For or Against Brexit 2017?

[Atilla]

Well the way it works in the US is, if a city like La Jolla wishes to repave their roads they apply for a grant from Caltrans and the Federal Government who gives them the money ONLY IF they put up half the cost up front. If you city has more tax revenue, then you can get more money from the state and federal grants. "You have to have money to make money." If a city doesn't have enough money to pay for half of it, the government doesn't give you a cent.

This is why I prefer living at the beach. Excess revenue from boat taxes, licensing, mooring fees and dock usage fees. Additionally, property tends to be exorbidant, which increases county comptroller's coffers.



Yorkies can't really afford to pay for universities down South. I highly doubt there is much excess tax revenue to be diverted in such a way. Secondly, tax money earned by the Yorkies should stay in Yorkshire if it is derived from property taxes and other municipal taxes such as VAT in the EU or sales (8-13.3%) and franchise taxes (1.5% - 8.84%) in the US.




We used to have 3 as a matter of fact but no one lived on them. My uncle still has a horse a ranch. I, for one, do not like the countryside or the smell of horses.

Nice view...


Here is my estate http://www.visitworthing.co.uk/


Love this place. It's small and quiet, sufficiently far away from London to keep city commuters away.

 

[Pat494]

I think the foreign influence is important to every country for trade, tourism etc.
In this respect glad to see 2 of that ilk voting in the Brexit poll.

Cameron should press ahead for reforms or out it is for me.

 

[Atilla]

I think the foreign influence is important to every country for trade, tourism etc.
In this respect glad to see 2 of that ilk voting in the Brexit poll.

Cameron should press ahead for reforms or out it is for me.

For Brexit - UK leaving - it's a NAY from me...


So it's 5 v 3 for UK leaving. Is that correct???

or

Do I have to visit the opticians

 

[Splitlink]

As a Brit, but having lived most my life over here and getting on in years, I want the best for everyone. However, as an observer, I have to say that from this side of the fence, you lot are getting to be a nuisance. You've done it to death and it is not news anymore.

Decide, for once!

 

[Atilla]

As a Brit, but having lived most my life over here and getting on in years, I want the best for everyone. However, as an observer, I have to say that from this side of the fence, you lot are getting to be a nuisance. You've done it to death and it is not news anymore.

Decide, for once!

Brace your self old beam, we have two years of this to go yet

 

[Splitlink]

Brace your self old beam, we have two years of this to go yet

Yes, this is the first day of the rest of my life-

 

[0007]

As a Brit, but having lived most my life over here and getting on in years, I want the best for everyone. However, as an observer, I have to say that from this side of the fence, you lot are getting to be a nuisance. You've done it to death and it is not news anymore.

Decide, for once!

By Gad Sir! We're British and want our cake & eat it.

 

[hhiusa]

For Brexit - UK leaving - it's a NAY from me...

So it's 5 v 3 for UK leaving. Is that correct???
or
Do I have to visit the opticians

It is now 6 v 4 for Brexit. :clap::clap:

The US is run on money from elections to paving roads. They make the rich richer and try and ignore the poor. The point of who needs the money most doesn't seem to matter, as in Europe.

Social Darwinism

If you can't afford something, then you can't have it. It makes pretty good sense. Countries will continue to buy our T-notes, bonds and shares in American corporations, which why the the Treasury can continue to print money as they need it.

The French/Russians and a lot of dictators never saw it coming. Share the wealth around a bit is what I would suggest. Not equally as under theoretical Communism but fairly and sensibly.

This promotes feckless behavior because the mentality is why work hard when my wealth will be redistributed.

Systems are open to interpretation with bias and that's where equality, equity, integrity, honesty, justice; law and order come into play.

There is no such thing as equality. Some people are prettier, some people are more intelligent, some people will always be richer and some people will always be healthier and more physical fit. The equality you speak of is good in theory, but only works in regards to the treatment of others.

Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful

 

[Atilla]

It is now 6 v 4 for Brexit. :clap::clap:

Well we all know polls are 100% accurate! NOT! :cheesy:

 

[hhiusa]

You should try reading that book Atilla :cheesy:

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

You should try reading that book Atilla :cheesy:

You should read Piketty's Capitalism in the 21st Century....

 

[Pat494]

There won't be any Brexit, you can be sure of that.

Cameron has exactly the right line on Europe....negotiate better economic terms not just for the UK but as a means of bringing the EU to it's senses. As for more centrist political union...well that is just dead in the water. I have no doubt that he will garner much support from other countries inside the EU. Perhaps all they were waiting for was a strong lead from an economic voice big enough to matter.

The so-called EU parliament seems almost powerless. The Heads of State do the decisions usually toadying up to Merkel.
Looks like a dead duck to me but will take a long time dying. Expecting so many to agree on anything is unlikely, but if each of the 28 get a vote then it will be run by the little states, mostly in Eastern Europe.

 

[Atilla]

You should try reading that book Atilla :cheesy:

I'm sure beauty pays and some studies do indicate handsome looking tall people seem to get promoted more than ugly little ones. I dunno, must be something in the dna or coffee guv...

However, I can't imagine people who have cosmetic surgery can be very happy.

Equality does exist by definition. As mentioned before; if un-equals are to be treated differently than equals should be treated the same.

Would you tax two people earning $100,000 differently, like one pays 10% and the other 11% ? If so why would that be? Before you bring in the kitchen sink into the debate that's all things being the same.


I usually find people equate equality with a doctor and the garbage man earning the same and so disagree with a perfectly good principal. So the three e's to weigh are;

- Equality
- Equity
- Efficiency

Balance those, and then we may get a good system I reckon :idea:

 

[Pat494]

- Equality
- Equity
- Efficiency

Sort of goes with fraternite etc. The sort of words politicians bandy about and have no intention of putting into place.

Another Hitler might emerge from the shambles and then ..........watch out.

 

[tomorton]

Some people don't like that some people have more money than some people. Why is that bad?

 

[hhiusa]

I'm sure beauty pays and some studies do indicate handsome looking, tall people seem to get promoted more than ugly little ones. I don't know, must be something in the dna or coffee governor

However, I can't imagine people who have cosmetic surgery can be very happy.

Says who. Cosmetic surgery isn't only used for vanity. That is a cum hoc fallacy. "With this therefore because of this". However, stereotypes do have truth in them.

Equality does exist by definition. As mentioned before; if un-equals are to be treated differently then equals should be treated the same.

1. Equality exists only by definition. Helping some more than others is not equality it is affirmative action. Why should I have to work harder to achieve the same thing that is just given to someone else because they wouldn't be able to do it by themselves. That demeans peoples' achievements.

2. Preferential treatment programs argue that when distributing social benefits such as jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different. In deciding who should be hired for a job or admitted to a college or university, the relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex. To award or deny benefits on the basis of race or sex is as unjust as traditional discriminatory practices. Moreover, preferential treatment programs unjustly ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't in need of them.

Those who oppose preferential treatment programs also claim that if the purpose of the programs is to compensate for past discrimination or present disadvantages, then only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference. Current preferential treatment programs, however, favor members of selected groups regardless of whether an individual member has ever suffered discrimination. In fact, most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just compensation is moot.

Critics of preferential policies further argue that society's burdens ought to be distributed fairly among its members. Preferential treatment programs are unfair because they impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices or for rectifying present inequalities than any other individuals. It is unfair that they should bear the full burden of compensation.

Programs awarding preference according to race or sex are also opposed on the grounds that they cause much more harm than good. First, with these programs in force, those who may be more qualified are overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen. The inevitable result is reduced productivity and efficiency in the work place and the lowering of academic standards in colleges and universities.

Second, preferential treatment programs harm minorities and women by stigmatizing them and devaluing their achievements. They encourage the belief that all minorities and women gain entry to jobs or universities primarily because they are members of under represented groups and not because they are qualified. Minority individuals may question whether the rules were bent in their case, leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence.

Third, preferential treatment programs encourage dependency and reward people for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the work place or classroom. Fourth, as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minorities and women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity and tension among groups. Finally, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice. And members of groups excluded by preferential treatment programs today will demand tomorrow to be compensated for opportunities denied them. Already the nation is witnessing a barrage of allegations and lawsuits filed by non-minorities charging employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission.

While the harms resulting from preferential treatment are considerable, critics charge, the benefits are questionable. Giving preference to women and minorities fails to benefit the individuals within these groups who are most likely to have suffered the effects of discrimination and thus most deserving of compensation; the most disadvantaged individuals often lack, the qualifications and skills even to be considered for employment positions or college placement. This is borne out in reports that cite a growing gap between poor blacks with little education and job skills and affluent blacks able to take advantage of a wide variety of employment and educational opportunities.

Nor is it clear that even those minorities and women qualifying for preferential treatment benefit from such special consideration. Recent studies reveal a high dropout rate among minority college students admitted under affirmative action programs. At U. C. Berkeley, for example, only 45 percent of black students admitted in 1984 had graduated by 1989 compared to 73 percent of Anglos. The high rate of failure that follows the award of employment and educational opportunities to minority individuals unprepared to meet the challenges of higher education reinforces feelings of inferiority among members of these groups.

Would you tax two people earning $100,000 differently, like one pays 10% and the other 11% ? If so why would that be? Before you bring in the kitchen sink into the debate that's all things being the same.

I definitely would do that since all things are never equal. Leave equality to mathematical equations. People and corporations are taxed differently.

- Equality (Impossible)
- Equity (Only for Stocks)
- Efficiency (Possible)

Balance those, and then we may get a good system, I reckon :idea:

Why don't you start a utopia thread? That is the only place such idealistic and unrealistic concepts belong.

 

[Pat494]

Some people don't like that some people have more money than some people. Why is that bad?

It doesn't bother me that some have more than others. The huge differential between super rich and poor does though. That some have to have 2 or 3 jobs just to survive is cruel. I am in favour of narrowing the gap.

To see useless morons walk away with huge handouts after a bad spell at top management I find particularly annoying. A few cross words and they have pocketed millions. The people that put them in top jobs should be financially liable too imho. Steal a few quids worth from the supermarket and they are in trouble.
Shareholders should be allowed to claim as much money as they have in compensation. In the UK we have recently had a string of such scandals from Banks like RBS and CO-OP etc.

 

[Atilla]

Says who. Cosmetic surgery isn't only used for vanity. That is a cum hoc fallacy. "With this therefore because of this". However, stereotypes do have truth in them.



1. Equality exists only by definition. Helping some more than others is not equality it is affirmative action. Why should I have to work harder to achieve the same thing that is just given to someone else because they wouldn't be able to do it by themselves. That demeans peoples' achievements.

2. Preferential treatment programs argue that when distributing social benefits such as jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different. In deciding who should be hired for a job or admitted to a college or university, the relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex. To award or deny benefits on the basis of race or sex is as unjust as traditional discriminatory practices. Moreover, preferential treatment programs unjustly ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't in need of them.

Those who oppose preferential treatment programs also claim that if the purpose of the programs is to compensate for past discrimination or present disadvantages, then only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference. Current preferential treatment programs, however, favor members of selected groups regardless of whether an individual member has ever suffered discrimination. In fact, most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just compensation is moot.

Critics of preferential policies further argue that society's burdens ought to be distributed fairly among its members. Preferential treatment programs are unfair because they impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices or for rectifying present inequalities than any other individuals. It is unfair that they should bear the full burden of compensation.

Programs awarding preference according to race or sex are also opposed on the grounds that they cause much more harm than good. First, with these programs in force, those who may be more qualified are overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen. The inevitable result is reduced productivity and efficiency in the work place and the lowering of academic standards in colleges and universities.

Second, preferential treatment programs harm minorities and women by stigmatizing them and devaluing their achievements. They encourage the belief that all minorities and women gain entry to jobs or universities primarily because they are members of under represented groups and not because they are qualified. Minority individuals may question whether the rules were bent in their case, leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence.

Third, preferential treatment programs encourage dependency and reward people for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the work place or classroom. Fourth, as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minorities and women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity and tension among groups. Finally, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice. And members of groups excluded by preferential treatment programs today will demand tomorrow to be compensated for opportunities denied them. Already the nation is witnessing a barrage of allegations and lawsuits filed by non-minorities charging employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission.

While the harms resulting from preferential treatment are considerable, critics charge, the benefits are questionable. Giving preference to women and minorities fails to benefit the individuals within these groups who are most likely to have suffered the effects of discrimination and thus most deserving of compensation; the most disadvantaged individuals often lack, the qualifications and skills even to be considered for employment positions or college placement. This is borne out in reports that cite a growing gap between poor blacks with little education and job skills and affluent blacks able to take advantage of a wide variety of employment and educational opportunities.

Nor is it clear that even those minorities and women qualifying for preferential treatment benefit from such special consideration. Recent studies reveal a high dropout rate among minority college students admitted under affirmative action programs. At U. C. Berkeley, for example, only 45 percent of black students admitted in 1984 had graduated by 1989 compared to 73 percent of Anglos. The high rate of failure that follows the award of employment and educational opportunities to minority individuals unprepared to meet the challenges of higher education reinforces feelings of inferiority among members of these groups.



I definitely would do that since all things are never equal. Leave equality to mathematical equations. People and corporations are taxed differently.




Why don't you start a utopia thread? That is the only place such idealistic and unrealistic concepts belong.

Why would you tax two people earning $100,000 dollars differently?

Also... picking one point you raise so as not to lose focus. Entrance to a Univeristy or a job application; 10 places and 100 applicants.

What would you use to filter out the 90 excess applicants? Temperament, exam results, background, gender, experience?


Assuming you have a system or what one my describe as a selection criteria would you then not apply that equally to relevant applicants?

 

[Atilla]

It doesn't bother me that some have more than others. The huge differential between super rich and poor does though. That some have to have 2 or 3 jobs just to survive is cruel. I am in favour of narrowing the gap.

To see useless morons walk away with huge handouts after a bad spell at top management I find particularly annoying. A few cross words and they have pocketed millions. The people that put them in top jobs should be financially liable too imho. Steal a few quids worth from the supermarket and they are in trouble.
Shareholders should be allowed to claim as much money as they have in compensation. In the UK we have recently had a string of such scandals from Banks like RBS and CO-OP etc.

Agree strongly!

Envy has nothing to do with it. Question of what is right and wrong.

Couldn't give a monkey's what others earn. As if it's of any consequence to me.


I suspect it's the people who brandish this envy line who are effectively describing them selves on how stuck-up they are thinking other people who have less, envy them.

 

[hhiusa]

Why would you tax two people earning $100,000 dollars differently?

Also... picking one point you raise so as not to lose focus. Entrance to a Univeristy or a job application; 10 places and 100 applicants.

What would you use to filter out the 90 excess applicants? Temperament, exam results, background, gender, experience?


Assuming you have a system or what one my describe as a selection criteria would you then not apply that equally to relevant applicants?

I LOOOOOOVVVVVVVE that video.

Hello trophy wife!

It wouldn't matter about their race or temperment or background. The university I went to had certain requirements in order to be a chemistry major. You needed to have a certain grade-point-average, and to have taken a certain number of chemistry prerequisites.

If all of the top applicants have say a 4.0 GPA or higher and have taken the prerequisites with the highest grades, then those will be the entrants. There would be no consideration for race, or have a troubled background. If you didn't make the grades, then you don't get in.

If all of the applicants with the highest qualifications just happen to be white and wealthy, then so be it. I'm sorry but if you didn't make the cut, you shouldn't be given a handicap just because you are from a minority group. This is to say that there should be and are considerations for the truly handicapped and/or physically disadvantaged.