The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[marton]

	Quote:
	Depends on what's wrong with them. I believe obesity (and related conditions like T2 diabetes) are increasingly an issue and cost a lot. Don't know if more or less than smokers.

Old age issues like Alzheimer's, Dementia, etc. cost the most.

[amogles]

	Quote:
	This. A CFO of a huge company may be valuable in terms of tax paid but FA use when you actually need a fully staffed maternity unit. For example. Then a midwife who, comparatively, is "worth less" in terms of tax paid, is actually worth more than their weight in diamonds.

Valuable to whom?

Things don't have intrinsic value, but things each thing has a different value to every person and situation. If things had the same value to everybody, trade wouldn't work.

If you buy an item priced 2$ for example, you think you're getting a good deal because if you had to make that item yourself it would cost you 3$. To the shop the item cost only 1$ so they think they are getting a good deal selling it to you for 2$. So after the deal, you are 1$ better off and the shop is also 1$ better off, and society as a whole has gained 2$ without anything new necessarily being made and without anybody getting any poorer but by things just being rearranged by voluntary agreement. This is how capitalism creates wealth. It's a mistake to assume there is necessarily a zero sum game, or that anything is intrinsically more valuable than anything else.

	Quote:	amogles
	Valuable to whom? e.

Exactly.


Things might not but we are talking people, skills, knowledge, services.

Like I said, find a definition of value that does not discriminate or marginalize. Doesn't work.


Re dementia/alzheimer's the majority of the costs aren't, I believe, in front line services. A lot of the care costs have to be borne privately.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	amogles
	Valuable to whom? Things don't have intrinsic value, but things each thing has a different value to every person and situation. If things had the same value to everybody, trade wouldn't work. If you buy an item priced 2$ for example, you think you're getting a good deal because if you had to make that item yourself it would cost you 3$. To the shop the item cost only 1$ so they think they are getting a good deal selling it to you for 2$. So after the deal, you are 1$ better off and the shop is also 1$ better off, and society as a whole has gained 2$ without anything new necessarily being made and without anybody getting any poorer but by things just being rearranged by voluntary agreement. This is how capitalism creates wealth. It's a mistake to assume there is necessarily a zero sum game, or that anything is intrinsically more valuable than anything else.

That's how an economy works but not how a society works. In a society, everybody needs to contribute to make it work.

	Quote:	k_and_e
	That's how an economy works but not how a society works. In a society, everybody needs to contribute to make it work.

Not really true, is it? There will always be people unable to work, whether through disability, ill health, aging or even because there aren't enough jobs for everyone.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:
	Not really true, is it? There will always be people unable to work, whether through disability, ill health, aging or even because there aren't enough jobs for everyone.

Yes, of course, but there is a difference between not being able to contribute or not willing to contribute.

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Yes, of course, but there is a difference between not being able to contribute or not willing to contribute.

Depends, doesn't it? Are you talking economically or morally?

Certainly, they are both equally non-contributory in FMF's tax based merit system, so presumably equally valueless.

	Quote:
	Depends, doesn't it? Are you talking economically or morally? Certainly, they are both equally non-contributory in FMF's tax based merit system, so presumably equally valueless.

Which would then put a higher "value" on those who pay the most tax. 2% of the earners having the majority say over society. Not viable.

	Quote:
	Which would then put a higher "value" on those who pay the most tax. 2% of the earners having the majority say over society. Not viable.

As opposed to the 0.0001% who have the say now? #cynical

	Quote:
	As opposed to the 0.0001% who have the say now? #cynical

Indeed, but we're still trying to iron out "value", no?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Find a definition of value that doesn't discriminate or marginalize.

Why is discrimination a problem in this instance, it's based on success, just as exam results discriminate.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Why is discrimination a problem in this instance, it's based on success, just as exam results discriminate.

No, it is based on earnings.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Why is discrimination a problem in this instance, it's based on success, just as exam results discriminate.

Because the notion of "value" can not just be based on amount of tax paid, in this hypothetic situation, it's discriminatory.


Why/how, in your view, do exam results discriminate?

How are taxes paid link to success unless there is only a very narrow definition of success which is purely fiscal. Which brings us back to the question of how value is defined.

[Belgianmum]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Why is discrimination a problem in this instance, it's based on success, just as exam results discriminate.

Define success.

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Why is discrimination a problem in this instance, it's based on success, just as exam results discriminate.

Successful people usually find a way to pay very low taxes!

	Quote:	Belgianmum
	Define success.

Checkmate.

	Quote:	marton
	People who are paid a lot in certain fields and who have flexible morals usually find someone who can help them pay very low taxes!

Fixed that for you

[Ace1]

	Quote:
	Why/how, in your view, do exam results discriminate?

They're the very definition of discrimination. They allow a future employer or educator to discriminate in favour of those who have achieved better exam results.

There's a tendency to believe that any discrimination is bad, but it's always with us. Discriminating based on irrational grounds like gender or race is now seen as bad (quite rightly, but it was not always so) but there are still may areas where discrimination based on ability or other factors is not only acceptable but absolutely essential.

How does this work?

[greenmount]

	Quote:	marton
	Successful people usually find a way to pay very low taxes!

Sometimes by just moving to another country....

Not always necessarily "tricky". Or half/semi-moral.

	Quote:	Ace1
	there are still may areas where discrimination based on ability or other factors is not only acceptable but absolutely essential.

And how we wish the forum was one of them