Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Let's end this 'dole is too much' stuff
Options
Comments
-
-
Ah but that's not what we're debating.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »It is not that simple, the wealthy deserve their wealth in any scenario where the wealth was gained legally.
The question was over inheritance as regards the wealthy working hard.
Do try and keep up.;)
I really don't think you do.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Yea... is that difficult for you to understand?
It was claimed that the wealthy worked hard for their wealth so I brought up inheritance.
This seems to become a kind of Godwin's Law.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Ah a student... :rolleyes:
I was one once upon a time, when you enter the real world your perspective will change...
The minute "student" is brought up then you disregard everything by saying "oh you'll change in 'the real world'" Your userpage lists your occupation as a student; you're hardly out of the student system that long (if at all) then.
Try harder next time.
This debate started in regards to wealth=hard work.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Why in the hell would the state deserve it? Who cares if the little brats deserve it or not. It was earned by their parents, why not give it to their offspring, it is very very basic. Just like providing an education or food or shelter, by your unbelievable logic, people should look after other poorer kids before their own, just because they are poor. You are taking the piss.
In that context, why are the offspring of wealthy more entitled to wealth, given that they didn't contribute the hard work? Their parents did.
It's not that hard to understand.
Oh dear.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Suggesting it goes to an organisation such as the government who don't give a damn about the citizens of a country, for them to squander it on foreign holidays, helicopter rides, expensive manicures all at our expence just shows how much you know about life in general...
I don't think your following this thread at all.
See the bits where I said it could go to pay for the state's upbringing of the now orphaned kids/ to charity?
You just seem to be reading something you dislike, RAAAAAGGGGING and then posting your vitriol without reading the rest of the thread.
Also feel the need to keep bringing up the "real world" point to bolster a weak argument.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »I would rather give my money to my kids and know they are looked after well than to give it to the likes of that fat b!tch mary harney so she can stuff her fat face with doughnuts. If the scum that is the government took pay cuts and were paid a reasonable wage, spent our money reasonably and had any clue, then I wouldn't mind an inheritance tax, but this is not the case, and the money of the intelligent, carefull and hard working people is been taken from them and spent wrecklessly. What is the logic in that?[/qupte]
I've already answered this; it would not just go in with the rest of the State revenue.
Next.
Nah, you inherit the money. It does not make you fundamentally deserving of it.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »The law states otherwise, being born to a wealthy family makes you deserving of the wealth your parents accumilated, unless otherwise stated in a will.
At any rate, since when has the Irish law been so amazing; this is the same legal system that allows the state to censor indecent material.
Oh sweet irony...Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »I suggest you start making some real points, you have just posted rubbish which indicates you are a begrudger.
It is not begrudging them money; I was asking why those who feel the wealthy are deserving of their wealth do not feel an end to inheritance should be in order.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Take the money from the person inherating the fortune, only because they didn't work hard for it. That is not reason enough to begrudge someone money. Sure lets stop the lotto, bingo and any other competition where people win prizes and money. They don't deserve it either, right?
I really am sick of making the point that I do not agree with an end to inheritance. I've posted it multiple times, emboldened it and yet, you still keep up your ranting and raving.
Once again; read the thread.
Once again; it is not begrudgery.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »This is true in a lot of cases. Also, who is to say that the children who got the inheritance are not hard workers? They may have not worked for the inheritance money, but may be good decent people in general? You would begrudge them of this wealth?
If they were hard workers, surely they would have their own wealth. Whether they are nice or not does not come into it; if it is true that wealth=hard work, then they would have no need for the inheritance.
Once we start saying that hard work in one instance should lead to a validation of wealth from another source, where do we draw the line?
I don't recall saying all the rich or even the majority are there not because of hard work.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »You nor I have the figures of who worked for their millions and who inherited it. Saying all the rich or the majority of the rich are rich not because of hard work could very well be inaccurate.
I do see hard work all the time though; in the people I know, people I work with and so on. And yet, I know few wealthy people.
The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't necessarily a correlation between hard work and wealth. It can happen but wealth can also arise from corruption, nepotism etc.
*facepalm*Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »You are radical, you have radical ideas and suggestions, if you knew what the word radical meant then you wouldn't be asking this question. You idea/suggestion of abolishing inheritance is a radical idea/suggestion. It's crazy and thoughtless, no real reason for it.
I've addressed this already; I am not in favour of abolishing inheritance. I merely feel that it is at odds with the claim that the rich are always deserving of their wealth.
At any rate, what is radical in AH is fairly distorted. See the amount of people calling for the torture of offenders.
Before responding to this post, please read through the entire thread. It would stop misunderstandings like this from arising in the future.
Sometimes.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »There is also a huge amount of hard work involved.
You might be wealthy because you had an amazing idea, worked hard at it and the idea sold.
YOu might be wealthy because you bet 50-1 and it paid off.
You might be wealthy because you invested in a company which managed to rise.
Or you might be wealthy because of unethical practices.
Only factor?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Are you suggesting that luck is the only factor involved in becomming wealthy?
No.
One factor?
Yes.
Not really as I've never said that wealth and hard work are incompatible.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Some do get their money purely from hard work. Is that impossible for you to digest?
Nice little straw man there.
Yup, which is why we need tighter regulations.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »We are living in a society which doesn't differenciate between the poor and wealthy frauds. Although some will say having money will help you if you are caught
Will it address the problem?
No, but it's a start
It is clear you don't have the slightest idea what communism is.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »As for your ideas, it is a step towards communism, if you agree or disagree, I don't really care... because it IS.
If we lived in a communist state, there wouldn't be a state to take away the wealth. There also wouldn't be any discussion as to the rich and poor; it would be a classless society too.
Keep in mind communism is a pipe dream.
And your logic for that is....what?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Suggesting that people donate their money to charity (you obviously don't have a clue about charities)
Have you ever done any work for a charity?
Once again; what is your logic?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: », to the state (you also don't have a clue about the state either) or to any other bodies, is completely insane.
I would be happy to outline what the State is. Although I doubt that is what your looking for seeing as you seem to just be looking to nitpick. Such a response would undermine that.
Aaaand once again you resort to the "omg u haz no real life experience!!1!!1!"Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »When you get some life experience you will understand this. Don't tell me you have, because you have displayed that you do not... sorry for ya.
Please expand on this as your above post can be summarised into;
•You have no real life experience (always the sign of someone unable to make a better argument so they have to fall back on this)
•Some wealthy people got their wealth through hard work(despite my never claiming to the contrary)
•You know nothing about the state/charity (without explaining why; operating under the principle that mud sticks.
•Your ideas are insane. (subjective opinion.
I look forward to your response.0 -
-
Some people... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:I really don't think you do.
It was claimed that the wealthy worked hard for their wealth so I brought up inheritance.
Well there is very little work involved obtaining an inheritance, compared to the work that involved collecting said wealth. This does not mean that people should be stripped of it.This seems to become a kind of Godwin's Law.
The minute "student" is brought up then you disregard everything by saying "oh you'll change in 'the real world'" Your userpage lists your occupation as a student; you're hardly out of the student system that long (if at all) then.
Try harder next time.
Mature student a few years back, I worked for a long time prior to going to college... I have life experiences, you obviously do not...This debate started in regards to wealth=hard work.
In that context, why are the offspring of wealthy more entitled to wealth, given that they didn't contribute the hard work? Their parents did.
It's not that hard to understand.
The debate started about social welfare, not that wealth = hard work. The offspring are not entitled to wealth more so than anyone else, they are entitled to the parents wealth more than anyone else. This is law. Regardless of their contribution to the hard work involved in obtaining the wealth.Oh dear.
I don't think your following this thread at all.
See the bits where I said it could go to pay for the state's upbringing of the now orphaned kids/ to charity?
For what reason exactly? Take wealth from the rich give to the poor? Robin hood? Communism? I think so... :rolleyes:You just seem to be reading something you dislike, RAAAAAGGGGING and then posting your vitriol without reading the rest of the thread.
Where have I expressed rage in any of my posts? Also, wtf has this go to do with anything? You say I am nit picking?Also feel the need to keep bringing up the "real world" point to bolster a weak argument.
It's difficult to get a good perspective of the situation when your head is so far into the clouds. Come down to planet earth, live a few years then think back to the, foolish posts you made. You will laugh... You will find that you are the one making an extremely weak argument...I've already answered this; it would not just go in with the rest of the State revenue.
Where would it go then? A special non state fund for the state to use? Really, have you thought about this? It should go to the state for education (or whatever bullcrap you were talking about) but it doesn't belong with the rest of the state revenue...???Nah, you inherit the money. It does not make you fundamentally deserving of it.
Ok, so you didn't work for the money, you may not deserve it as such, but you have a right to that money regardless... and your logic suggests that if somebody does not deserve money (work hard for it) that it should go to the state? That's a serious joke. Why does the state deserve it then? Or the homeless? Or orphans?
Say a man is dying, the son looks after that man for a number of years prior to his death. He inherits the mans fortune, does he not deserve this? There is no measure of how deserving one person is... so it is impossible to say that people who have inherited a substantial amount of money are NOT deserving of it. You say they are not based on one simple factor, they didn't work for it... What do you know?At any rate, since when has the Irish law been so amazing; this is the same legal system that allows the state to censor indecent material.
Tangent? Incoherent? I think so... try stay on topic, yea?It is not begrudging them money; I was asking why those who feel the wealthy are deserving of their wealth do not feel an end to inheritance should be in order.
Maybe they are deserving of it, who are you to say they are not?I really am sick of making the point that I do not agree with an end to inheritance.
:rolleyes:I've posted it multiple times, emboldened it and yet, you still keep up your ranting and raving.
Still??? Considering I made one post on the offtopic crap you were talking about?Once again; read the thread.
:rolleyes:Once again; it is not begrudgery.
You make it look like it is.If they were hard workers, surely they would have their own wealth.
In an ideal world, with you, in the clouds, maybe.Whether they are nice or not does not come into it; if it is true that wealth=hard work, then they would have no need for the inheritance.
You are making a simple equation, for something that is much more complicated. Hard work = wealth, luck = wealth... pathetic. It is more like Hard work + determination + luck + a lot of other things = wealth... you won't get there by hard work alone... It is possible to get there by luck alone.Once we start saying that hard work in one instance should lead to a validation of wealth from another source, where do we draw the line?
What??? That doesn't make sence...
Where was hard work displayed in the first instance? As regards to someone inheriting, there is no hard work involved. Try explain this a little better.I don't recall saying all the rich or even the majority are there not because of hard work.
You emplied it.I do see hard work all the time though; in the people I know, people I work with and so on. And yet, I know few wealthy people.
They are in the wrong type of work...
I see a lot of hard workers and most of them are fairly wealthy, my parents being one of them
The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't necessarily a correlation between hard work and wealth. It can happen but wealth can also arise from corruption, nepotism etc.
Yup, but would be more common when hard work is involved.*facepalm*
:rolleyes:I've addressed this already; I am not in favour of abolishing inheritance. I merely feel that it is at odds with the claim that the rich are always deserving of their wealth.
Are they not? If not, why are they not?At any rate, what is radical in AH is fairly distorted. See the amount of people calling for the torture of offenders.
WTF are you talking about?Before responding to this post, please read through the entire thread. It would stop misunderstandings like this from arising in the future.
I don't have the time to decypher the crap that has been posted. I followed most of itSometimes.
You might be wealthy because you had an amazing idea, worked hard at it and the idea sold.
YOu might be wealthy because you bet 50-1 and it paid off.
You might be wealthy because you invested in a company which managed to rise.
Or you might be wealthy because of unethical practices.
Nobody is disbuting that...Not really as I've never said that wealth and hard work are incompatible.
Nice little straw man there.
Explain...It is clear you don't have the slightest idea what communism is.
I know what communism is... Marx
You obviously do not. You also have problems with reading me thinks. I said a STEP TOWARDS which is exactly what it is.
[quoteIf we lived in a communist state, there wouldn't be a state to take away the wealth.[/quote]
This is true communism, which does not exist.And your logic for that is....what?
Have you ever done any work for a charity?
What has this got to do with anything?
Giving money directly to a charity isn't very intelligent. Depending on the charity of course.Once again; what is your logic?
I would be happy to outline what the State is.
I know what a state is, stop volunteering information like this.Although I doubt that is what your looking for seeing as you seem to just be looking to nitpick. Such a response would undermine that.
Kettle, pot...? :rolleyes:Aaaand once again you resort to the "omg u haz no real life experience!!1!!1!"
I don't recall speaking like a 4 year old.Please expand on this as your above post can be summarised into;
•You have no real life experience (always the sign of someone unable to make a better argument so they have to fall back on this)
•Some wealthy people got their wealth through hard work(despite my never claiming to the contrary)
•You know nothing about the state/charity (without explaining why; operating under the principle that mud sticks.
•Your ideas are insane. (subjective opinion).
I made clear agruments, you have not. Suggesting that the money should be taked from offspring and given to the state and charities, suggest you haven't the foggiest about the state or charities... In other words, the money would be squandered and wasted with little good comming out of it. Your ideas are radical, again, if you knew what this word meant you would then understand that your ideas, are in fact, radical.0 -
Ah the old use of the rolleyes smiley.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Some people... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Very little work obtaining an inheritance?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Well there is very little work involved obtaining an inheritance, compared to the work that involved collecting said wealth. This does not mean that people should be stripped of it.
Yup, it's tough work meeting with the solicitor and hearing the will.
How many years ago/how many years did you work?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Mature student a few years back, I worked for a long time prior to going to college... I have life experiences, you obviously do not...
Assuming you did a basic 3 year degree, you worked for 5 years max; not many years. You could have done a masters, a PHD or a year abroad meaning it could be less than this.
Can't see it really bothers me. We are not talking about dealing with the TV license inspectors or whether our boss is screwing us over. It's whether inheritance is compatible with a meritocarcy. This isn't something being in/out of college is relevant too.
It's more in line with that your argument is so shoddy you are forced to drag out the "you lack life experience!!!!!".
Poor show.
The debate started about social welfare, not that wealth = hard work.[/quote]You do realise that threads do go off topic right? Debates occur within threads; not just over the original topic.
It was claimed that the wealthy deserve their wealth (read back over the thread) and then inheritance came up.
Yup but they did not get it from hard work.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »The offspring are not entitled to wealth more so than anyone else, they are entitled to the parents wealth more than anyone else.
It was from their parents.
No! Really?#Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »This is law.
We are arguing a hypothetical situation.
Yes but we are not debating their contribution to hard work; the debate we over whether the rich get their wealth from hard work. Inheritance goes against this.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Regardless of their contribution to the hard work involved in obtaining the wealth.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »For what reason exactly? Take wealth from the rich give to the poor? Robin hood? Communism? I think so... :rolleyes:
Your ignorance on communism saddens me given how often it is being brought up.
For what reason?
Oh just for suggestions as to what to do with the money.
One minute you're whinging about what the government will do with the money (Harney etc) and when I give some possible uses for it which benefit the wider community you take issue with this as well.
Oh just the general tone of your posts; relying so heavily on "you have no life experience/ no knowledge of charity/ the state " etc etc.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Where have I expressed rage in any of my posts? Also, wtf has this go to do with anything? You say I am nit picking?
What it is has to with anything is that you didn't read the entire thread; what you are arguing over has been done before.
Once again, you wheel out the "living in the real world" argument. It seems to be the crux of your argument so far; " oh he's a student so I can disregard whatever he says". Nice little catch all argument that saves you from actually having to debate the issues at hand;)Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »It's difficult to get a good perspective of the situation when your head is so far into the clouds. Come down to planet earth, live a few years then think back to the, foolish posts you made. You will laugh... You will find that you are the one making an extremely weak argument...
Tell me Xavier; how does being outside of college transcend the notion that the rich are not always there because of hard work?
Ah but if it was used to fund only education and was kept prevented from being spent on anything else it would not be used on jets and Harney's haircuts. Which was what you brought up as an issueZaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Where would it go then? A special non state fund for the state to use? Really, have you thought about this? It should go to the state for education (or whatever bullcrap you were talking about) but it doesn't belong with the rest of the state revenue...???
Once again, you are not bothering to read my posts. You seem to have worked out what you want me to be saying and then you base your argument around this.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Ok, so you didn't work for the money, you may not deserve it as such, but you have a right to that money regardless... and your logic suggests that if somebody does not deserve money (work hard for it) that it should go to the state? That's a serious joke. Why does the state deserve it then? Or the homeless? Or orphans?
It need not go to the State; it could go into charity etc instead.
If it goes to the State or charity for a specific purpose, it would be benefiting more people. If the offspring were deserving of wealth then they could generate it themselves through hard work (which is what this entire debate boils down to; hard work=wealth?
Does he deserve the fortune any more than a carer paid by the State/private company?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Say a man is dying, the son looks after that man for a number of years prior to his death. He inherits the mans fortune, does he not deserve this? There is no measure of how deserving one person is... so it is impossible to say that people who have inherited a substantial amount of money are NOT deserving of it. You say they are not based on one simple factor, they didn't work for it... What do you know?
Are we going to start putting monetary value on care work/child rearing and so on? This seems more in line with your interpretation of communism.
lolwut?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Tangent? Incoherent? I think so... try stay on topic, yea?
You were bringing up the law as if that settled it.
Unfortunately, what is in Irish law is not always in line with what should be.
Once again..Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Maybe they are deserving of it, who are you to say they are not?
The debate occurred over hard work=wealth.
Deserving it outside of hard work is another matter entirely.
Ouch, stunning counterargument there.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »:rolleyes:
*sigh*Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Still??? Considering I made one post on the offtopic crap you were talking about?
I have addressed this repeatedly.
I really shouldn't have to keep saying it; it's not that hard to follow.
Yet again you rely on the rolleyes rather than making a point.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »:rolleyes:
Shame really.
Nah, you just like to think so.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »You make it look like it is.
We agree then; that hard work does not always equal wealth.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »In an ideal world, with you, in the clouds, maybe.
Which is how this debate started.
Oh dear God....Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »You are making a simple equation, for something that is much more complicated. Hard work = wealth, luck = wealth... pathetic. It is more like Hard work + determination + luck + a lot of other things = wealth... you won't get there by hard work alone... It is possible to get there by luck alone.
How many times have I said that hard work does not always equal wealth. I have already said that luck is one factor but you have completely ignored this.
Not that hard really;Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »What??? That doesn't make sence...
You said that the children of wealthy people might be hard workers in their own right and therefore might deserve the money.
Once we start going down that road, where do we draw the line; "I'm a good decent person and have worked hard all my life, therefore I deserve my neighbours money"
See above.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Where was hard work displayed in the first instance? As regards to someone inheriting, there is no hard work involved. Try explain this a little better.
It's really not that hard to follow.
No I didn't; I said that it doesn't always come from hard work.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »You emplied it.
If you decide to choose this to mean I imply that all/most of the wealthy do not work hard then you really are grasping at straws for your argument.
Ah, so if someone works hard and doesn't see the monetary rewards then they must be in the wrong work.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »They are in the wrong type of work...
I see a lot of hard workers and most of them are fairly wealthy,
I'll have to mention that to the immigrants I meet who work a few jobs for sh!t pay; they need to get a new job.
That explains why you feel so strongly about this:)Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »my parents being one of them
You've already said that we don't have the statistics to explore this so how can you make this statement?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Yup, but would be more common when hard work is involved.
Once again you trot this out rather than engaging.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »:rolleyes:
Because this debate started when it was claimed that the rich deserve their wealth because they worked hard. Inheritance goes against this.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Are they not? If not, why are they not?
Right, I'll try and explain it as simply as I can;Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »WTF are you talking about?
what is radical is a subjective term. I know noone in favour of the torture of prisoners for example. AH is a different kettle of fish entirely.
So rather than reading the thread and then engaging, you follow "most of it" and then post?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »I don't have the time to decypher the crap that has been posted. I followed most of it
That doesn't seem very smart.
Excellent. We agree then.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Nobody is disbuting that...Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Explain...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
No, you don't understand what communism is, as Marx felt that communism would involve a classless, stateless society.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »I know what communism is... Marx
You obviously do not. You also have problems with reading me thinks. I said a STEP TOWARDS which is exactly what it is.
A state which prevents the passing on of inheritance goes against this.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »[quoteIf we lived in a communist state, there wouldn't be a state to take away the wealth.
This is true communism, which does not exist.[/quote]
It is the only type of communism; communism itself can never exist.
Ah I've done my charity work over the past couple of years (fundraising officer for one here in Galway).Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »What has this got to do with anything?
Giving money directly to a charity isn't very intelligent. Depending on the charity of course.
I'm asking how you come to the conclusion that suggesting that the money could be left to charity (as can happens in a will) means a lack of knowledge as to what charities do.
Excellet, then explain how a prohibition on inheritance= no idea of what a state is?Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »I know what a state is, stop volunteering information like this.
Well, you claim I have no concept of what a state is; I can outline it if you want to disprove this.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »Kettle, pot...? :rolleyes:
Paraphrasing:)Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »I don't recall speaking like a 4 year old.
No you havn't; your arguments revolve around damning my lack of real world experience, ignoring parts of my post to suit your own argument and a complete refusal to address what I'm saying.Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »I made clear agruments, you have not. Suggesting that the money should be taked from offspring and given to the state and charities, suggest you haven't the foggiest about the state or charities... In other words, the money would be squandered and wasted with little good comming out of it. Your ideas are radical, again, if you knew what this word meant you would then understand that your ideas, are in fact, radical.
How exactly does suggesting that money be given to charities suggest that I lack understanding on the state/charities?
Money left to the state for a specific purpose (to fund the creation of something like a cervical cancer screening centre) or to charity (educating young people etc)
You would view this as squandered>0 -
Advertisement
-
Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »You do realise that threads do go off topic right? Debates occur within threads; not just over the original topic.
It was claimed that the wealthy deserve their wealth (read back over the thread) and then inheritance came up.
Yup but they did not get it from hard work.
It was from their parents.
No! Really?#
We are arguing a hypothetical situation.
Yes but we are not debating their contribution to hard work; the debate we over whether the rich get their wealth from hard work. Inheritance goes against this.
Your ignorance on communism saddens me given how often it is being brought up.
For what reason?
Oh just for suggestions as to what to do with the money.
One minute you're whinging about what the government will do with the money (Harney etc) and when I give some possible uses for it which benefit the wider community you take issue with this as well.
Oh just the general tone of your posts; relying so heavily on "you have no life experience/ no knowledge of charity/ the state " etc etc.
What it is has to with anything is that you didn't read the entire thread; what you are arguing over has been done before.
Once again, you wheel out the "living in the real world" argument. It seems to be the crux of your argument so far; " oh he's a student so I can disregard whatever he says". Nice little catch all argument that saves you from actually having to debate the issues at hand;)
Tell me Xavier; how does being outside of college transcend the notion that the rich are not always there because of hard work?
Ah but if it was used to fund only education and was kept prevented from being spent on anything else it would not be used on jets and Harney's haircuts. Which was what you brought up as an issue
Once again, you are not bothering to read my posts. You seem to have worked out what you want me to be saying and then you base your argument around this.
It need not go to the State; it could go into charity etc instead.
If it goes to the State or charity for a specific purpose, it would be benefiting more people. If the offspring were deserving of wealth then they could generate it themselves through hard work (which is what this entire debate boils down to; hard work=wealth?
Does he deserve the fortune any more than a carer paid by the State/private company?
Are we going to start putting monetary value on care work/child rearing and so on? This seems more in line with your interpretation of communism.
lolwut?
You were bringing up the law as if that settled it.
Unfortunately, what is in Irish law is not always in line with what should be.
Once again..
The debate occurred over hard work=wealth.
Deserving it outside of hard work is another matter entirely.
Ouch, stunning counterargument there.
*sigh*
I have addressed this repeatedly.
I really shouldn't have to keep saying it; it's not that hard to follow.
Yet again you rely on the rolleyes rather than making a point.
Shame really.
Nah, you just like to think so.
We agree then; that hard work does not always equal wealth.
Which is how this debate started.
Oh dear God....
How many times have I said that hard work does not always equal wealth. I have already said that luck is one factor but you have completely ignored this.
Not that hard really;
You said that the children of wealthy people might be hard workers in their own right and therefore might deserve the money.
Once we start going down that road, where do we draw the line; "I'm a good decent person and have worked hard all my life, therefore I deserve my neighbours money"
See above.
It's really not that hard to follow.
No I didn't; I said that it doesn't always come from hard work.
If you decide to choose this to mean I imply that all/most of the wealthy do not work hard then you really are grasping at straws for your argument.
Ah, so if someone works hard and doesn't see the monetary rewards then they must be in the wrong work.
I'll have to mention that to the immigrants I meet who work a few jobs for sh!t pay; they need to get a new job.
That explains why you feel so strongly about this:)
You've already said that we don't have the statistics to explore this so how can you make this statement?
Once again you trot this out rather than engaging.
Because this debate started when it was claimed that the rich deserve their wealth because they worked hard. Inheritance goes against this.
Right, I'll try and explain it as simply as I can;
what is radical is a subjective term. I know noone in favour of the torture of prisoners for example. AH is a different kettle of fish entirely.
So rather than reading the thread and then engaging, you follow "most of it" and then post?
That doesn't seem very smart.
Excellent. We agree then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
No, you don't understand what communism is, as Marx felt that communism would involve a classless, stateless society.
A state which prevents the passing on of inheritance goes against this.
This is true communism, which does not exist.
It is the only type of communism; communism itself can never exist.
Ah I've done my charity work over the past couple of years (fundraising officer for one here in Galway).
I'm asking how you come to the conclusion that suggesting that the money could be left to charity (as can happens in a will) means a lack of knowledge as to what charities do.
Excellet, then explain how a prohibition on inheritance= no idea of what a state is?
Well, you claim I have no concept of what a state is; I can outline it if you want to disprove this.
Paraphrasing:)
No you havn't; your arguments revolve around damning my lack of real world experience, ignoring parts of my post to suit your own argument and a complete refusal to address what I'm saying.
How exactly does suggesting that money be given to charities suggest that I lack understanding on the state/charities?
Money left to the state for a specific purpose (to fund the creation of something like a cervical cancer screening centre) or to charity (educating young people etc)
You would view this as squandered
I will let you figure it out yourself... Like most others, I cannot be arsed arguing with you. You are wrong, simple as.0 -
-
Advertisement