Advertisement

  • Liberal

    Fan of it? 2 Fans



Debate Related Images

52 comments

Pages: 1 2
« Older  |  Newer »
user photo
Roxas1314 said:
WTF...
That guy is not selfish or greedy, and neither is Ellen DeGeneres.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Um, yeah. No.

Business owners who pay their workers fairly, give them benefits, play nice with the union (if they have one), and make jobs aren't called greedy by liberals. It's the (far, far too many) business owners who don't pay their workers fairly while giving themselves constant pay-raises, don't give benefits (or give crap benefits), completely ignore the union, and send jobs over seas (which means they're taking jobs away) that are labeled 'selfish.'

Also: liberals do think Ellen should be taxed more. The tax idea is based around income, not how nice you are.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Cinders said:
^^ What bri-marie said. The only difference here that I see between wealthy celebrities and business owners is that the celebrities agree that they should have higher taxes. The business owners don't.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
heart
^Yes, bri-marie!
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
tongue
Chaann94 said:
You wanna know what Socialist logic is? (in the Netherlands)

"So you have been studying your ass off all your life to get a good job? So you're good at your job? Well let's make you pay 55% taxes so that the illegal immigrants, lazy ass people who left school and went to work at the mcdonalds can buy an iPad."
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Again, no. You should probably research where the rest of your taxes are going. Especially since you'll eventually have to pay them. You should also look into what exactly your Safety Net programs are; I can guarantee you they do a lot more than just give money to low-income families.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@bri-marie You're right. There's also a lot going to the EU where the Netherlands is just a play-ball. We can't give our opinions about anything but we do have to pay A LOT.
Thank you, Greece -___-'
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
Socialist logic? Since when has the SP been in the government? CDA, PVDA and VVD (or the parties that eventually became these parties) pretty much shaped our political system, including the safety net programs, no socialists involved there. Also, the reason a lot of people CAN study is because of Study Finance, which one of those crazy socialist things.

People who left school and went to work at the McDonalds are not lazy. They are working, just because they did not go to University does not make them lazy. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist and besides, who else is going to make my McFlurry? (in other words, you need people everywhere for all kind of jobs not just the high-end)

Also, no one pays 55% taxes. You pay 55% over the highest portion. That's called tax scales.
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@Sappp You don't have to be in the government. If you're the opposition you still get to make important decisions. And they don't neccesarily have to go to university, they can also go to HBO or MBO. And students who have a job instead of allowance will.

And my dad does pay 55% taxes over his bruto income because he also has a lease car. I think he knows better than you do.


"Also the reason a lot of peopel CAN study is because of Study Finance"
My point of socialism is that it's crap. Here's why.
People with a low income get A LOT of money for study finance.
But now they attack the middle class(my family) by saying that the amount of study finance is depending on the income.
Exemply why Socialism sucks and why someone else should make it better;
My friend's dad is 55, retired, worked 3 days a week and her mother doesn't work at all, they told me themselves they didn't feel like it. Now that girl gets her study financed and that year they're going to Thailand.

My dad works his ass off 6 days a week, is 66 and not retired yet, my mom is too sick to work and because I want to go to college we can't go on vacation.

Tell me again how Socialism is so honest.
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
People with a low income get A LOT of money for study finance.
But now they attack the middle class(my family) by saying that the amount of study finance is depending on the income.

That's not socialism, that's common sense. a richer family can afford to pay for more schooling and, therefore, is going to get less government assistance (if they get any at all). A poorer family can't afford school is going to get more government assistance. Why would a richer family get more assistance?

Now that girl gets her study financed and that year they're going to Thailand.
I sincerely doubt that the government is paying for any of that. The government doesn't pay for vacations, so the father has to be making enough for them to go on vacation. (Or they're going to Thailand for work; I'm not sure, I don't know what he does).
And if he makes enough to go to Thailand, than the government is going to give them less money for school. If she has enough money to pay for school, and it's not their money, it's extremely probably she has scholarships.

The middle class gets the short end of the stick, I agree. But that's not a problem solely with Socialism -- if that was the case, only governments that run on Socialism would have this issue (which, apparently, yours doesn't). That's not the case.
The middle class gets the short end of the stick because of the fact that they are in the middle. They aren't privileged, like the upper class, and they aren't under-privileged enough for the government to step in. Blaming Socialism (especially when it's not Socialism's fault) isn't going to solve anything, and is only ignoring the real problem with the way governments define and practice the way they give assistance.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@bri-marie But if you read my comment better you can read that they attack the middle class in a way that the middle class ends up poorer than the lower classes. If you want to make people more equal, do it the right way and don't drag people down.
Read my comment. I said; "We can't go on vacation anymore" and the lower class can go to thailand. How's that common sense?

Also I never said the vacation is paid. But they get so much study finance that they can go there, whereas we have to pay so much study finance that we can't go on vacation anymore.
And we don't have scholarships in holland.
He does have enough money to go to thailand. Do you know why?
- He doesn't have to pay study finance
- He gets more money from the government because he retired when he's young(how's that common sense?)
- The exam trainings are paid for
- He doesn't have to pay taxes because he's got a car(whil he has)
- He doesn't have to pay taxes because he's got a dog(while he has)
- He pays like 15% taxes vs my dad's 55% and we live in the same kind of house, in fact in the same street.

Of course I think people should be equal. But there should be SOME difference.
Socialism wants to make you feel guilty because you have nice things other people can't buy. But why is it wrong that if you've got more money to buy something nice for yourself?
Socialism wants everything to be equal. In fact, socialism is IMHO dangerously close to communism.

@Sappp thank God the SP never made it into the government. It used to be a communist party and they still are on the very left side of the socialist stuff.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Chann: if you'd actually read my comment, my "common sense" argument was about schooling. I made a whole, separate argument for the vacation issue, where neither the words 'common' nor 'sense' appear at all.

Further more, the middle class cannot end up poorer than the lower class. Certain people can become the lower class, but the middle class can't end up less than poor. Then they'd just be the lower class, and the lower class would be the middle class.

If you want to make people more equal, do it the right way and don't drag people down.
I agree. Which is something I've already said. I've also pointed out that this is not a problem because of socialism. Every type of economy has this problem.

Also I never said the vacation is paid.
Neither did I?

He gets more money from the government because he retired when he's young(how's that common sense?)
If he's working, how is he retired? Retirement is when you stop working. You can't be both retired and a worker.
Beyond that, retired people get more assistance from the government since they aren't working. So, yes, it is common sense that someone who doesn't have a job should get more assistance than someone who does have a job (like your dad).

You pay different taxes because, while you live in the same type of house, you still have different things. You yourself said your dad does not have his own car, while your friend's dad does.

Socialism wants to make you feel guilty because you have nice things other people can't buy.
No, it doesn't. Not even close. The dictionary is always a good reference tool for figuring out what words mean. Beyond that, there's also the Library of Economics.
Oh, and here is a good article about why socialism is a good thing.

But why is it wrong that if you've got more money to buy something nice for yourself?
Nobody is saying that it is. What people are saying is that, if you have more money, you should get less assistance from the government.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
15% is not a tax scale, that is not possible. But nevermind, you dad probably knows better!
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@bri-marie: He's officially retired but he works without the government knowing. So officially, you can't work while you're retired, but if you don't want to pay taxes, you can.

My dad doesn't have his own car because he got one from work. A lease car. But the rest of the stuff is pretty much the same. Same type of tv, same amount of laptops, same electronics, etc.

I wasn't being serious about Socialism wanting you to feel guilty, I know what Socialism means. But they're taking it out of proportion right now.

And I agree that when you have more money, you should get less assistance from the government. But here's my problem; in Holland, the more money you have, the more money you have to give to the government who gives it to people who work secretly to avoid paying taxes. Without his lease car and all those other things, my dad still would have to pay 52% taxes. MORE THAN HALF OF WHAT HE DESERVES.

Also @Sappp sorry, I've mistaken. 25%. He also got "aftrekposten" so from the 33%, he only has to pay 25%.
And I'm sorry but since when do you fill in that blue envelope?
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
You're still being contradicting. You're friend's dad is retired, and pays taxes, but he works so he doesn't pay taxes. Even though you said he pays taxes.

It doesn't matter why your dad doesn't own his own car. The fact of the matter is, he doesn't, and, so he has to pay taxes for it. Your friend's dad does own his own car, and, so he doesn't have to pay taxes for it.

It doesn't matter what type of house you have, what type of laptops. You've admitted, several times, that your lives are not exactly the same. Your dad's friend is officially retired. Your dad is not. Your friend's dad owns his own car. Your dad does not. You can't expect to pay the same taxes, when there are such big differences in your lives.

How exactly is the government supposed to know about people secretly working? (Which I sincerely doubt there's even enough people who do that to make any sort of difference. Also: pick a story. Either the "lazy" immigrants are getting the money, or people who are secretly working under the table -- which is the opposite of lazy, mind you -- are getting the money.) But, irrigardless. Every economic system has people that cheat it. They lie about other incomes they have, they lie about medical bills, they lie about everything. As I've been saying that is not a socialist problem. That is a human beings lie and cheat and steal and swindle problem. As long as human being exist, they will lie about things to get more money.

If your dad was retired, he wouldn't have to pay 52% taxes. If he owned his own car, he wouldn't have to pay 52% taxes. You've proven this yourself.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
I've been filling it in for 7 years, since I was sixteen, why?
And again, if you are in the 52% tax scale, you do not pay 52% of your income on taxes. That is not how it works.
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@bri-marie I'm trying to tell you this guy doesn't want to pay taxes on his extra income which is illegal. That's why it's unfair.

I just think it's unfair my dad is almost 66 and works his ass off while that girl's dad didn't even reach 60 before he retired.
And alright, maybe we're getting "deeper into the problem now". Is it fair that people have different tax rates? To me, it is because if you're poor you really need help. And when you're a middle class family you can give a little extra.

But what I think is unfair is that people who cheat on the system still get more money. Maybe I blamed socialists for it because there's this new "agreement" which states that middleclass people who are retired have to pay more taxes over that to support people with a lower retirement fund.

This I don't find fair. If working people have to pay more taxes to help the people who failed to build up a decent retirement fund, fine.
But when you've been working your ass off all your life with night studies and a daytime job, then working until you were 67 so you could have a good retirement for you and your wife I think the government should keep their hands off that fund. It's like working your ass off all year on this paper and in the end when someone got a 4, another a 5 and you got a 9, you have to give 3 points away so now everyone has a 6. How is that fair?

You were probably right as I really suck eggs in economics... but... if you don't pay 52% of your incomes on taxes why do they have a 52% tax scale? ...God I don't get it...
Oh and sorry, I thought you were much younger than 23 :O God I'm stupid, sorry! DX
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
It works like this:
Between E0,- and E18.628,- you pay 33% tax
Between E18.628,- and E33.436,- you pay 41.95% tax.
Between E33.436,- and E55.649,- you pay 42% taxes
And above E55.694,- you pay 52% taxes.
(tax scales of 2011, yearly income, this is salary tax and certain extra premium that are legally obligated, for everyone under 65 year of age)

So let's say I have an income of E70.000,-
On the first part I pay 33%, on the second 41.95%, on the third 42% and only on the part above E55.694 I pay 52%.
Calculated:
I pay 33% of E18.628 = E6147.24
I pay 41.95% of (E33.436-E18.628) E14808= E6211.96
I pay 42% of (E55.649-E33.436) E22258= E9348.36
I pay 52% of (E70.000-E55.694) E14306= E7439.12
In total I pay (E6147.24 + E6211.96 + E9348.36 + E7439.12) E29146.68 taxes.
On E70.000 that's ~41.64%.

Ofcourse there are also other taxes and tax deductions which will change the total amount of taxes paid: however this is how income tax basically works.
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
@Chaan: I completely agree that people doing illegal things is unfair. However, unless you're okay with the government closely monitoring everyone's every move, 24/7, I'm not sure why you keep putting the blame on them. You can't have freedom and have people not break the law.

Is it fair that people have different tax rates?
Completely. The only other option is to make everyone pay the same taxes, which causes more problems and is even less fair. That means the people who's income is in the triple digits are paying the same amount of taxes as people who's income barely reaches double digits. Which means that a) the wealthy are always going to pay the smallest amount of taxes (which you're complaining about, so you obviously don't want that), because they have to make the taxes low enough so that the lowest income can still pay them or b) the low income families are paying high taxes, because the taxes are the same and they have to pay the same amount as the highest income. Which, considering you've complained about that as well, obviously you don't want that either.
When it comes to taxes, there really aren't a whole lot of options. Since you don't like the idea of everyone paying the same taxes, why are you against everyone paying different taxes?

I think the government should keep their hands off that fund.
Governments don't take from retirement funds. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

How is that fair
That's... not a very good analogy. My grades aren't going to determine if I can pay my medical bills. However, I'll go with it.
I would much rather give up my three points to help people who really need it, than selfishly keep it and watch someone struggle just so I could take pride and say "yeah, they failed the class, despite all the effort they put in, but I got to keep my points!" Just as I would hope that a decent person would turn around and do the same, if our positions were reversed.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
^ I agree that rich people should help the poor by paying more taxes. Except most "rich people" aren't rich at all! Sure they have a good job and a steady income, but they can't afford a big house and can't afford to go on vacation without having to save a lot of money for an entire year. Those people, the middle class, are screwed. People see them as rich whereas they're not.
Sure dividing everything is vital here, but if you look at how much politicians get as a salary, why don't they pay more taxes over that? This is gonna sound really impopular but I am not studying my ass off so I can work harder and make more money that goes to poor people. I do agree that I'd need to pay more but I don't agree on paying more over your retirement funds.

And you don't have an idea because you're (just a guess) not from Holland. In Holland, they are planning to do that. I've seen this debate between politicians and the Socialist party wants to cut down retirement funds of the middle class to give it to the people who have a lower retirement fund.

Actually my grades WILL determine if I can pay my medical bills. In Holland, your grades determine if you have to go through numerus fixus. AKA the lottery to get into University studies such as medical school or criminology. If I'd have that 9 and pass I would have higher than an 8 and be able to skip that lottery. But with a 6, you have to participate in the numerus fixus.

I think that's a little off. If people aren't good enough to get that 6, then they have to try again next time. And if I would have a 4 for a paper I wouldn't beg other people for more points, I'd look back at myself and see how I can fix MY problem.

Though in the economy, people should be able to get medical care and education and food and a house and clothes and stuff.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
And @Sappp
Oh right! Thanks! I keep forgetting that second part :/ Mea culpa.

Thanks for explaining!
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
@Chaan: Except most "rich people" aren't rich at all!
Except they are. Rich people are called rich... because they're rich. If they aren't rich, then they aren't called rich people. If they can't afford a big house, or a vacation, then they aren't rich, and aren't called rich people. They may be richer than other people, but they aren't rich. There's a difference.

why don't they pay more taxes over that?
That's what this entire post was about. People who make more money should pay more taxes.
The reason they don't is because they're the ones in charge. There aren't a whole lot of people who have the power to make them do anything. And since they're greedy, they want more money, and less taxes.

Actually my grades WILL determine if I can pay my medical bills
No, they won't. They'll give you a higher chance at getting a good paying job, but there is always that chance that, despite having excellent grades, you'll end up with a job that doesn't pay enough, or gives bad benefits.
That's why so many countries are fighting about university tuition. Because, unlike 50 years ago, majority of students go to university, so those degrees aren't as rare. Which makes it harder for those students to find those good jobs.
Which is where the "using taxes to pay help people" comes in. The idea is to give a boost to those who honestly cannot pay for these things themselves.

And, honestly, I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this. I've voluntarily given up money (not through taxes) to local charities -- both the human and non-human kind. So, the idea of paying for Saftey Net programs through taxes just... makes sense to me.

If people aren't good enough to get that 6, then they have to try again next time.
But what defines "good enough"? If a student studies constantly, gets extra help, does all the work, and bombs one test and ends up with a 6, how fair is that?
You seem to be under the impression that if someone only has a 6, or they work at fast food, or something similar, than they're lazy and need to try harder. And that's just... not the case.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
Then why do people call me rich?

Yes they should, but as you said the RICH people should do that. What the government is doing now is attacking the middle class.

Yes, there's a chance... a 25 percent chance or so.

See? You got to choose where your money went. I'd give up half my income to hospitals who can't pay the bills of their patients! But I won't give a single penny to people who cheat on the system.

I don't think someone with a 6 can only work at a fast good restaurant, I never even mentioned anything like that. But I want to be the best and I can't be if I'm supposed to step down so other people who are too lazy for that can have some credit as well.

And for the people who can't make it to the top, you don't need a college degree to be the best in what you do. But I know that I can get a college degree so I want to get that. My cousin really can't get a degree, she has agreed with that as well. But she's now working on becoming a dentist's assistent and she is determined to be the very best in that. I respect that more than college students who do nothing but get 7's
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Then why do people call me rich?
I have no idea. Probably because the world is filled with people who don't have very much sense.

What the government is doing now is attacking the middle class.
I never denied that the middle-class gets shited on. I've said this several times now.

I'd give up half my income to hospitals who can't pay the bills of their patients! But I won't give a single penny to people who cheat on the system.
But you can't do both. You can't give your money go to certain places to help people that need it, and not have any of it go to people who are cheating the system. It's an all or nothing deal, here.

I don't think someone with a 6 can only work at a fast good restaurant, I never even mentioned anything like that.
I never mentioned that either. What I said was that you're under the impression that people who are getting 6's can just "do better next time" so it's "not fair" to give up some of your points to help them. I pointed out that, in the real world, it doesn't work like that. In the real world, sometimes a 6 is the best someone can do, and it's not very fair that they have to suffer just because someone doesn't want to share.

I respect that more than college students who do nothing but get 7's
But, as I pointed out above, you aren't willing to help them. Having someone's respect doesn't mean much when you can't put food on the table, or gas in your car.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
emilyroxx said:
The fact that we want to raise taxes for the rich doesn't mean that we think all rich people are greedy. Rich people should have the same tax rate as the middle and lower class because that it what is FAIR. It is in no way because "rich people are greedy and deserve to pay more taxes." Anyone who does believe that is stupid, liberal or otherwise.
And I have never been able to understand the "poor people are poor because they're lazy" argument. Poor people are poor because, for whatever reason, they are unable to find a (well paying) job. Obviously there are people who are poor because they're lazy, but people like that are rather uncommon. I live in Chicago, and whenever I go to the city I see homeless people begging for money and food. They are not homeless because they're lazy. Who the heck goes, "Hmm, it's winter and I don't have a home, but I don't really want a job because that's too much work. I think I'm going to continue living off of the government." I live right by a sort of run down trailer park. A friend of mine lives in that trailer park because both of her parents lost their jobs (even though they both had college degrees, mind you). Her sister has a serious physical and mental disability, and the only reason my friend is not homeless is because of the very small amount of money the government is supplying them while her parents desperately try to find a job. Thus far they have been unsuccessful.
Is she lazy? Does she deserve it?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@bri-marie & emilyroxx

We're comparing 2 completely different countries here. The US is way different with poor & middle class than Holland is.

If we'd have a screwed up situation like the US, I'd give everything to help people.
But we don't. We have that screwed up situation that says that people who haven't saved up for their retirement at all are now getting money from people who did save for their retirement.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
@bri-marie: I understand our economic differences. However, the basic ideas are still the same.

And to address your last sentence, why shouldn't people who weren't able to build up a retirement fund get help?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@bri-marie I never said they shouldn't get help. I just said the government shouldn't touch other people's retirement funds.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Can you give some sources proving your government is taking money out of people's retirement funds?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
I can't. They're still discussing the specifics so the press still has only fractions of the agreement.
But I was in the Hague when the politicians were discussing this.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
So, this isn't even happening, you don't even have the whole story, and you're complaining about it happening?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
^ It's ABOUT to happen. The contract has already been signed by 40% or so, but there's one party that's about to sign, that would make 54% so that would make the agreement a fact.

By the way weren't we discussing the idea of righteous taxes here? Why would we suddenly have to debate over a source of mine?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
You keep using it as a fact, as if it's already happening (which it's not, and it hasn't even officially been brought in, apparently) . I can't get very much information about Holland's taxes (especially when you get into specifics). The only information I could find about using retirement funds was that it was being talked about. So I asked where you got that information from.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
^ So the fact that people are talking about taking money from retirement funds isn't already worse enough? It actually has to happen before it gets bad?

It's like denying a store owner a security system because nothing has been stolen yet.

Though I can see where your question was coming from. But I can assure you I'm not lying about having been there and hearing them talk about taking money from retirement funds.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
bri-marie: Our government 'fell', which means we have a government with limited powers at the moment. They made a coalition with opposition parties to make an economic plan. We have elections in september, but already some of the plans of the Kunduz-coalition (that how the coalition that made the plans is called) are being recalled/questioned/changed by the parties involved and the parties that were not involved, because since the government has limited powers, the plans can not be implemented untill after the elections. Nothing is really sure at the moment, but nonetheless the plans have caused a lot of debate and ofcourse because elections are upcoming the politicians are yelling a lot of things, which change day by day.

Basically, it is a mess and we won't have more certainty untill september/november.

PS: at the moment we have 11 parties in our 'lower chamber' or 'second chamber' so sometimes politics are chaotic :S
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
chaan: like I said, our government has limited powers at the moment. They can't make decisions like that untill after the elections.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
^Sappp true that about the politics being chaotic :S. I'm just one month too young to vote btw =S

Out of curiosity, what are you going to vote?
I'd have voted D'66 because of health care and study finances
or maybe VVD.

and yeah but that's why I'm so nervous about my parents' life after my dad retires
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
@Chaan: It actually has to happen before it gets bad?
No. What I'm saying is it actually has to happen before you start complaining about the damage it's doing.

@Saap:at the moment we have 11 parties in our 'lower chamber' or 'second chamber' so sometimes politics are chaotic :S
I can only imagine *shudders*
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@bri-marie Oh so I just have to keep my mouth shut because something hasn't happened yet? So if an axe-murderer walks into my house, I can't call the cops because he hasn't beheaded me yet?
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
I have to agree a bit with both of you: on the one hand it has not happened, so there is nothing to be worried about. On the other hand, upcoming changes in laws are important to protest when you disagree with them, since it is harder to change a law that has passed than to persuade politicians to not pass them.
Especially, because our elections are coming up, the plans are discussed a lot, which is only natural. People are going to vote for the party with the most beneficial plans for them.
And you cannot ignore changes that will effect you untill they are in working: sometimes you need to prepare.
For example: one of the plans is that people have to pay 7.50 euro for each day they are admitted in the hospital. If that passes I either have
-find an insurance where I can insure that
-put money aside so I can pay that when necessary.
I recently calculated what that would've cost me after my first kindey-transplant: over 1500 euros :S

I really do not know what I am going to vote. I like D66 and I have voted for them in the past, but I am not sure yet. I guess I still have a lot of party-programs to read before elections.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Oh so I just have to keep my mouth shut because something hasn't happened yet
That's not what I'm saying, and that's not what you're doing. You're not complaining that the government is thinking about doing those things. You are complaining about the damage taking away retirement funds has already done, even though that idea hasn't even passed yet.

By all means, complain. Inform people of what's going on. But don't state is as fact when it's not, and don't blame Socialism, when nothing has even happened.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
^ "you are complaining about the damage taking away retirement funds has already done, even though that idea hasn't even passed yet"
True, but what if your government says; "we're thinking about it, but what if we raise taxes of lower-class people with 30%?" people would go crazy! and why? Because we know what it will do even if it's not a fact. But they are talking about it, that's a fact.

How can I not blame Socialism if all the Socialist parties always come up with ideas like this? (roughly taken, i have no idea about the numbers of these but I know socialist have always wanted middle-class family's to pay)
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@Sappp True, I believe you'd have to get some "upgraded" insurance. When my mom was hospitalized for two weeks or so, we got an "upgraded" insurance because our old insurance wouldn't cover all the costs, making it cost over 1000 euro's for the surgery alone(that would be a percentage we had to pay ourselves).

I'd normally vote right-wing but right now I'm heading more towards the middle. I'm really scared Holland will have a health care system just as bad as the US :/

I don't want to have to go to Belgium(just a random example) to get health care :/
posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
people would go crazy! and why? Because we know what it will do even if it's not a fact. But they are talking about it, that's a fact.
The lower class, literally, cannot pay that much in taxes. Literally. That's why their lower-class -- because they don't have a lot of money.
But, again, being angry when someone asks you to do something you can't is one thing. Being angry at the damage it has caused, when no damaged has been caused is something completely different.

You mentioned the store owner asking for protection. Think of it this way: could a store owner have a customer arrested if he didn't shop lift anything? Of course not.
This (^) is what you're doing. You're being angry about a customer stealing your merchandise when no merchandise has been stolen.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
^ No, I'm saying a store owner could have a customer arrested for shoplifting if that customer walksa round the store and says; "I'm gonna steal that, i'm gonna steal that oh and I can't forget to steal that".
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
No, shop owners (and police officers) can't arrest someone if they haven't done anything. A person can say all they want that they are going to steal, but unless they actually steal, they cannot be arrested.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
chaan: Not trying to be mean or anything, but if you have to upgrade your insurance for two weeks of hospital+surgery, you had a very low insurance to begin with. I have an average insurance with extra dental package and I get ecerything when hospitalized. I pay for things that are legally excluded from insurance .

You reallly need to look at the parties in our government and learn what kind of parties they are. The plans of the retirement funds you are talking about are from the Kunduz coalition and these parties are NOT socialist.
They are
VVD - Conservative liberal, centre right party.
CDA - Christian conservative centrism, there are also a centre right party.
D66 - Social liberals, they are a centre patry.
CU - Christian social democratic, also a centre party.
GreenLeft - Green politics and the party that is most left of the Kunduz Coalition, but still they are more social democrats rather than socialists.

Again, the only socialist party in our second chamber is the (what a suprise) Socialist Party (SP). They had nothing to do with these plans. Now, they have a good position for the next election so if you really hate socialists that much, I guess you will have a rough time this september, but AGAIN, they had nothing to do with these plans. Socialists had nothing to do with it.


posted over a year ago.
last edited over a year ago
 
user photo
Chaann94 said:
@bri-marie I thought we were just using that as a metaphore but now you're taking it literal?

@Sappp no we had an average all-round one but we needed a "aanvullende" insurance becayse hyserectomy's are apparently really expensive =S

GreenLeft is definitely socialistic. In 1989 they formed out of 4 radical socialistic parties; CPN, PSP, PPR and the EVP.

Also I don't count SP as socialistic. They were a communistic party funded in 1972. They were orientated on China. Now this isn't in my history book, but in 1972, mao zedong was still terrorizing his country. So I see the SP as communists who call themselves socialists to cover it up a bit.

The PvdA is also socialist, so the SP isn't the only one.

And hmm if these parties really signed onto the Kunduz coalition I should change my vote for in september XD (we also have an election at school "just to see how the school's political orientation is").
I'm gonna vote PVV, at least they were against this coalition XD "We haven't signed anything!" <--- look at the debate it's hilarious, he kept saying that sentence over and over XD.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
@Chaan: It is a metaphor. It's comparing how a shop owner can't arrest someone or kick them out of the store unless they've actually stolen something or done something wrong, to you complaining about damage that hasn't happened.
Just because it's a metaphor doesn't mean you can make stuff up to fit what you're trying to say. That defeats to purpose of a metaphor.
posted over a year ago.
 
user photo
Sappp said:
You can tell me PvdA is socialist, but it isn't. It is social democatric. Yes, they are left (centre-left actually), but left =/= socialist.

Greenleft was formed from those parties, that does not mean they are still following that course. Again, social but not socialist.

SP was Maoist in its early years. Socialist or communist, it does not matter what they were. They are socialists now.

If you want to waste a vote, vote PVV. If there is one party I would never vote for it is the PVV. I would sooner vote SGP...

Wilders was the one who shrunk back from responsibility at the moment The Netherlands needed a good budget plan. He can talk pretty, but the fact is that we need to make budget cuts and he does not have the balls to do it.
posted over a year ago.