Mitterand goes back to work
Magnus Kempe
Mitterand (the French president) has announced, after the
natural disaster in Guadeloupe (an overseas department of
France), where many houses and trees have been destroyed,
that:
"We will re-build it together"
I am happy to see that Mitterand has finally decided to go back to work,
instead of using slaves.
Ah, but wait, could it be that he meant "Dear slaves, *you* will re-build
those houses, and plant those new trees, *together*, because *I* said so,
and while *I*, I shall meditate about the next thing *you* shall do, and
raise more taxes, because you couldn't be trusted to *free-willingly*
help these people, who are not responsible for their handicap"?
Could it be that compulsory solidarity is necessary *because* free-willing
generosity is essentially impossible, i.e. that man is rotten, by nature?
If so, how come that the amount of money given to charity organisations in
Britain has steadily been rising since Thatcher started to cut taxes? Could
it possibly mean that man *is* generous, provided he is left with something
to give, provided his generosity doesn't demand the sacrifice of his life?
Shouldn't men be *free* in their generosity? Is the initiation of the use
of force (in order to "implement" compulsory solidarity) a sign of benevolent
brotherhood, a sign of freedom in a rational society?
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
mel...@peun32.uucp
Buzz off Magnus.
You got your "philosophy" from the back of a Cornflakes box,
you views are about as interesting as a child reciting "Mary had a
little lamb", (but without the charm), and your humanity as shallow
as a sewage barge, (with similar charm). Please dont reply that these
are "ad hominem" statements, quite right they are, I despise you, you
twerp. In fact please dont reply period.
_____ _ _
/ / / /
/_ _ / / /_ / / _ _
__/(_)_(-_ / / /(-_/_/_(_)_/ )_
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Joe Mellon, DCT2, Nixdorf Computer AG uucp : mello...@nixpbe.uucp |
| 55 Pontanusstrasse, 4790-Paderborn, |
| Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Tel : (Deu)- 5251 - 146478 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Neil Dunbar
>If so, how come that the amount of money given to charity organisations in
>Britain has steadily been rising since Thatcher started to cut taxes?
It is true that income tax in the United Kingdom has dropped since Mrs.
Thatcher assumed power, but the overall tax burden on individual citizens
has increased in those ten (God, has it been that long?) years.
Furthermore, the amount given to charities can be broken down regionally to
show that the poorer areas (Scotland, North East England) give more than
the richer areas, which have benefitted most from the income tax reductions.
Also, have you considered the possibility that increased poverty in Britain
as a result of insufficient public expenditure *necessitates* the greater
donations to charity?
Neil Dunbar,
Scottish HCI Centre,
Edinburgh
Jeff Dalton
>instead of using slaves.
A now, sadly, typical use of caricature and distortion instead
of rational argument. Evidently, Magnus sees no difference between
being a slave and paying taxes.
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>In article <1989Sep21....@sics.se> l...@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes:
>> if you are not a member, you don't pay church tax...
>
>Good, but I think they somehow assume automatically that you are
>a member and you have to prove that you are not.
Children automatically become members if one of their parents is. You
can leave the church at any time you want.
>> except for a small fee, because the church handles the national registration
>
>Handles the registration for a l l?. In Sweden, where goverment already
>has best files in the world about its population?. Why?. Is this an
>excuse for keeping official clergy on a government payroll?
Well, the goverment files about the Swedish population *are* kept by
the church! (at least the "official" files are, there must be copies
all over the place). If you change residency, become a resident
immigrant, change your name etc., you register with the church. All
other authorities get their information from the church files.
The reason for this arrangement is historical...
>>We do have a funny looking person, but fortunately the consitution
>>doesn't grant him any power whatsoever.
>still have to pay ;-). In a very legal sense this should still be an
>obstacle for the purists of (in)habitability.
I would certainly be happier without him.
>>Btw: what procedures for taking tax do you refer to? In which country?
>
>Seriously, there are tricks in the tax system in many places which
>'encourage' paying the church tax. The tax office makes automatic
>assumption that everybody is a member of the state church and one must
>specifically prove the opposite. I think this happens in UK, Nordic
>countries and Ireland.
In Sweden the tax authorities automatically check with the church
whether you are a member or not and determines the tax rate
accordingly. The exception to this that I know of is that if you want
an adjustment of your preliminary tax (see below), the tax officials
might not bother to check but assume you are a member.
(I don't know how it works in other countries, but in Sweden, a
preliminary tax is deducted from your salary every month. After each
year you file a tax return form and your final tax is determined, if
it is different from the preliminary tax, you get money back or have
to pay more. If you expect that the final tax will be different by a
large amount, you can apply for an adjustment - larger or smaller
preliminary deductions, as the case may be.)
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Richard Tobin
>Britain has steadily been rising since Thatcher started to cut taxes? Could
>it possibly mean that man *is* generous, provided he is left with something
>to give, provided his generosity doesn't demand the sacrifice of his life?
Well, it *could* be that, but it *could* also be because people have
realised that charity has become more necessary under the Thatcher
government.
Yours for higher taxes,
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin, JANET: R.T...@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
Martin Ibert
Please don't post flames, especially no flames without any contents (apart
from flaming).
This newsgroup is read by quite a few people who don't give a damn about how
you feel about a certain statement as long as you don't say why.
--
\\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
|| |\ /| E-mail mar...@netmbx.UUCP ...!uunet!unido!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini ||
|| | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- ||
// > > > > Remember the heroes of Tiananmen Square, Beijing < < < < \\
Timothy Teitenberg
>Well, it *could* be that, but it *could* also be because people have
>realised that charity has become more necessary under the Thatcher
>government.
>
>Yours for higher taxes,
>
>-- Richard
That's it Richard! Don't give 'em a chance to give of their own
free will. Legislate them into submission. It's the *only* way to
a more caring (socialized) society.
Yours for legislated oppression,
Tim