Taxation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words - 3

Taxation - Essay Example The Australian taxation of capital gains has been aligned with the international norms.1 A half of the capital gains that individuals realize on assets they have held for twelve months and more, the effective tax rate is half the rate charged on other forms of incomes. The different events or transactions that give rise to either a capital loss or capital gains are called capital gains tax events. A full gamut of these events exist, and some of them frequently occur and affect many individuals while others are not common and affect few individuals.2 The knowledge of the various types of capital gains tax events is imperative since it influences how an individual works out his or her capital gains or capital losses. In addition, it affects the timing of such capital losses or capital gains. In case there is the occurrence of more than one capital gains tax events, the one used is one that that is most specific to the situation.3 Therefore, among the capital gains tax events are: the destruction or loss, which may be involuntary or voluntary, of an asset; cancellation, redemption or surrender of shares; the disposal of depreciating assets that are wholly or partly used for private purposes; where an individual ceases to be a resident of Australia; w hen an entity enters into a conservation covenant; making of payments by a company to a shareholder; where financial instruments are declared to be worthless by a liquidator; where an individual makes a contract to stop working in a given sector for some agreed upon the period; where a trustee makes a non-assessable payment; compensation payment; and making payments to a business by a local council after destruction of its assets. However, it should be noted that subdivision of land does not give rise to a capital gains tax event but a sale of any of the subdivision gives rise to a capital gains tax event4. The benefits made give rise to a capital gains tax event. When capital gains are made from compensation made

Broken Dreams of the Soviet Times Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Broken Dreams of the Soviet Times - Essay Example I was able to complete my secondary education in 1977 with an average grade of 4.95 (maximum 5). This grade fuelled my desire of fulfilling my childhood dream of becoming a fighter pilot. My eagerness made me feel that I am well-prepared and competitive for the education perspective. In the spring of 1977, I applied at The Chernigov Aviation High School. It was a tough experience; I had to undergo a rigorous medical examination and entry exams against 200 applicants. But I failed. I did not pass the last and very simple medical test. The surgeon pointed out that my x-shaped legs are unfit for someone who is privileged to serve as an Officer of the Soviet Military Aviation Force. The disappointment had put me off for a while but my ambition to fly prevailed. I enrolled at the Buguruslan Pilot School. In 1980, I finished the course obtaining a Lieutenant Military Rank, a diploma and a Civil Pilot License. The same year I passed entry exams at the Kiev Institute of Civil Aviation, but l eft it in 1981 upon completion of one school year. I felt that it was impossible to combine my high intensity flying job with such a demanding study. In 1985, I broke through the toughest possible in the USSR competition. I got the chance to study at the Moscow State Institute of International Affairs. However, I was expelled in the next year for speaking up my political views. I left Russia by the end of the ‘80s and had to start everything from the very beginning.

Joseph Stalin Essay Example for Free

Joseph Stalin Essay One man that has gone down is history as one of the most cold-hearted, ruthless killers goes by the name of Joseph Stalin. Stalin, originally born with the name Iosif Dzhugashvili, was born in Gori, Georgia on December 21st 1879. At the time, the town where Iosif Dzhugashvili was born and raised was plagued by a lot of street violence. After demonstrating his devious way of thinking and his will to come to absolute power, Iosif Dzhugashvili eventually adopted the nickname â€Å"Stalin† from the Russian word â€Å"steel†. Once he received his new nickname, he used it as a pseudonym in his published works. Many do not know the story of Stalin’s younger years and the effect it had to the way he carried himself as a dictator. After careful speculation, it is clear to see that the future dictator and killer was very coldhearted from a very young age. From a very young age, Joseph Stalin was subjected to a lot of violence. Some of the most prominent violent events that affected the young boy started with his mother. Ekaterina Shubnaya in her piece â€Å"Prominent Russians: Joseph Stalin† states that â€Å"Some sources, however, claim that, as a strict and religious woman, she frequently resorted to physical punishment, which she believed was an integral part of child rearing. Stalin’s relationship with his mother was strained and he didn’t even attend her funeral in 1937† (1). Here, we see that violence was a natural way of Stalin’s mother to raise the youngest son of her 4 children. She would have never thought that this violence would have led her son to become one of the most violent human beings to ever live. The psychological effects of violence that Joseph Stalin went through from a young age followed him for the rest of his life. After further research, it is seen that even as a young boy, Joseph Stalin felt very lonely and unloved. The reason for this was because even his father, caused him pain psychologically and physically. Ekaterina Shubnaya continues by explaining that â€Å"Josephs father, Vissarion, a shoemaker, was heavily addicted to drinking and had a drunken habit of beating up his wife and son. Stalin recalled getting so mad at his father that he once almost killed him by throwing a knife at him† (1). His rough childhood only continued when at the age of twelve, two horse-drawn carriage accidents left his left arm permanently damaged. At the time, Joseph also caught small pox which left his face permanently scarred. The scarring on his face was a source of ridicule by the other children. As Joseph Stalin got older, he rose to power thanks to a man named Lenin. Lenin lead the Russian Communists to power in November 1917 and remained in power. With the help of Lenin, Joseph Stalin began to act ruthless and careless of others. When Lenin became too sick to lead the country in a proper way, Stalin took over and went against Lenin’s ideas and ways of leading. Noticing that Stalin wasn’t showing the characteristics of a loyal and respectful leader, Lenin wrote a testament in which he stated that he suggested Stalin be removed. John Simkin, in his piece â€Å"Joseph Stalin† shares the testament written by Lenin. It states â€Å"Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated enormous power in his hands: and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. I therefore propose to our comrades to consider a means of removing Stalin from this post and appointing someone else who differs from Stalin in one weighty respect: being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, more considerate of his comrades(2). However, Lenin died before any actual could be taken and Joseph Stalin became the new leader of the Soviet Union. Now as the leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin became very paranoid and did not trust anyone. He went against anyone that disagreed with him and had them executed. He executed journalists, and anyone else who had contact with him and who he disliked. Leon Trotsky was a man of a lot of power in the Soviet Union but Stalin made him step down from his position to gain even more power. John Simkin tells us that â€Å"In 1936 Nickolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Krestinsky and Christian Rakovsky were arrested and accused of being involved with Leon Trotsky in a plot against Stalin. They were all found guilty and were eventually executed† (3). The execution of these people and of many others was clear evidence that Joseph Stalin was killing people not because they were committing crimes or doing anything bad, but because he personally didn’t trust them and killed them from pure intuition and impulse. The absurd truth about Joseph Stalin is that he killed his own people. He killed people in his own country and in his own government. The people that helped him rise to power were the people he did not trust and who he had executed or made to disappear without any explanation given. John Simkin explains to us that â€Å"In June, 1937, Mikhail Tukhachevsky and seven other top Red Army commanders were charged with conspiracy with Germany. All eight were convicted and executed. All told, 30,000 members of the armed forces were executed. This included fifty per cent of all army officers† (3). With all these executions, people lived fearful of Stalin and did not dare test his patience. The violence against his own people is direct evidence of the psychological effects that the beatings from his parents had on Stalin. Since the people who supposedly loved him, beat him, it became second nature for Joseph Stalin to do the same with the people of his country when he rose to power. It is said that Joseph Stalin has killed over 20 million people during the time of dictatorship but there were even more killed during World War II. Palash Ghosh in her piece â€Å"How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill? † writes that â€Å"an amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster’s mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life†(1). There were another 20 million people killed during World War II amounting to a total of 40 million Soviet troops and civilians killed. The ruthlessness Joseph Stalin showed had become vividly present with his own family. Stalin had a son named Yakov who was an artillery lieutenant in the 14th Howitzer Regiment of the 14th Armored Division. Yakov refused to withdraw when German forces overran his men near Smolensk. Stalin had the expectation that no Soviet soldier was expected to be captured. He preferred his troops to commit suicide than to be captured by the opponent. This rule also applied to his son, who was captured. Brenda Haugen, writer of â€Å"Joseph Stalin Dictator of the Soviet Union† describes that â€Å"German authorities proposed a trade. They expected the Soviet leader would welcome his son’s return. A message was sent to Stalin that said the Germans would release Yakov if the Soviets freed a German officer. Stalin refused. ‘I cannot do it,’ Stalin said. ’War is war’†(11). This decision cost Yakov his life who was later believed to be killed or may have commited suicide. He died in April 1943 after running into an electric fence surrounding the camp where he was held. It is said that Joseph Stalin never felt any remorse for his son’s death and told people he had no son named Yakov. It is a clear indication that Stalin didn’t have a special bond with his family or any type of value for human life in itself. It seems that Stalin grew to be a coldhearted man who didn’t value anyone but himself. Brenda Haugen continues by stating that â€Å"In times of war, most leaders would find it difficult to justify offering special treatment to their own children. How could they spare their own childrens lives while others died fighting for the same cause? But Stalin was different than other leaders of his time. Not only did he refuse to provide special treatment to his family, he also didn’t value human life†(11). The ruthlessness of Stalin is astonishing that he would let his son be killed without any type of remorse. There’s an old saying that says that family comes first but this saying doesn’t seem to apply to Joseph Stalin’s way of thinking. Even though Stalin was one of the most well-known villains in history, he was still a very mysterious man. There is very little known about his childhood and his family. The records that have been recorded are not concrete because as Stalin gained power, he had the tendency to make things be the way he wanted them to be and no one could question him. This being said, some facts of his life seem to be produced by his fictional events created by him and not what may have really happened. Scott Ingram writes in his piece â€Å"Historys Villains Joseph Stalin† that â€Å" Another reason Stalin’s life remains shadowy is that he ordered his biography to be rewritten several times. With each of these rewrites, older records were destroyed. The more powerful Stalin became, the more he was able to take credit for things he had not done. His Communist biographers were forced to revise twentieth-century Russian history books to go along with Stalin’s orders. The aim was to present to the world the most flawless possible account of the great leader†(8). These lies brainwashed people into thinking that Stalin was a different person than who he really was. He made people see him as a perfect leader and not as a person who was killing the people that supported him. In conclusion, it is very easy to see that Stalin was influenced by his childhood experiences to become the person he was. The ruthless leader took the experience of the beatings his parents gave him and in a way beat his own country when he rose to power. He was and still is the most ruthless leather to ever live. He used fear to keep people controlled and to make people do exactly what he wanted them to do. He had people in such fear that before every speech, people were afraid to be the first to stop clapping because they’d be killed. The audience would clap for over 10 minutes in fear of being the first one to stop. This type of control is what let Joseph Stalin do anything he wanted without having anyone tell him it is wrong or to stop him from doing it. During his last days, he fell into a comma and in his last moments, in an attempt to keep living, he cursed everyone near his death bed and finally died. Joseph Stalin was a ruthless dictator and human being who had no type of remorse for anything he ever did.

Problems with Act Utilitarianism

Problems with Act Utilitarianism According to act utilitarianism, the measure of the value of an act is the amount by which it increases happiness to a person. If the act produces much happiness as compared to any other act then the act is morally right. To understand the term act utilitarianism, compare the consequences of doing a charity work and the consequences of watching TV at home. A person can generate more happiness by doing charity work as compared to watching TV. In this situation according to act utilitarianism, the right thing for a person is to do charity work as compared to watching TV because charity work will generate more happiness. Problem with Act utilitarianism Though there is some criticism on this theory because for some people the act of torturing and enslavement is a source of happiness and this theory allows these act morally. This act according to some critics justifies crime. Another issue about this act is that how will the happiness be calculated. This is always difficult to find out that which act will generate more happiness. Rule utilitarianism Rule utilitarianismÂÂ  is a form ofÂÂ  utilitarianismÂÂ  that says an action is correct only if it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good and generates happiness. For rule utilitarians, the amount of good brought about when followed determines its rightness. ÂÂ  Rule utilitarians argue that following some rules leads to the greatest good will, and this will have have better consequences overall. Problem with rule utilitarianism In some cases ÂÂ  breaking the rule produces more utility so people tend to break rules. In this case sub-rules should be added that can handle such cases. Difference between Act utilitarianism and Rule utilitarianism These two forms of utilitarianism differ from each other. Act utilitarianism is based on consequences while rule utilitarianism is based on rules. Act utilitarianism sees the consequence of an action in itself whereas rule utilitarianism sees the consequences as if it will be repeated all over again. Act utilitarianism before choosing an act first looks into the consequences then the one with the better consequence is selected while rule utilitarianism looks first into the consequences of choosing what rule to follow. The more correct choice is the rule that generates the greatest utility or happiness. According to the theories, act utilitarianism is the belief that it is correct to break a rule as long as it brings a greater good and happiness, while Rule utilitarianism is a belief that even if a rule does not bring a greater good, breaking it will not bring a good either. In Act Utilitarianism the value of an action is not judged in terms of laws. Instead it states that when the actions benefit the most people they are moral. For example, a person might say it is moral to murder someone if they are a danger to society. even though the law is present against murder. Rule utilitarianism states that an action is correct only in reference to a rule. It measures the amount of good an individual action does by acting according to a law. For example, taking the same example of murder, a person might say ÂÂ  Murder is wrong according to the law and if everyone follows the law, no one will have to be afraid of being murdered and we can be in public and private spaces without any fear. Conclusion Act utilitarianism states that an act is correct if the act produces much happiness as compared to any other act. Act utilitarianism sees the consequence of an action in itself . There is some criticism on this theory because for some people the act of torturing and enslavement is a source of happiness and this theory allows these act morally. Rule utilitarianismÂÂ  is a form ofÂÂ  utilitarianismÂÂ  that says an action is correct only if it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good and generates happiness. There is some criticism on this theory because in some cases ÂÂ  breaking the rule produces more utility so people tend to break rules. The difference between these two acts is that act utilitarianism sees the consequence of an action in itself whereas rule utilitarianism sees the consequences as if it will be repeated all over again. Act utilitarianism is the belief that it is correct to break a rule as long as it brings a greater good and happiness, while Rule utilitarianism is a belief that even if a rule does not bring a greater good, breaking it will not bring a good either.

King Lear :: Literary Analysis, Shakespeare

â€Å"...the error of age is to believe that experience is a substitute for intelligence.† (Lyman Bryson) In the play King Lear by William Shakespeare, such an idea is explored. Lear is a King who is physically aged but as the play progresses, it becomes clear that he lacks the intelligence which usually accompanies it. The play is set in a time where the King was equal to God himself, he was set apart from the common man as somewhat of a transcended being. Shakespeare breaks this unspoken relationship through the events of his play. Lear’s rash decision to banish his loving daughter Cordelia and hand total power of his kingdom over to two his uncaring daughters, Goneril and Regan sets of a chain of events which send him on a downward spiral to become the basest of human beings. Shakespeare uses the characters of the Fool, Cordelia, Kent and Goneril as well as irony, foreshadowing, and diction to portray Lear as nothing more than an unseeing old human being. The Fool is a character in the play who is the embodiment of Lear’s conscience and through him, the audience is able to witness the folly of the King. His name bears quite a significant irony as throughout the play it is made apparent that it is the Fool who is the wiser. He states that, â€Å"this fellow banished two on’s daughters, and did the third a blessing against his will† (1,4,101-103) The Fool lays bare the folly Lear in not recognising the worth of a true daughter yet through his foolish act, he has done Cordelia good. In a way this irony of the Fool foreshows the future judgement of this judgemental monarch. In the play it is Cordelia who is banished and the other two who have blessings poured on them, but the Fool provides the audience with a different perspective on this matter; one, which is increasingly unapparent to the ailing King who is quick to continue his living in denial, stating that, â€Å"[All] This is nothing, Fool† (1,4 127) Shak espeare’s placement of the Fools as Lear’s conscience allows the audience to feel the emotions which the king should be experiencing. In the event of Cordelia’s banishing â€Å"the Fool hath much pinned away† (1,4,71-72) Shakespeare shows the Fool’s sadness to contrast with the apparent lack of some in the King. This also evokes audience empathy. Through the Fool Shakespeare is able to convey to the reader the apparent folly of a vain King and the enormity of his folly.

grendelbeo Epic of Beowulf Essay - The Evil of Grendel -- Epic Beowul

The Evil of Grendel in Beowulf The story of Beowulf, written during Anglo-Saxon times, is a classic epic tale between good versus evil.   It is a story that gives us insight into the values of the Anglo-Saxon people.   The Anglo-Saxons glorified heroism and the conquering of evil.   In the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf, the character of Grendel symbolically represents evil through his setting and heritage, his hateful attitude toward men, and his vicious acts of murder. Grendel's heritage and setting are two things that attribute to Grendel's evilness.   In the story the author tells us that Grendel was a descendant of Cain(the son of Adam and Eve, who was cursed by God for killing his brother Abel).   The poet writes, "Conceived by a pair of those monsters born of Cain"(line 42-43).   The author makes the connection between the murderous Cain and the evil Grendel.   Even Grendel's lair is a pit of slime and filth.   "Grendel, who haunted the moors, the wild marshes, and made his home in a hell not hell but Earth.   He was spawned in that slime"(lines 39-41).   When the author uses lines like, "in a hell not hell but Earth"(line 40), it really helps to create this vivid image in your mind of this terrible lair that Grendel lives in.   He not only lives in the swamp, but also thrives in the darkness of the night.   "Out from the marsh, from the foot of misty hills and bogs, bearing God's hatred, Grendel came, ...He moved quickly through the cloudy night, ...his eyes gleamed in the darkness, burned with a gruesome light"(lines 363-367;378-380).   The poet shows how Grendel travels in the darkness of the night.   The night is used to symbolically represent evil.   The poet's descriptions of Grendel's evil and dark enviro... ...out legends, and that is why the story has survived through the ages.   It tells us of a powerful, terribly evil monster.   The descriptions of Grendel are so scary and evil that we can all draw our own vivid picture of him in our mind.   This monster represents all of the evil in the world, and the hero of the story represents everything good in the world. The story has survived because it is a story about good versus evil.   It is a story that we can relate to even now in modern times. Sources Clark, George. Beowulf. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990. Fry, Donald K. "Introduction: The Artistry of Beowulf." In TheBeowulf Poet, edited by Donald K. fry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. Robinson, Fred C. "Grendel's Evil." In Beowulf - Modern Critical Interpretations, edited by Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.

catcher in the rye Essay -- essays research papers fc

Hello, is Salinger There?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  J. D. Salinger’s only published full-length novel, The Catcher in the Rye, has become one of the most enduring classics of American literature. The novel’s story is told in retrospect by the main character, Holden Caulfield, while staying in a psychiatric hospital in California. This is a coming of age tale that is wrought with irony. Holden Caulfield, Mr. Antolini, and Phoebe are the main symbols of irony.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first and most obvious subject of irony is the novel’s protagonist, Holden Caulfield. His hatred for anything â€Å"phony† is ironic because he to is deceitful. He is constantly performing by taking a new identity for each new situation he is in. For example, in the train scene he makes up stories about one of his classmates in order to delight his classmate’s mother. He not only initiates a new identity for himself, but he also spawns a whole new fictional account of life at Pencey Prep. He even admits that he is an impressive liar. Because of his hatred for anything artificial, he searches for something real. In his naà ¯ve and desperate way he is searching for anything which is innocent and sincere (Parker 300). He fantasizes about removing himself from society and becoming a reclusive deaf mute. Regardless of his independent personality, he clearly demonstrates how severely he needs companionship. His thoughts are always of his sister , Jane Gallagher, and additional people. Another fantasy of Holden’s is to be the â€Å"catcher† of children’s innocence. Holden’s fantasy elaborates his obsession with innocence and his perhaps surprisingly moral code (Walters 1009). However, it is clear that his real desire is to be salvaged from the emptiness of his negativism. This is realized when he telephones Mr. Antolini and when he admits that he almost hopes that his parents will catch him as he sneaks out of the apartment. The Catcher, in fact, wants to be caught, the saviour saved (Engle 45).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Mr. Antolini is the subject of irony because he is actually a â€Å"catcher,† even though he is a different kind of catcher from the one Holden imagines. Holden believes that he has already fallen over the cliff into the dissatisfaction that automatically goes together with adulthood. He felt the world has let him slip trough the cracks alone and unassisted. Therefor... ... Holden states: â€Å"What really knocks me out is a book that, when you’re all done reading it, you wish the author who wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it† (Salinger 18). J.D. Salinger is not available for phone conversations, but generations of readers have felt that the book alone provides that kind of close connection with its author (Guinn). Works cited Engle, Steven, ed. â€Å"Symbolism in The Catcher in the Rye.† Readings on The Catcher in the Rye. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1998. 44-50. Guinn, Jeff. â€Å"Rye relevance 50 Years Ago.† Fort Worth Star Telegram. 5 August 2001. Parker, Peter, ed. â€Å"The Catcher in the Rye.† A readers Guide to the Twentieth Century Novel.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  New York: Oxford, 1995. 299-300. Rollins, Jill. â€Å"The Catcher in the Rye.† Cyclopedia of Literary characters Revised Edition.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ed. Magill, Frank M. Pasadena: Salem, 1998. Vol. 1. 301. Salinger, J. D. The Catcher in the Rye. Boston: Little, Brown, 1991. Walters, Gordon. â€Å"The Catcher in the Rye.† Masterplots Revised Second Edition. Ed. Magill, Frank N. Pasadena: Salem, 1996. Vol. 2. 1008-1009.