the fuss about taxing inheritance is then. Why should it be an exception? |
^ Probably because some pharknuckle started a thread about it!  
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Last edited by Tannin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:16 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Ha, what a fool! Although perhaps he should be quietly chuffed it made it to 21 pages. 
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Wow, great link, followed it, read it ( I was born close by, in ilfricombe Devon)
kept going, all the way to Alexis Texas, one of the most famous pron starts in the world won't do black guys?
ReallY?
CraZy girl, doesn't she want to know the truth?
And Kate uptown is too chunky for the sports illustrated cover!WTF the girl is drop dead gorgeous!
Aimlessly surfing the net is good fun
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | Wow, great link, followed it, read it ( I was born close by, in ilfricombe Devon)
kept going, all the way to Alexis Texas, one of the most famous pron starts in the world won't do black guys?
ReallY?
CraZy girl, doesn't she want to know the truth?
And Kate uptown is too chunky for the sports illustrated cover!WTF the girl is drop dead gorgeous!
Aimlessly surfing the net is good fun |
She's a honey (Alexis that is). Poor black guys missing out. She also doesn't do gang bangs or groups, draws the line at a 3some.
She's almost exactly 20 years younger than me. Recon I have a chance?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
