I wasn't suggesting they do.

True enough orthodoc, but I also think Ali had a point about 9th. My guess is, with his attitude to screaming, he hasn't experienced pain bad enough to warrant it.

From the perspective of the desired result.

We can talk about perspectives and feelings all day, and while we do, reality is going on around us.
Pointing your perspective at reality does nothing to affect it. Actions affect reality. Actions have positive and negative consequences - and that is reality.

It doesn't matter what your perspective is on how long is long enough when brushing your teeth. The reality of it is, if you don't get all the crap off of them, you're gonna get cavitites.

So by that logic, you're not educated till you've been to university, completed a Phd and are still studying, because no one on this earth knows everything, but until you do, you're not educated.

Nope, not even close. Wanna try again, or shall I?

Or not. I know a lad, who cleans his teeth once in a blue moon and rarely goes to the dentist (like twice in about four years!)and never, ever gets toothache. last time he went to the dentist he only needed one filling.......I on the other hand, go to the fecking dentist every six months, clean my teeth two-three times a day and somehow need constant fecking work doing. In the last two years I've had fillings, root canals, caps and porcelain veneers.

That wont be necessary. Your argument is the same as rkz's and he hasn't convinced me he's right so it's probably a case of never the twain shall meet on this issue.

If rkzenrage isn't able to convince someone then I seriously doubt jinx, can:P

Just to get back to the original topic of the thread. Those of you who are arguing against the point myself a few others have tried to make, support the huge earnings of the top few executives? Yes? They must have earned it after all right? The deserve to work as hard as you and earn a million times more right?

Oh I don't know about that Dana. I reckon Jinx probably has a few cards rkz hasn't played, but they're from the same deck, so unlikely to help too much. That's all I meant.

Don't forget Ali.....in America, anybody might get into the top-earning bracket. The fact that so very very few ever do, doesn't stop people wanting to defend their right to be there.

Dana, I think if people make it there good for them, although I totally disagree with the actual real amount of money they get paid. I don't think they deserve that amount. I don't think anyone does. They certainly can't need that much when others work their fingers to the bone and still can't make ends meet. There are similar situations here in Australia and I object to it happening here too...hence my argument.

The issue of social capital is important to me because I see evidence of brilliant kids all the time, but they're left to squander their talent because their parents fail to see how they can be supported through to a better life.

So, let me get this straight.... if someone is rich, they should have to pay more for being so?
Poor people have more value or are more "right" somehow, so we tax them less per-capita because we are going to assume that they earned more of their income legitimately?

This is a problem I well understand Ali. The ward I represent is full of children whose expectations in life are tragically low....their family's expectations for them are likewise low....I also know people who've done very well for themselves and yet are patently thick as pigshit....go figure.

let me ask you this. Have you ever given to a charity? Maybe to the victims of Katrina for instance, or the Tsunami in south west asia?

If so, you have a social conscience, if not, your argument might work.

If you have a social conscience, it means you care about what happens to others in your society and see value in helping those who for whatever reason are not as well off as yourself. As to who should pay more tax etc, that's a difficult one. Probably another topic entirely.