too rich?

[Tiberius]

The association is in your own head, which you apply to my writing. An old person could say 'it taxes me to climb these stairs', there is no implication of a government in that statement.

The association is in my head because of your writing.

You said: "it would only take a 25% tax on 100 people to end extreme poverty"

You further said: "if they don't sort this out themselves, it is time to make them pay."

Both statements combined gives the distinct impression that you meant a tax levied by a government. Yes, it is true that the phrase "it taxes me to climb these stairs" has no such implication, but that is not what you said, and the "25% tax" you did talk about does have that implication. Why don't you just admit that is what your original post was about, but that you didn't mean it, and it was the result of a bad choice of word on your part?

This trait of yours to read into a statement what is in your head, rather than what is on the page, is shown here again. The quote you use does not mention a tax, but your reply is all about governmental tax. What do you want me to do, explain what I have written or what is in your head?

Your quote didn't mention tax, but your original one did. I was merely linking the two together. I think you should explain what you mean by the word "tax", because you've avoided that question now, despite someone listing all the definitions of the word "tax". I can't see any that matches what you said, that isn't to do with a tax levied by a government.

So yes, please explain what you have written. If you really didn't mean a tax levied by government, what did you mean? Or, why not admit that this is clearly how it comes across because of your wording, and that your original wording was wrong?

My accusation of 'daft' was in response to you saying.

In this statement you seem to be saying that a new tax would lead to abuse, I responded by pointing out that, that abuse had already taken place, as such the proposal that a new tax is causal to an abuse is daft.
Governments abusing their control, does not depend on which taxes they impose, to say it does is daft.

My point was, governments always abuse the powers they are given. If they are given a power to take tax from people just because they have enough money to do something, they will only abuse that power. I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse; I implied that governments abuse their powers generally.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant if abuse of some kind has already taken place. That does not prevent it from taking place again. I hold that with the precedent we were discussing, if the banks were to go under again, what would stop the government from abusing the new tax to fund the bailout?

Tibs you have a very intense gaze. You can channel your vision onto something and see detail which others find it very hard to see

No, what I see is there as plain as day. You used the word "tax", and you used it what I can only interpret as a government tax. You have rejected this idea, but you have failed to actually clarify what you meant by the word "tax", or whether it was a mistake to even use that word. You've even gone so far as to try and compare what you said to saying "it is taxing to climb these stairs", despite the fact that that kind of "taxing" does not have a percentage anywhere near it (which yours does), and does not involve money (which yours does). A tax that is measured as a percentage, and involves money, is - to me, and others I think - clearly one involving a government.

but in looking at your correspondence I have noticed that you seem to find it hard to differentiate the vision you have from your own preconceptions and these preconceptions are colouring the result you get. This seems to mean you do not look at things with fresh eyes, as such; If you have decided what a thing is you can only see it that way. It seems to me if you could learn to at times re-evaluate your preconceptions, as well as use that intense vision, and differentiate between the two, you would be in a very strong position.

I can't help if you aren't very good at wording things correctly, or don't explain your positions, but rather reject mine and then refuse to clarify what you actually meant. You've had multiple chances to explain what definition of "tax" you were using. Please enlighten me.

---

Would you please clarify in what sense you meant the word 'tax'?

tax   /tæks/ Show Spelled[taks]
noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
verb (used with object)
3. (of a government)
a. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.
4. to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one's resources.
5. to take to task; censure; reprove; accuse: to tax one with laziness.
6. Informal . to charge: What did he tax you for that?
7. Archaic . to estimate or determine the amount or value of.

You see in even in the above definitions, that the word tax is not solely defined as pertaining to a government.

Right, but can one lay a 20% burden on someone, or make 20% serious demands on someone, or accuse someone 20%? No. Your use of the word tax had to do with percentage and money. As far as I can see, only a few definitions in that list make sense with those constraints. To further constrain it with your "time to make them pay" remark, it is clearly one of the demands.

[jonb]

My point was, governments always abuse the powers they are given. If they are given a power to take tax from people just because they have enough money to do something, they will only abuse that power. I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse; I implied that governments abuse their powers generally.

As you say governments abuse power, therefore, the introduction of a levey on the income of the wealthy would be of no bearing on a governments future or past actions. If the Banks required new bailouts, how would the rich giving to the poor influence a governmental decision? Next you say
' I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse'

Secondly, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money to do something. If we allow that, why stop there? Why not continue to tax them to get rid of the deficit, or tax them to bail out "too big to fail" companies? Where does it stop? Clue: it doesn't. Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.

'If we allow that, why stop there?'
Explain? What difference if you did or did not allow. Are you not implying, this would start something that would be hard to stop? In other words a cause and an effect? You say

'Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.'

so shall we put two of your lines together?

' I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse'
'Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.'

[Tiberius]

Again, I was talking about the precedent. The precedent being giving a government more power, specifically, the ability to just take money from the rich whenever they feel like it. The tax isn't the thing that causes the abuse; the ability to create the tax is.

If the government is allowed to just take money from the rich for no other reason than "they have it, and we need it", it creates a precedent which can be abused if the situation ever arises again.

But tell me, I've explained my arguments (several times now). Are you ever going to tell me what definition you were using for the word "tax" in your OP? Or are you going to (finally) admit that maybe "tax" was the wrong word to use?

How about the following amendment to your statement:

"it would only take 25% of 100 people's incomes to end extreme poverty."

or

"if we could encourage 100 people to give 25% of their incomes, it would end poverty"

[ComplexityofChaos]

Billionaires' fortunes hinder fight against poverty, says Oxfam
Charity says $240bn amassed by 100 richest people last year would be enough to end extreme poverty four times over.

This story provokes me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/j...erty-oxfam

I don't get it. What right do you have to take anyone's money?

[jonb]

Secondly, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money to do something. If we allow that, why stop there? Why not continue to tax them to get rid of the deficit, or tax them to bail out "too big to fail" companies? Where does it stop? Clue: it doesn't. Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.

That was your statement, but now you are saying when you used the word precedent in it, it was not about tax?

Again, I was talking about the precedent. The precedent being giving a government more power, specifically, the ability to just take money from the rich whenever they feel like it. The tax isn't the thing that causes the abuse; the ability to create the tax is.

If the government is allowed to just take money from the rich for no other reason than "they have it, and we need it", it creates a precedent which can be abused if the situation ever arises again.

But tell me, I've explained my arguments (several times now). Are you ever going to tell me what definition you were using for the word "tax" in your OP? Or are you going to (finally) admit that maybe "tax" was the wrong word to use?

How about the following amendment to your statement:

"it would only take 25% of 100 people's incomes to end extreme poverty."

or

"if we could encourage 100 people to give 25% of their incomes, it would end poverty"

The word 'Tax', Can be used to mean many things it does not always imply governmental tax. You have chosen one interpretation.
Whatever you have chosen my words to mean does not affect what I have written. However your insistence that my words only have one meaning depicts somebody who may be unable to draw multiple meanings from a text.
As such; why I should lower the language of my text to the seemingly basic level of your understanding?

That you want to turn what I am talking about into an argument about government rather than a thread about the issue of inequality is testimony in-itself of a pronounced bias. The sort of bias which tries to say the following statements are not contradictory.

' I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse'
'Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.'

No, I will not alter my text because you lack the ability to understand it, or wilfully don't want to.

[Cato]

The word 'Tax', Can be used to mean many things it does not always imply governmental tax. You have chosen one interpretation.

An example of non-governmental tax would be usefull here.

[jonb]

As I pointed out earlier I can use the phrase 'Walking up the stairs taxed me'.
As an old Englishman I use the term tax not just in governmental contexts. I do not see why I should alter my usage. My language is representative of my culture, the culture I was brought up in, and that is the way I am going to carry on expressing myself.

It is taxing to have to say the same thing over and over again. I am taxed by it. It is a taxation on my time and even on my money as I am paying 50% towards an interweb connection to carry on this argument. OK

So there there is this massive inequality, that OXFAM reported.

[Tiberius]

That was your statement, but now you are saying when you used the word precedent in it, it was not about tax?

No, but my statement about abuse was about precedents in general. I was saying, if you give the government a precedent to do something (in this case, to take money from the rich whenever they want just because "they have it, we need it"), it will get abused. The tax is not causal to abuse; the tax is the effect of abuse.

The word 'Tax', Can be used to mean many things it does not always imply governmental tax. You have chosen one interpretation.
Whatever you have chosen my words to mean does not affect what I have written. However your insistence that my words only have one meaning depicts somebody who may be unable to draw multiple meanings from a text. As such; why I should lower the language of my text to the seemingly basic level of your understanding?

Look, I understand that there are multiple interpretations of the word "tax", but you cannot seriously argue that you were meaning it in the way "it is taxing to do X" when you used the word tax in the context of "20%" and "money". When the word tax is used in the form "20% tax" and you are talking about money, it is obvious that the speaker is talking about a government tax. If you didn't mean that, you should explain what definition of the word "tax" you were using. This is getting silly; you have been asked multiple times to state your definitions. Your continual refusal to do so only confirms to me that you can't answer the question because you realise that using the word "tax" as you did was the mistake.

That you want to turn what I am talking about into an argument about government rather than a thread about the issue of inequality is testimony in-itself of a pronounced bias.

Because I'm trying to understand what you wrote, and you're being increasingly confusing by accusing me of reading into it too much, whilst simultaneously avoiding telling me what you actually meant.

The sort of bias which tries to say the following statements are not contradictory.

' I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse'
'Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.'

No, I will not alter my text because you lack the ability to understand it, or wilfully don't want to.

They are not contradictory. "new tax" =/= "precedent". I have already defined what the precedent is, and explained that the "new tax" is actually the effect of the precedent (and the abuse), not the other way around.

As I pointed out earlier I can use the phrase 'Walking up the stairs taxed me'.
As an old Englishman I use the term tax not just in governmental contexts. I do not see why I should alter my usage. My language is representative of my culture, the culture I was brought up in, and that is the way I am going to carry on expressing myself.

I've told you before, that definition of the word "tax" makes absolutely no sense in the context you gave it, which was:

"it would only take a 25% tax on 100 people to end extreme poverty"

Yes, there are multiple uses of a word, but you cannot simply switch them around and still have something make sense. It's like saying "there were scales on the fish", which one immediately assumes that "scales" means fish scales, and then turning around and saying "no, I meant weighing scales". Only in that case, the sentence still makes some sense (you can put scales on a fish). Your sentence is very specific about a "25% tax" and clearly involves money. There is no way that the word tax in the sense "it is taxing to do X" makes any sense in that context.

It is taxing to have to say the same thing over and over again. I am taxed by it. It is a taxation on my time and even on my money as I am paying 50% towards an interweb connection to carry on this argument.

So, the 25% tax on 100 people is on their time? That really doesn't make sense either.

So there there is this massive inequality, that OXFAM reported.

Agreed, and I never disagreed on this point. I disagreed on your use of the word "tax", and I still do. Explain your definitions.

[A Theist]

This story provokes me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/j...erty-oxfam

I don't get it. What right do you have to take anyone's money?

Excellent question...and furthermore, what's it anyone's business how much money a person has and what they do with it...anyone who's so concerned about the poor should dig in their own pockets and give, and stop worrying about what the rich guy's doing with his money....Man, I wish I was rich just so I could piss off the leftwingers on this forum!!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!! I LOVE MONEY!!!!!!

[jonb]

Tibs, I am sorry I can assure you it was not and never would be on current evidence my intention to accuse you of reading too much into a post.

I don't get it. What right do you have to take anyone's money?

Excellent question...and furthermore, what's it anyone's business how much money a person has and what they do with it...anyone who's so concerned about the poor should dig in their own pockets and give, and stop worrying about what the rich guy's doing with his money....Man, I wish I was rich just so I could piss off the leftwingers on this forum!!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!! I LOVE MONEY!!!!!!

So are the two of you proposing that I do not have the right/duty to speculate? Questions of finance, should be not talked about, that the proportion of return for a given investment should not be thought about, and maybe negotiated? Your positions sound a lot like Bolshevism to me!
Or did you not know that it is a necessity that to establish a fee market all positions are capable of being negotiated, and therefore to run a fee market we have to be able to speculate about relative positions.