Political Compass

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Please do.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'll give you a chance and assume you're just ignorant, rather than genuinely stupid.

Corporations manage to get tax breaks a lot of the time. Individuals have a far more difficult time of it.

OK, Friday night, lots of time. Let's sort out your BS.

What exactly is your point here? that tax evading is difficult? harder for individuals than corporations? straight out impossible?

Guess what, none of this had anything to do with my argument, which was "do you know of many rich people who are socially excluded?"

But since you still want a debate about this, you'll have it. Individuals, as said by Dauphin, evade income taxes by making some money look as if it wasn't an income. I don't know the intricacies of the process, but there are ways to deliver money to an anonymous bank account without the state ever knowing about it.

So you're right: it's tough to avoid income tax once you've got an income. As long as the money isn't, though, the game is much easier.

Still, there are other minor frauds possible: when income tax has been paid, you can send the leftover money to banks in fiscal paradises that will happily open an account for you if you're rich enough. From there, you won't be paying any tax on the revenue of your invested money (stock profits, bond interests, dividends, etc). This practice is not even illegal in Canada, AFAIK.

You said:

It's not a blatant assertion, it's based on the observations of anthropologists and historians. For instance, did you know that in the tribes of Algonquian tradition wealth was required to be redistributed? Not only by tradition, but also under the threat of social exclusion?

Both of those statements are true today, though the latter more strongly than the former. While we may not live in a purely communal society, we also aren't hunter/gatherers (or primitive agrarian people). If you want to go off somewhere in northern Canada like that, be my guest. Don't ***** about the rest of us enjoying the comforts of technology and progress.

You kinda have forgotten what was the whole point of the discussion... I merely said that Kidicious [IIRC] was right in his assertion that socioeconomical hierarchy was, and by far, crime's greatest catalyst. Nowhere did I suggest that such an equality as that enjoyed by Algonquians could feasibly be achieved in the current state of things.

This, too is more part of a side-debate, but... your comparison of communal property to the paltry American SD is absurd. America is probably the less communal of all societies that have ever seen [plagued] the light of the day.

You have fallen for the total idiocy of the noble savage.

You have rather fallen for the idiocy of putting words in my mouth. Next time I bite.

Are you stupid enough to think that, even if such a society is possible, it's not your ****ing right to force society to conform to some strict standard, dictated by you, because you don't like it that other people don't have to give you the proceeds of THEIR labor?

Such a blatant moral statement is surprising from a relativist. Without engaging in a about rights, what if it's not your ****ing right to claim ownership over natural resources and keep the proceeds for yourself? What if it's not your ****ing right to assume that "resources exit to be consumed, and consumed they will be"? Why do the people who want to build mines have more rights over the mountains than those who want to trek?

So what can be said? You're pretty much wrong on the idea that socioeconomical hierarchy doesn't eliminate crime. The rest is just accessory to this debate, and you're not my guess.

[Dauphin]

edit -nevermind, not really sure why I posted that.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Dauphin


The difference is I do it as my job.

[Odin]

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a socially-orientated, materialist, internationalist, protectionist, non-absolutist, controlled-market kind of person.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of socialist.




Individual vs Social

You scored 82 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are more likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.

94% of test takers were more individual than you.
5% of test takers were more social than you.



Theist vs Materialist

You scored 92 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.

97% of test takers were more theist than you.
2% of test takers were more materialist than you.




Big Government vs Small Government

You scored 60 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.

55% of test takers were more big government than you.
42% of test takers were more small government than you.



Nationalist vs Internationalist

You scored 90 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.

97% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
2% of test takers were more internationalist than you.



Protectionist vs Free Trader

You scored 10 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are less likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.

2% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
98% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.



Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist

You scored 66 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.

79% of test takers were more absolutist than you.
18% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.



Controlled Market vs Liberal Market

You scored 10 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.

6% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you.
92% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.



Marxist vs Non-Marxist

You scored 44 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.

43% of test takers were more Marxist than you.
53% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin
The difference is I do it as my job.

The difference is my dad is one of the top in his field in the US and happens to be an actuary as well as a lawyer.

The difference is he lives in the US. The difference is, you live in the UK.

[reismark]

Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10

All these years of Bush's stupidity have pushed me further to the left. I was always a social libertarian, but two years ago I was right on the line when it came to economics...

[Iskandar Reza]

I'm a left winged libertian, like Gandhi.

Oh, crud, there it is again, another Hindu. Argghhh!! I'm just a hippie!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The difference is my dad is one of the top in his field in the US and happens to be an actuary as well as a lawyer.

The difference is he lives in the US. The difference is, you live in the UK.

Do you think you could ask yout dad to register here and tell us about why rich people don't really avoid taxes and don't hire tax consultants.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The difference is my dad is one of the top in his field in the US and happens to be an actuary as well as a lawyer.

So he's making a living amongst the best of his field not knowing the holes in the law?

[Dauphin]

Oncle Boris, to answer your previous question via PM, I posted a demonstration of how to avoid income tax, legally. I decided it was too technical and was probably more likely to cause glazing of the eyes than provide anything meaningful to the discussion.

The conclusion of my post was that you can cut your income tax bill by 25% or more if you paid yourself via dividends as opposed to salary. Your could reduce it even more if you nominally elect family members to be shareholders and employees as you get to use their personal allowances and/or lower tax rates.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The difference is my dad is one of the top in his field in the US and happens to be an actuary as well as a lawyer.

The difference is he lives in the US. The difference is, you live in the UK.

I fail to see the relevence of what you are posting to what your father does. This isn't the first time you've tried to bullsh*t your way through something you know jack about...

[Kidlicious]

I've seen even more right wing stupidity on this thread than most here.