Questions from HelgeS, part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
Helge,
“German Highschool gives everybody the equivalent of a US college
degree,...”
Do you mean everybody attends and finishes German High School?

I was under the impression that many “less capable” students - so identified
by the school authorities - are not permitted to go to German High School
and are shunted off into more “practical” career fields and trade schools.

Obviously not every student who first attends school as a child finishes
Hochschule (neither there nor here). What is the story on German public
schools?
-----

By the way, I disagree with your comment about “free” education. It is very,
very costly.

The school teacher I dated in Germany earned less money than an equivalent
junior high school teacher here. Regardless, she paid something more than
forty percent (40%) of her income in income taxes.

This, naturally, is in addition to the confiscatory Value Added Tax which must be paid at every level of production, distribution and sale. At the retail level, the final sale is as much as 50% tax although only the VAT for the last transaction is shown.

Taxation in Germany has been elevated to an art form. There seem to be
licenses, permits, or other forms of governmental approval for nearly
everything. Hmm. Sounds like California!! :)

The civilian medical care I received in Germany was good but outdated and
driven largely by the “will” of the doctor rather than current medical
protocols. Obviously, in large cities current medical expertise may abound,
but in the smaller towns, it was quite dated.

Another girl I dated used an interesting procedure with the free medical care.
We both were single and (ahem!) from time to time consumed unreasonable
amounts of alcohol until the wee hours. I’d get up with a hangover and go to
work. She’d go to the doctor and get the day off.

I asked her why the doctor gave her a day off for a hangover. She explained
that she “shopped” for a doctor who would make the “diagnosis” and
prescribe the “rest for recovery” that she desired. (Always ticked me off!)
-----

Remember that governments have no money, no resources, and no power.
None, except for what they take. When such things are “taken”, obviously
they are taken from “someone” - in this case, from the people who produce
goods and services.

There are three major methods for governments to have money.

1) The government can borrow money. Then the lenders must be paid
interest so, unless the government employs some scheme to increase
borrowing to pay off current debt, somebody must pay the lenders.

2) The government can print money. If gold, silver or other collateral does
not “back” the money, then the money is counterfeit - just like ours.
American dollars are backed excessively and increasingly “by the full faith
and credit of the United States government”. I think of Clinton and cringe.
In any case, by printing unbacked money, the money supply becomes larger
- it is “inflated”. Because there is more money voting for each purchase,
prices rise. Therefore inflation of the money supply causes higher prices and,
in effect, is a tax on the people - a tax which is a cruel and heavy burden on
those folks with a fixed income. Mention President Carter to some old people
who understand money - watch the fur fly!

3) The government can tax the people. Only people work. Corporations are
made up of people who support the organization. When the corporation pays
taxes, that’s money that could have been given to workers. Therefore,
though many people refuse to understand it, a corporate tax is still a tax on
the people - the workers who provide goods and services.

German powerholders make decisions about what is important for the
Fatherland. They decided to take money from the German people to pay for
education and medical programs, etc. That’s well and good if that is what the
German people desire - I have absolutely no problem with it. It’s none of my
business.

However, in America, I’ve found that nearly every time the federal
government becomes involved, things become more expensive and difficult to
obtain and use.

Yes, our government builds good highways. (grin!) That should take a
history buff back to the mid-1940s, huh? :)

But the government and insurance companies have made a horrid mess of
medical care in America. I used to go to a doctor of my choice. Now I can’t.
Doctors used to take time to speak with their patients, learn about the signs,
symptoms, and concerns of the patients to help diagnose accurately and
prescribe treatment appropriately.

Today, too many doctors rush into the
“examination room”, the patient quickly describes one or two symptoms, the
doctor hurriedly writes a prescription and heads for the next patient.
-----

I’ll stop here, but I wanted to clarify that:

- Not every German finishes high school. IMO, those who do finish typically
have a truly fine education.

- There are NO free benefits. In the case of Germany, the benefits of
Socialized programs are paid for by confiscatory taxation.

- Governments have no resources except what they take, one way or
another, from those who provide goods and services.

Therefore, your “right” to be educated according to the constitution is simply
a different system than ours. Which system is preferable is a value
judgement. Who should decide whether my child goes to college?

In your case, the government plays a far greater role than in America. It’s your
choice. Germans are much more law-abiding and responsive to the will of federal control than are Americans.

I guess that’s a “Germanic trait” similar
to preferring travel.

Oh, by the way, Americans travel too. As Europeans travel around Europe,
we travel around the United States. Check the distance from Los Angeles to
the tip of Maine. You’ll find it is nearly the same as from Lisbon, Portugal to
Moscow.

Alles Gute,

Dennis
 
Dennis you are right historically speaking in that the Germans do like strong centralized government.

propriam et sinceram et tantum sui gentem.

It was the results of the Thrity Years War that created the mindset of obedience to a central ruler.
The Thirty Years War began as a conflict between confessions, religious zeal soon proved in many cases to be a mere disguise for political opportunism, and the war was transformed into a gigantic duel between Austria and Spain on one hand and France, Sweeden, and the maritime powers on the other, with Germany the arena in which their struggle for mastery was played out. The death toll for the Germans was in the millions approx 7.5 Million. A country that loses about 35% of its population is apt to want a strong central government for protection. This would equate into about 91 million dead americans for ease of thinking about the mindset later taken by the germans.The Sweedish troops alone destroyed over 18,000 villages in the last eighteen years of war, along with 1500 towns and 200 castle. (Go back far enough and every one has dirty laundry not just the Nazi's.)

A poem discribing the thoughts of the survivors.

Wir sind doch nunmehr ganz, ja mehr denn ganz verheeret!
Der frechen Volker Schar, die rasende Posaun,
Das vom Blut fette Schwert, die donnernde Karthaun
Hat aller Schweiss and Fleiss and Vorrat aufgezehret.

Die Turme stehn in Glut, die Kirch ist umgekehret,
Das Rathaus liegt im Graus, die Starken sind zerhaun,
Die Jungfraun sind geschand't und wo wir hin nur schaun,
Ist Feuer, Pest und Tod, der Herz und Geist durchfahret.

[We are now wholly, yea! more than wholly devestated.
The band of presumptuous nations, the raving trumpets,
The sword oily with blood, the thundering cannon-royal
Have consumed the fruits of all our sweat and travail.

The towers stand in flames, the chruch is overturned,
The town hall lies in ruins, the stalwart are hacked to bits,
The maidens are deflowered, and everywhere we look
Fire, plague and death oppress the heart and soul.]

Karl Fredrich Moser wrote in 1758
"Every nation has a principal motive. In Germany, it is obedience; in England, freedom; in Holland, trade; in france, the honor of the king."

"After the complete destruction of the German eessence (Wesen), after the almost complete extinciton of the German nation as a result of the undescribable devastations of the Thirty Years War, it was this most intimately homely world(the area between the Rhine and the Alps, the truly German lands of Swabia, Saxony, Franconia and Bavaria)from which the Germann spirit was reborn. German poetry, German music, German philosophy are today highly respected by all peoples of the world; but in his longing for 'German glory' the German can usually dream of nothing else but something similar to the restoration of the Roman Empire."
"What is German" 1865, Richard Wagner.



[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 28, 2000).]
 
Although I admire the effort many of you have put into the "debate" with Helge, you are missing one fundamental point. He is NOT debating "guns" and "gun rights". He is debating HIS culture against OUR culture, and is using gun issues as his lever.

IMO the guy is a troll. We need to keep the debate focused on the REAL issues this year, rather than devolving into unrelated areas, driven by someone who wants to evade the real issues.

If we want to have a debate with anti's, we can find many out there who are GENUINELY interested in the real issues. Let's start there. I feel debate with Helge is a total waste of our time.

[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited July 29, 2000).]
 
Dennis, I have to disagree, although I do it respectfully. Aren't we over 6000 members now? And how many post on a regular basis--about 50? Maybe 100, but I doubt it. Now, those lurkers MAY all be as zealous as you and I, but I doubt that too. I'd bet a lot of them are fence-sitters and antis. Just like Lawdog, I want them to hear my arguments. Besides, if members decide to ignore Helges, they will. If you ban him and people still have more to say to him, they'll email him. You can't save their time and concentration for other matters by banning HelgeS.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That makes us very subjective to bad decisions.[/quote]

HelgeS, that actually makes sense. BUT, the unarmed man is subject to the bad decisions of others to a much higher degree than I am. I don't mind being subject to my own mistakes but I don't care to accept without resistance the violence others offer me because of their poor judgment.

More than that, I still find the matter of your training fascinating. Do you mean that in three different military training programs, nobody ever taught you what a rifle is for? Again, no offense, but I find that hard to believe. I'd bet you're directly going against what you were taught, or you were taught awfully poorly.

Also, HelgeS, you seem to have ignored the objections of those of us who've asked you what gives you or anyone else the right to determine what we need. To review, you claim that if you don't think I need a submachine gun, for instance, then my right to own it is null because of your judgment. We find that outrageous. We believe that the individual is the only one responsible for what happens in his life, so the individual is the only one with a right to determine his needs since he will be the only one to face the consequences.

For example, you know that if my home is invaded tonight and my wife killed, you will not share in my despair or her suffering. Therefore, you find it all too easy to tell me I don't need much to defend her life and mine--a pistol is plenty even though it's underpowered and inaccurate. But where do you, who will not suffer consequences or enjoy rewards for my decision, derive the right to overrule me and make the decision for me?
 
Thanks, OK. I hope I was clear in merely stating the fact that the German
society prefers a strong government to follow but Americans, at least in the
past, preferred a government to follow the wishes of the people. The
differing, largely conflicting concepts may each be valid but reflect a strong
difference in values.

Reducing the conversation to a vulgar level, the Germans may be referred to
as sheep and the Americans as reckless, undisciplined anarchists. However,
my intent was not to insult but merely to call attention to the great difference
in values.
-----
On a personal level, I believe Moser’s evaluation of 1758 should be updated -
perhaps to something similar to this:
“Every nation has a principal motive. In Germany, it is obedience; in England,
duty; in France, isolationism to preserve all things French.” (Yes, I know I
omitted Holland.)
-----

My command of German is inadequate to translate the German poetry
accurately; however, the pain and references to destruction suffered by the
common man are loud and clear.

I would suppose the Thirty Years War(s) typifies many wars where religious
beliefs are used as a subterfuge for the camouflaged struggle for political
power - the root of all other power.

On a personal basis, I believe in the largely American concept that the other
person’s religious beliefs are private. So long as those beliefs do not infringe
upon other people, my neighbors’ beliefs are none of my business - unless
WE choose to discuss them in a civil manner.

If a Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Methodist or whatever wants to say a short
public prayer to his God in my presence I am not offended. I will show
respect for my fellow man and his beliefs. The concept that I should fear
eternal damnation because someone prays in my presence I consider
offensive - much more so than my neighbor’s prayer.

I will not permit the power mongers to move me to hate my fellow man for religious beliefs which do not hurt others.
-----

At the moment, the thought occurs to me that power struggles are mankind’s
greatest sin and preoccupation. Whether we address the micro-conflicts of
spousal abuse and child abuse (usually one-on-one conflicts) or the
macro-conflicts between and among states, nations, races or other
supposedly unique entities, the fight is for power. This fight for power on one
side may be a fight for mere survival on the other - but the lust for power (of
which money may be a symbol) is the root of all evil.

Both organized religion and organized government (perhaps an oxymoron)
fight for power. They frequently demonize other segments of mankind to
create and justify a cause and thereby motivate the masses. U.S.
demonization of the Japanese (which I personally remember) and the
oft-noted German demonization of the Jews are mere examples of such
“motivators”. I consider these manipulative lies to be offensive.

(Chuckle) I can create enough enemies on an individual basis - I don’t need
to create groups of enemies!
-----

In America, the greatest threat to our safety and well-being is the lust for
power by members of our own government. They have forgotten that they
are public servants, acting in our behalf, at our leisure (at the voting place).
Their elitist, increasingly dictatorial usurpation of power, elimination of our
Rights, and intrusion into our personal lives, business, religion, and virtually
every interpersonal relationship will doom America to subservience unless
we, the people, force our government to return to Constitutional law.

The power struggle slowly is becoming apparent to Americans. The question
is whether we will retain and abide by the values of our Founding Fathers or
sink to the level of subservience and obedience prevalent in Europe.

I prefer the American way of our Founding Fathers.
I do not believe I stand alone.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Dennis O.,

I understand your point. However, note that many of us are discussing
among ourselves, poor Helge may not have the opportunity to keep up! :D

Also, I’m learning from the opinions of other TFL members; thusly improving
my ability to respond when I meet an ‘anti’ in the field. So I don’t feel my
time is wasted.

Additionally, lurkers may find something of value in our conversations.

Please do not become frustrated and offended by the conversations on this
thread. If and when a thread is a bother to you, just skip to the next thread
(for the sake of your blood pressure ;) ).

Dennis B.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
You are correct on the school system with a few changes:

In grade 7 the kids get a proposal (not a command) from the school, derived from their grades and preferences. Then there are 3 school systems:

Highschool (13 years, focused on academic stuff)
Middle School (10 years, usually followed by 3 years of trade school. Here the focus is on all the things you need to learn a trade)
Basic School (9 years. 30 years ago this one was meant to be the "basic" school, nowadays it is pretty much a ghost as most people want a higher education. It is more kids that are socially challenged, etc. They changed the system so that the teachers in this school are also sociologists and psychiatrists.)

The concept behind this division (the final words about the school choice is with the parents and the kids can switch whenever they want) is to give optimal education to everybody. There is no point in boring people with complex mathematics if they don't want to learn it. Instead, let them learn stuff that they want to learn and need to learn. The basic school is then really a preparation stage. A large part of the students later change into the middle school. But if they would enter the middle school right away their developement and the developement of others would be hindered (we are talking about kids here that cannot speak german, kids that are very aggressive, sociopath, kids with learning disabilities, etc).
Right now the ratio is about 50%, 40%, 10% for high, middle and basic school.

Education:
Of course it is costly for somebody! But it is free for the student. That's the point. The people that pay tax earn a lot of money (check out the graph on the last thread to see that they earn more money, net, then the comparable US people). On the other hand, the young students don't earn any money. That is way for the sake of equality it is very important that every bright and willing person is given the chance to study, regardless of funds available. I am horrified by the knowledge that everyday in the US very intelligent young people are stopped from studying simply because they cannot afford the thousands of dollar tuition.

>>- Not every German finishes high school. IMO, those who do finish typically
have a truly fine education.<<

Correct, about 50% do. Another 40% finishes the equivalent just with another orientation (trade instead of academia. You will know that a trade is a very good, honourable and resourceful occupation in germany, in contrast to many other places).

>- There are NO free benefits. In the case of Germany, the benefits of
Socialized programs are paid for by confiscatory taxation.<

see above, they are free for the person who needs it.

>- Governments have no resources except what they take, one way or
another, from those who provide goods and services.<

yes, I prefer, "is given by" over "take away" though.

>Therefore, your “right” to be educated according to the constitution is simply
a different system than ours. Which system is preferable is a value
judgement. Who should decide whether my child goes to college?<

You should decide (you do in germany) or your kid of course. The point is: In germany if youi decide YES then that is all you need to do. Everything else is taken care of. In the US if you say YES then you first have to look at your checkbook to see if you have the tenthousands of dollars required to get a good education for your kid.

>Traveling<:
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was refering to spendings in travelling, not travelling abroad. And under "spendings in travelling" the US is deep at the bottom of the scale.

Oberkommando:
You are quite correct there. But it isn't limited to the thirty years war. Think of Napoleon, think of world war I (though that one was less painful in terms of casualties but devastating in terms of economic restrictions afterwards enforced by the allies, leading straight to WWII. The biggest error the allied nations made in our century), think of WWII.
You are incredibly lucky that the US is blessed with such an ideal strategic position. It has given you liberty in the beginning and then protection.

Dennis Olson:
You want to ban the people who deviate from the topic? Well, go ahead, TFL is going to have half as many members afterwards. Look at ALL my threads, or the ones I participated in. I start with a question concerning gun control. Almost instantenously I get insults against myself, my profession, my nationality. So those are the first people to ban from this forum. You will notice that I did not start a single thread with even the slightest hint of non-gun issues. Yet, if I get those insults, what am I to do? I have tried given facts. Several times now we had the scenario that somebody insults me, claims all kinds of nonsense with regard to my nation, then I give him the facts that prove him wrong and instead of apologizing I get even worse insults that are beyond rational thought. What else am I to do? YOU folks go around postulating self defence as the first law of nature. I have tried to just ignore the insults, but that is not possible since too many people uses them as "arguments" in this discussion. Arguments against my "gun issues" (as silly and irrational it is, they still do it). So I have to counter the argument. Facts don't seem to help, what would? I would truly appreciate if you could bring the moderators to ban all the people in my various threads that have resorted to name calling, insults, racist and nationalist slurs. But that is not what you want right? Your fellow TFLer can go around, distort issues, deviate from the topic, be aggressive and insulting. What you want is to ban me because I have a different opinion, because I do not just post here to glorify others and be glorified by them, because I am actually here to discuss, not just to mastrubate myself with the observation that there are oh so many others who agree with me.
Moderators, I invite you to ban me if what you want here is a big useless assembly of people who just want to marvel in thec greatness of the collective. If you want to have a DISCUSSION board then please go ahead, follow Dennis Olson's suggestion, go through the threads and ban all the people that have violated the member conduct, have insulted or have deviated from the topic. I can give you a whole list of names right away.

cheers

Helge
 
You can't argue with a socialist European. I've tried here at my university. The only cure for European Socialist Syndrome is living AND WORKING here in the U.S. Some never change, like my professor who is sheltered from the real U.S.A. because he's spent all his time in this country in a University. They also have different definitions than we do. Conservatives there are still socialistic, and the right wing is the nazi party. They see communism as a political system of oppression. We see the economic side of it too. So when we call them communist (because of economic ideas) they get upset (because they think Stalin and oppression). Oh, and a lot of the Europeans with ESS I meet think the U.S. had nothing to do with the fall of communism in Europe.

Look, my father is from Europe, and I have uncles and cousins in Europe. As far as I'm concerned, the United States should stop defending those Socialists and let THEM provide for their defense. Let's see how quickly their socialist utopia collapses when they have to spend that much on Defense. That's why we beat the soviets, simple free market Reagan Economics.

Maybe I just talk to too many egg-headed Europeans because I'm at a University. It seems the more "education" people get, the more common sense they seem to lose and the more elitist they seem to get.

Just my own personal observations on the subject...



------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
>- Governments have no resources except what they take, one way or another, from those who provide goods and services.<

yes, I prefer, "is given by" over "take away" though.


"Is given by".... TRY to say NO. See what happens.

And I don't want to ban all the people who wander off topic, but those who have ulterior motives should be seriously considered for banning. I believe that you fit this category. In previous threads, you have proven that: 1) you are not who you say you are, 2) your knowledge base isn't nearly as complete as you would have us believe, 3) you consistently REFUSE to answer specific questions/points made by others which are AT THE HEART of the "real" issue, and 4) you come accross as insufferably arrogant.

Personally, I cannot stand your posts. I invite you to go back to your "upper class" associates (of whom you made certain we were aware), and spend your evening drinking Dom and eating escargots.

Why not go to an "international discussions" group if you wish to debate the relative values of the German "system" vs. ours. This is a GUN issues forum.

[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited July 29, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>>- Governments have no resources except what they take, one way or
another, from those who provide goods and services.<

yes, I prefer, "is given by" over "take away" though.
[/quote]

HelgeS,

You did not answer my pointed question.

I'll try again:

Tell me what happens when you tell the government that you will not be paying your taxes because you don't need the "benifits" that they offer.

One question shouldn't be too hard to answer, should it.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Oh, yes, and if you get on a question-answering roll, take a shot at this one too:

What do you think gives you the privilege to take away anything that you think a person does not strictly "need" (according to you)?

Give me a pointed, succint and honest answer, Sir.

------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

Get some real news at www.worldnetdaily.com
 
Can someone who reads german go to the link posted by HelgeS to find if the montly income listed is after tax. The tables in the US Census links are pre tax for the offical definition of income. (Of course there are 14 definitions of income some of which deduct taxes and add tranfers etc.) THe offical definition is pre-tax and I suspect that it is the same in Germany?

Also HelgeS mixes per capita and household income I think in some of the discussion.

At any rate can I get some help on the tax issue please?

Noel
 
HelgeS,

I'm sorry, but you are wrong about so much.

The least of it is your objective data.

I looked on the UN web site for per capita GDP figures. I selected 3 countries US UK and Germany for the year 1998 the data (in US dollars) given are:

US $31,059
UK $23,934
Ger $26,183

the link to this data report is
http://esa.un.org/unsd/mbsdemo/mbsresult.asp?sid=g201&cid=276&cid=826&cid=840&wp=1&ps=20

Your view of the role of government is also flawed. But that is something you must live to know, because the relavent data is difficult to interpret.

The data exists but you must be willing to see it's implications. For me it is the liberty to do what I wish with the least aount of interference as is practicable for a social group.

I spent several months in Germany and have two German friends who are "gun nuts". They have taken classes at Thunder Ranch with me and we have discussed the social situation in Germany at length. They both wish to emmigrate from Germany.

Society is made of individuals. What makes strong individual people makes a strong and health society. Weak minded people as individuals can not constitute a vigorous and healthy group.

Tchuss (sp?)

Noel



[This message has been edited by Noel (edited July 28, 2000).]
 
As James T. Kirk said to Kahn... "Khan, I'm laughing at your superior intellect...sneer!" [Star trek-Wrath of Kahn] Final scene before Kahn self distructed his starship.

Helge, we are laughing at your superior intellect, it is like a vacuum in outer space. You know the physics of a vacuum or a black hole in outer space. All of its arguments draw back into itself by the laws of physics it expounds.

James
 
Thank you, Noel. Now, does anyone know if there's a comparative tax chart anywhere?

Probably the (yack) UN would have one somewhere.

LawDog
 
No need to BAN HelgeS from the Forum; I propose an old fashioned approved-by-our-Founding-Fathers Boycott of ALL future posts by HelgeS. If no one responds to his posts, they'll just fade away into the archives... :D

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
I must want those who will argue with a committed and learned marxist/socialist/bolsievik (in this case HelgeS) to not sink to refuting communism in the same terms in which they justify it.

Capitalism may or not be "for the collective good" - but this is not the moral justificiation.


The real problem is taking people's property by force or threat of force.

"But if we don't do it the poor people can't go to university". To this you don't say "but in more capitalist countries x% go to university blah blah" - you say "by what logic does Paul become entitled to Peter's property?

Like arguing with a Nazi - you say wasting Jews is bad, he says "so from where will I get soap and lampshades"? (I'm not trying to start up a discussion on whether or not this really happened; but you get the idea).


It is easy for a capitalist to be baited by "but how will Freddy afford University" to which you try to construct a picture of a capitalist world where Freddy will still be able to go to university.

This is a mistake - the concept which must be dispelled is that Freddy going to university or saving the Gay Baby Whales for Jesus is something for which any violation of individual rights is morally justified.

It is an easy trap - Communism IS itself a mental trap. Socialism can be easily understood (well, accepted) by a moron who can take it on emotion with zero time required to think about it - whereas it takes a long time to explain capitalism through logic that connects it to individual rights.

Part of the trap you get sucked into when someone like Helges explains the plight of the orphaned little minority kid with leprosy is that you may genuinely care for the person's suffering. THIS IS AND OF ITSELF is not wrong.

At this point you get the old bait and switch, where, rather than acting upon your own compassion and generosity and giving the kid some money, you project a little compassion and generosity on someone else. You don't have enough money to save all the sad little lepers; but by god the people who do have enough money will. Here helping out all the little kids with leprosy takes higher precedence than individual rights - you would force others (under threat of skimask-wearing taxmen with guns paying a visit) to be "generous" - or else.


People are uncomfortable in thinking of things in this way - and everybody, even people who are mostly capitalist, have SOMETHING that they want others to all have to pay for. And the forced taxation aspect of government (note, I did not say the aspect of govt. that merely exists to protect individual rights), is the instrument for this redistribution of wealth. Thus there is little support for the removal of this instrument; so the argument simply becomes how much extortion, from whom, and to whom. And the machine grows.

Most people can mentally decouple the association between their warm and fuzzy cause and taxation, i.e. the money goes to govt. (as it must for whatever reason), and then the government spends it. Therefore, it's the government's money, you never make the association back to the money being extorted, in violation of individual rights, for your pet cause.

Maybe it's a defense mechanism. Maybe seeing the consequences and the horror of our otherwise "compassionate" feel good schemes it would drive us mad.


Battler.

Battler.
 
http://www.burke.de/de/tools/demo13.htm


Helge, ich bin kein Deutscher und in keiner Weise ein Uebersetzer!
Ueberpruefen Sie bitte, was ich geschrieben habe. Recht schoenen Dank!

Household net income
Population: Persons starting from 14 years

col 1 = monthly net income in German Marks
col 2 = (in black) average for all of Germany
col 3 = (in yellow) average for West Germany
col 4 = (in red) average for East Germany
col 5 - 13 = average for various areas of Germany

The row that begins with “unter 1.000 DM” indicates the percentage of homes
which have a monthly net income less than 1,000 German Marks.
1.8% in all of Germany
1.5% in West Germany
3.0% in East Germany
And so on (1.8%, 1.3%, etc.) for each area of Germany.

The next row is for 1,000 to less than 1,250 Marks.
The next row is for 1,250 to less than 1,500 Marks.
And so on down the column.

Near the bottom is “10.000 DM und mehr” = 10,000 Marks and more.
“Keine Angabe” is those not responding, and
“Gesamt” is the total percentages showing 100% in each column.

“Mittelwert in DM” = Average in German Marks. For example, it shows the
average home in all of Germany has a net income of 3,970 German Marks per
month (4166 in West Germany; 3204 in East Germany)
----------------
The bottom line for our discussion:

The average German household nets 3,970 German Marks per month.
The exchange rate on Thursday was one DM=.4767, on Friday .4814 so,
using an
exchange rate of .48, 3,970DM = $1,805.60 per month, about $23,473/year
net.

But we’re not done.

Comparing currencies is risky business. A more accurate measure of the
standard of living is to determine the average income of the two countries in
question and then determine how long a person must toil (at that average
income) to buy various necessities.
-----

When I was in school, a new car in Poland cost only $1,600. That seemed
quite a bargain until we learned:
- The average annual income was slightly less than the cost of the car. So a
car cost about a year’s wages.
- The car had to be paid for when ordered and would not be received for
18-24 months.

Obviously those figures do not pertain to Germany. However, rents are not
cheap in Germany and neither is gasoline. Furthermore, the German VAT
(described earlier) makes the purchase price of many goods and services
higher than in America. This is proven by the military who provide COLA
(Cost Of Living Allowance) payments to American military people in Germany.

So evaluate incomes, but don’t equate them by their exchange rates but by
what one can purchase with the rewards of his labor.

The bottom line is as I said before. The German people have different
financial priorities than Americans. Each side may consider the other’s values
to be wrong merely because they are different. Rather than “wrong”, I would
suggest “wrong for me”, because both sides cling to their familiar value
judgement.
------

Helge,
I must agree with my TFL friends that “is given” may be accurate but it is
misleading. Taxes are not “given”. They are “demanded” by the government
and the people pay or suffer severe consequences.

“Was kann ein Mann tun? Es ist das Gesetz!” on BOTH sides of the pond! :D
-----

Also I understand your referenced table to be “Household” income, not
individual or per capita income.

Please check: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h03.html

for a comparison of household income rather than personal income. I believe
you will find the “Table H-3. Mean Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5
Percent of Households (All Races): 1967 to 1998” will show that the median
(average) income of households in the third (middle) group of American
households is $38,967/year. Even if they pay an average of 20% income tax
their net for the year would be $31,174 (compared to $23,473/year net in
Germany). Please double check me to ensure I’m using the correct figures.
-----

We seem to have strayed pretty far afield from our RKBA; however, the
subject of who should decide what we should have is the logical thread.

Germans have decided to have their government take much from them in
order to provide goods and services for the social goals they consider
important.

We do the same here but on a much lesser scale. Everyone pays school tax,
regardless of whether you have children or not.

The conflict is between value judgements.
German want the government to establish and enforce values and work
somewhat for themselves and somewhat for their government.

Americans used to want to establish their own values and work to achieve
their goals mostly on their own. Unfortunately, my values favor more
personal responsibility for those willing and able to take on that
responsibility. I lived in Germany for eleven years, and found government
intrusion stifling. Those who lived their could not understand they were not
free because they were so deeply in “partnership” with their government any
other systems seemed as foreign to them as Socialism seems to us.

We have a different concept of civil rights and civil obligation. I am willing to
accept both as correct but only one is correct for me. ;)

By the way, I worked my way through college with partial government
assistance. We don’t completely forsake our kids, honest.

Alles Gute,

Dennis B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top