Quote:

Original post by BeanDog Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes When those that have are prospering and still want a handout, then no. I'm confused. Are you advocating taxing the rich until they are no longer prospering? Lobotomizing them so that they don't want to keep more of their own money? How are you confused? Are you selectively choosing what words you want to see?! You're prospering? Great. You need a handout? Fine. But you're prospering AND you want a handout? No. By "handout," you mean, "taking away less of their money by force?"

By "taking away less of their money by force?" you mean tax-reduction?

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: (2) More equal taxation leads to an increase of wealth inequality, which will work against your own interests (unless you happen to belong to the top 2% or so as far as income and/or wealth is concerned). SO WHAT?! as long as I can make a decent living why the hell do I care what the richest people in the world are doing?

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that people in more equal societies are, in general, better off than people in unequal societies, across all layers of society? And I'm not talking about how much money you have. I'm talking about how well you and the rich are doing in terms of health, security, and other indicators of well-being.

Quote:

Source: Guardian Another day, another headline: today obesity, tomorrow teenage pregnancy, the day after crime figures. Social problems operate a revolving-door policy these days. As soon as one goes away, another turns up. For the most part, these problems are regarded as entirely separate from each other. Obesity is a health issue, crime a policing issue and so on. So the government launches new initiatives here, there and everywhere, builds new hospitals, puts more money into the police and prisons. And there's little real hope of improvement. Until now, maybe. Quietly spoken, late middle-aged and quintessentially English, Richard Wilkinson is the last person you would expect to come up with a sweeping theory of everything. Yet that's precisely what this retired professor from Nottingham medical school, in collaboration with his partner, Kate Pickett, a lecturer at the University of York, has done. The opening sentence of their new book, The Spirit Level, cautions, "People usually exaggerate the importance of their own work and we worry about claiming too much" - yet by the time you reach the end you wonder how they could have claimed any more. After all, they argue that almost every social problem common in developed societies - reduced life expectancy, child mortality, drugs, crime, homicide rates, mental illness and obesity - has a single root cause: inequality. And, they say, it's not just the deprived underclass that loses out in an unequal society: everyone does, even the better off. Because it's not absolute levels of poverty that create the social problems, but the differentials in income between rich and poor. Just as someone from the lowest-earning 20% of a more equal society is more likely to live longer than their counterpart from a less equal society, so too someone from the highest-earning 20% has a longer life expectancy than their alter ego in a less equal society. Take these random headline statistics. The US is wealthier and spends more on health care than any other country, yet a baby born in Greece, where average income levels are about half that of the US, has a lower risk of infant mortality and longer life expectancy than an American baby. Obesity is twice as common in the UK as the more equal societies of Sweden and Norway, and six times more common in the US than in Japan. Teenage birth rates are six times higher in the UK than in more equal societies; mental illness is three times as common in the US as in Japan; murder rates are three times higher in more unequal countries. The examples are almost endless. Inequality, it seems, is an equal-opportunity disease, something that has a direct impact on everyone. ... The spark for The Spirit Level came five years ago when extensive data first became available from the World Bank, and he realised that the phenomenon he had observed within his field - that health was driven by relative difference rather than absolute material standards - applied in other areas of social policy. "It became clear," Wilkinson says, "that countries such as the US, the UK and Portugal, where the top 20% earn seven, eight or nine times more than the lowest 20%, scored noticeably higher on all social problems at every level of society than in countries such as Sweden and Japan, where the differential is only two or three times higher at the top." The statistics came from the World Bank's list of 50 richest countries, but Wilkinson suggests their conclusions apply more broadly. To ensure their findings weren't explainable by cultural differences, they analysed the data from all 50 US states and found the same pattern. In states where income differentials were greatest, so were the social problems and lack of cohesion. Two things immediately became clear to Wilkinson. "While I'd always assumed that an equal society must score better on social cohesion," he says, "I'd always imagined you could only observe a noticeable effect in some kind of utopia. I never expected to find such clear differences between existing market economies." ...

Quote:

Original post by Antheus Hush, peon. Go back to work.

Ya, well, you know, that's like, your opinion, man. :P

Also, what's a peon? It sounds dirty :D

And seriously, you guys have no sympathy for rich guys? Now it's 2%, tomorrow it's 2.015%, when will it stop? It's the principle of the thing!

Quote:

Original post by Prefect Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: (2) More equal taxation leads to an increase of wealth inequality, which will work against your own interests (unless you happen to belong to the top 2% or so as far as income and/or wealth is concerned). SO WHAT?! as long as I can make a decent living why the hell do I care what the richest people in the world are doing? Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that people in more equal societies are, in general, better off than people in unequal societies, across all layers of society? And I'm not talking about how much money you have. I'm talking about how well you and the rich are doing in terms of health, security, and other indicators of well-being.

I seriously question how comparing the living situation in sweden and japan is comparable to the US. We have a significantly larger land size and a significantly larger population than both. Things that might apply easily to their society/culture simply do not apply here. If the federal government were smaller and the state governments larger, as it should be if the government were to get larger at all, then things might apply, but to my knowledge there is no country that has to cover such cultural or economic diversity save perhaps china. Even accounting for the climate zones that the US covers has a huge impact on what should and shouldn't be passed at a federal vs state level.

just using sweden and japan america has almost twice the population of either, almost 20 times the land mass of either, and a population density almost half of sweden and almost a tenth of japan. I can't tell from the wikipedia, but japan has an overwhelming majority in the japanese ethnic group and sweden has a huge amount of swedes (99% and 95% respectively). As far as I can tell the largest ethnic group in the US is germans which stands at 15%.

Not to mention that japan consistently scores better than the US in it's education system.

Quote:

How are you confused? Are you selectively choosing what words you want to see?! You're prospering? Great. You need a handout? Fine. But you're prospering AND you want a handout? No.

how is a tax cut when you already pay more money than everyone else that results in you still paying more money than everyone else a handout?

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that people in more equal societies are, in general, better off than people in unequal societies, across all layers of society? And I'm not talking about how much money you have. I'm talking about how well you and the rich are doing in terms of health, security, and other indicators of well-being. I seriously question how comparing the living situation in sweden and japan is comparable to the US.

Obviously, some care must be taken when comparing different situations. But the idea that it is impossible to compare them just because of XYZ is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Perhaps you just don't have a very good grasp of statistics?

Quote:

We have a significantly larger land size and a significantly larger population than both. ... just using sweden and japan america has almost twice the population of either, almost 20 times the land mass of either, and a population density almost half of sweden and almost a tenth of japan. I can't tell from the wikipedia, but japan has an overwhelming majority in the japanese ethnic group and sweden has a huge amount of swedes (99% and 95% respectively). As far as I can tell the largest ethnic group in the US is germans which stands at 15%.

The US has more than twice the population of either, significantly so in the case of Sweden. It seems to me that you're not really basing your thoughts on good data.

Besides, the size of the population is irrelevant anyway. The correlation that the authors observed also holds between different European countries of similar size, for example. It also holds between different US states, by the way. There is exactly zero evidence that this type of correlation behaves differently depending on the total size of the population.

May I ask why you believe that the size of the population could possibly influence such correlations?

Quote:

Not to mention that japan consistently scores better than the US in it's education system.

This argument coming from you is rather amusing. After all, the difference in wealth distribution might be the cause of Japan scoring better in education. The greater success of Japan in education could be used as an argument in favour of fighting wealth inequality in the US. (From what I know, such a causal relationship cannot necessarily be concluded from the work of Pickett and Wilkinson, but their results do strongly suggest that the possibility must be considered.)

Really, if you want to question the validity of the correlation between wealth inequality and social problems, you'll have to do better than that.

Quote:

Original post by PrefectThe US has more than twice the population of either, significantly so in the case of Sweden. It seems to me that you're not really basing your thoughts on good data.

Sorry I misread the population of japan. I'm sorry I don't have the entire CIA factbook memorized. I was unaware that that was a necessity to participate in discussion, but thank you for making my claims even more sound.

Quote:

May I ask why you believe that the size of the population could possibly influence such correlations?

at my current apartment, population of 3, we have 0 social problems. In the city where I currently reside, we have multiple. Population has a drastic impact on social problems. There. I have given a correlation between population size and social problems.

You completely ignored the ethnic, economic, climate, and cultural diversity that neither sweden nor japan have in comparison to the US.

Quote:

Really, if you want to question the validity of the correlation between wealth inequality and social problems, you'll have to do better than that.

burden of proof is on you not on me. It's your responsibility to prove causation in the correlation if you're going to argue it.

Quote:

to give an example, Bill Gates has donated a large portion of his wealth through the B&MG foundation. Does he really care if he donates 35 billion dollars 35.35 billion, probably not, but that's $35,000,000 that is now not going to charity for FAR better causes than the government will ever use them for.

Eh, let's not drag Bill Gates into this, the guy is a multi-billionaire and he's smart enough to figure out that he has no use for all this money and he can decide how to use it better than the state. And in any case, no matter how much you tax him, he's still almost as rich.

Somehow I don't think the above-250K middle class think like this...they're probably too busy buing vintage dresses for their gfs...here you have them getting asked to increase their taxes by 2%(leaving them again with a very VERY comfortable paycheck) so the less fortunate can get better healthcare, and they have all sorts of reasons on why they shouldn't do that, not because, you know, they're egotistical, but, you know, for the greater good.

Of course, you can say I'm thinking like that because I'm in the below-10K-ayear range and just spiteful, so, you know, yeah...

Hey, maybe all the single mothers of the US and A should plan some health-turism in Cuba or something, leave some $$$ there too....? Just saying...

P.S. Oh, you know my point I think wasn't clear. Is this clearer?

POOR CHILDREN ARE DYING IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD AND YOURE ALL LIKE "WHAT DOES THAT INTERESTS ME???!! I WANT MY HARD-EARNED DOLLLLLARSSSS AND WONT GIVE THEM TO THE GOVERMENT WE VOTED BECAUSE THEY CORRUPTTTEEDDD"

Ooooooh, was that cheesy?

God damn it you know, Mith is right, and not just about US politics.

P.S.2. However, there is something cheerful in this...Imagine the situation where the "republican, well-respected citizen above 250K" is getting treated in a fancy hospital, and responsible for his care at nights is the "black, single mother who should just shut up and stop asking for handouts".

I, for one, find that hilarious.

[Edited by - mikeman on December 18, 2010 10:05:12 AM]

Quote:

Original post by mikeman POOR CHILDREN ARE DYING IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD AND YOURE ALL LIKE "WHAT DOES THAT INTERESTS ME???!! I WANT MY HARD-EARNED DOLLLLLARSSSS AND WONT GIVE THEM TO THE GOVERMENT WE VOTED BECAUSE THEY CORRUPTTTEEDDD" Ooooooh, was that cheesy? God damn it you know, Mith is right, and not just about US politics. P.S.2. However, there is something cheerful in this...Imagine the situation where the "republican, well-respected citizen above 250K" is getting treated in a fancy hospital, and responsible for his care at nights is the "black, single mother who should just shut up and stop asking for handouts". I, for one, find that hilarious.

Dude. I've given plenty of time to homeless shelters and food banks. I donate to the salvation army almost every time I go to the grocery store if I have any change on me, I even buy extra food when I get fast food to give to the homeless people on my walk home.

I am not insensitive to the plight of the poor. That is entirely erroneous. It is not the place of the government to force people to be charitable. These tax cuts don't, and probably never will, apply to me. That doesn't make them right.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Dude. I've given plenty of time to homeless shelters and food banks. I donate to the salvation army almost every time I go to the grocery store if I have any change on me, I even buy extra food when I get fast food to give to the homeless people on my walk home. I am not insensitive to the plight of the poor. That is entirely erroneous. It is not the place of the government to force people to be charitable. These tax cuts don't, and probably never will, apply to me. That doesn't make them right.

way2lazy2care, I did not imply you were in the slightest. I was angry at the time I wrote the post, because, from my pov, I see this things happening every day. This is entirely my view, and it has an emotional factor in it.

However, this has nothing to do with charity. I do not believe in the poor surviving with crumbles falling from the table. This is the working class we are talking about, or about mothers raising children which will comprise the working class. All that is, I don't know, expendable? Something we hide under the carpet? These people work, and they work hard. Having to beg the upper classes for something as vital as better health care is, for me at least, unacceptable. What can I say, I'm not an expert at economics, but from the chaos I see these last years, I don't think we ought to have much faith in the "experts" anyway.

So, again, it's not about "charity", it's about justice on all levels, and the state enforcing the constitution and human rights. You work? You deserve decent quality of living. You deserve not to live in constant agony whether or not your kid will make it this week, or watching your little boy being shorter than everyone else because you don't have enough milk(and yes, I have people close to me with that exact situation). If that means some fancy cars and diamonds and furs and fashion items and plasma TVs have to be sucrificed, so be it.

So again, this fallacy; taxing the rich==forcing charity has to stop. It's not like that. At least I don't think it is. You can do your charity, nobody is stopping you, but human and children rights are non negotiable. So, ok, let's not tax the rich; right? let's just increase the minimal wage siginificantly so the lower classes can have quality life anyway, will the upper classes go for that or again find some other reasons why will that(again) crash the economy?(geez, the economy must be something hacked in perl in 2 weeks to crash so often).

Sometimes I can't believe some people(not you, but me included, all of us), how they can stand being all self-content when they know what's happening underneath. Or they forget that any given day they might end up underneath too?

Oops, emotional again I guess.

jesus christ man. The way you describe it I'm surprised the working class doesn't wake up in the morning pause for a moment before committing suicide. the working class in america isn't THAT fucking bad.