Wealth Distribution in the USA

donegal__road

Sleevoo wrote: »

Well thats retarded. The only real measure of happiness is how you feel. Perhaps that could be measured by the chemical comoposition in the brain.

which is true.. but I think the study was conducted to determine which country the average person would likely be happiest living in, without taking into account the person's level of serotonin.

K-9

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why do you assume the posters saying that poverty can have several sources and many means to escape it weren't poor themselves?

Yet there was an extensive study posted showing what countries are better at helping poor people advance in life, France, Italy, the US and UK don't do particularly well, Canada, Australia and Nordic countries do. Everybody wants to see disadvantaged people get on in life I'd hope, some countries give them a better chance at doing that than others.

I suppose some people are more interested in reading data, others just want to lump Europe into one self entity and disregard anything that goes against their beliefs.

We were immigrants, and that's back in the day when immigrants had nothing.

Nobody would ever question immigrants never did well, that's to be encouraged, sure the point of the thread is encouraging disadvantaged people as much as possible.

Right wingers will point to Steve Jobs and others as if that's some proof. Michael O'Leary and Ray McSharry didn't have that much education and did well for themselves from Ireland, even right wingers would agree with that.

That's just appeal to emotion though, nobody ever doubted there are inspirational examples of people making fortunes from nothing, no electricity, TV and walking to school barefoot!

Reports and studies gather evidence and look at what countries are best at helping the disadvantaged, and contrary to the American dream, the US doesn't seem that great at it anymore, it has lost its competitiveness there, to put it in right wing terms.

The US has lost competitiveness in many areas, why do right wingers find it so hard to believe that in the area of disadvantaged people, it has lost it too?

Amirani

K-9 wrote: »

Right wingers will point to Steve Jobs and others as if that's some proof. Michael O'Leary and Ray McSharry didn't have that much education and did well for themselves from Ireland, even right wingers would agree with that.

I agree with your point K-9, but I think you're being a bit harsh on Trinity suggesting Michael O'Leary "didn't have much education" having gone there.

clairefontaine

K-9 wrote: »

Yet there was an extensive study posted showing what countries are better at helping poor people advance in life, France, Italy, the US and UK don't do particularly well, Canada, Australia and Nordic countries do. Everybody wants to see disadvantaged people get on in life I'd hope, some countries give them a better chance at doing that than others.

I suppose some people are more interested in reading data, others just want to lump Europe into one self entity and disregard anything that goes against their beliefs.



Nobody would ever question immigrants never did well, that's to be encouraged, sure the point of the thread is encouraging disadvantaged people as much as possible.

Right wingers will point to Steve Jobs and others as if that's some proof. Michael O'Leary and Ray McSharry didn't have that much education and did well for themselves from Ireland, even right wingers would agree with that.

That's just appeal to emotion though, nobody ever doubted there are inspirational examples of people making fortunes from nothing, no electricity, TV and walking to school barefoot!

Reports and studies gather evidence and look at what countries are best at helping the disadvantaged, and contrary to the American dream, the US doesn't seem that great at it anymore, it has lost its competitiveness there, to put it in right wing terms.

The US has lost competitiveness in many areas, why do right wingers find it so hard to believe that in the area of disadvantaged people, it has lost it too?

I have a couple of my own theories about your last question.

1. Corporatism and dynasty building in DC.

2. The methods used to help the disadvantaged, ie affirmative action were applied arsedways. When it first started out it was racially instead of economically based.

That is if you subscribe to it at all. The US always had scholarships, always. But the idea that everyone should go to college is what has driven up the costs to enormous proportions and has made the BA pretty much meaningless.

3. The idea of "help". When you quote things about countries "helping the disadvantaged" I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What are the definitions of "disadvantaged" and what kind of help exactly? And does that refer to governments themselves or to its private citizens?

steddyeddy

clairefontaine wrote: »

I have a couple of my own theories about your last question.

1. Corporatism and dynasty building in DC.

2. The methods used to help the disadvantaged, ie affirmative action were applied arsedways. When it first started out it was racially instead of economically based.

That is if you subscribe to it at all. The US always had scholarships, always. But the idea that everyone should go to college is what has driven up the costs to enormous proportions and has made the BA pretty much meaningless.

3. The idea of "help". When you quote things about countries "helping the disadvantaged" I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What are the definitions of "disadvantaged" and what kind of help exactly? And does that refer to governments themselves or to its private citizens?

I agree with you that not everyone should go to college. However it's the middle classes who have the college entitlement mindset and not disadvantaed groups.

K-9

NiallSparky wrote: »

I agree with your point K-9, but I think you're being a bit harsh on Trinity suggesting Michael O'Leary "didn't have much education" having gone there.

Another number cruncher like myself! Ray McSharry was a better example, better not start eulogising him or I'll seem like a right wing fan boy!

clairefontaine wrote: »

I have a couple of my own theories about your last question.

1. Corporatism and dynasty building in DC.

Agreed, it's refreshing to see Corporatism included.

2. The methods used to help the disadvantaged, ie affirmative action were applied arsedways. When it first started out it was racially instead of economically based.

Agreed, mentioned similar about free third level fees here. The principle is correct but it mainly helped people who would have paid the fees anyway. The idea isn't wrong, the implementation needs to be more targeted.

That is if you subscribe to it at all. The US always had scholarships, always. But the idea that everyone should go to college is what has driven up the costs to enormous proportions and has made the BA pretty much meaningless.

Fair point. Numbers from disadvantaged areas have increased, but not the percentages, which leads to your point. Interesting topic on its own.

3. The idea of "help". When you quote things about countries "helping the disadvantaged" I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What are the definitions of "disadvantaged" and what kind of help exactly? And does that refer to governments themselves or to its private citizens?

It's in the report NiallSparkey quoted earlier today. It excluded Germany at times so they have some type of selection criteria. I'd assume when it refers to parental educational background it doesn't ask if that was got through public or private schooling.

April O Neill

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I doubt it, we have a progressive tax system where the top 10% of earners are paying 60% of the tax

More you earn the more you pay

Except VAT, which is regressive.

clairefontaine

K-9 wrote: »

Another number cruncher like myself! Ray McSharry was a better example, better not start eulogising him or I'll seem like a right wing fan boy!



Agreed, it's refreshing to see Corporatism included.



Agreed, mentioned similar about free third level fees here. The principle is correct but it mainly helped people who would have paid the fees anyway. The idea isn't wrong, the implementation needs to be more targeted.



Fair point. Numbers from disadvantaged areas have increased, but not the percentages, which leads to your point. Interesting topic on its own.



It's in the report NiallSparkey quoted earlier today. It excluded Germany at times so they have some type of selection criteria. I'd assume when it refers to parental educational background it doesn't ask if that was got through public or private schooling.

So while I was trying to dig around for that report from Niall Sparkey, I came across a couple of posts I missed earlier, one by Wompa about our food situation here. Its a good example to illustrate why less government is a good idea.

Ok so I am pretty lucky that I have some very good supermarkets around me and a farmers market and am knowledgable enough about food to know what to buy and not to buy.

The relationship between food, corporatism and government is outrageous. Ok, so we had several former neo cons on the board of a particularly nasty producer and Im sure we all know who I'm talking about. And yadda yadda everyone blames the evil republicans. Ok, thats fair enough. Though I ideologically lean closer to the right, I never liked the Bushs, for many reasons, starting with war lending. Anyhow...

So that is the first example of how we see corporatism gripping washington and viceversa, and people think its the evil republicans.

That would be until Obama, our nobel peace prize winning drone dropping president appoints a former big wig at this particularly nasty food producer as the next big wig at the FDA, another government institution and monstrosity, continuiing the mutual grip of corporatism and government and people start to realise this is not party specific, this is DC specific, and so you see the rise of libertarianism and tea party who want to shrink government so that it can also shrink corporatism.

And what you have to understand as well is that Ireland is the size of west Virginia. The US is huge and with tremendous diviersity, a strong centralised government with such vast distances isnt really workable or suitable to American life.

A Primal Nut

thebaz wrote: »

What I don't understand is how the Tea Party conservative Republicans are so popular , with ther anti Tax scaremongering policy , that in reality just looks after this privilleged 1% - sure the 1% will vote and support them , but they have well over 1% support, which I just cant comprehend.

It's a matter of pride - almost 50% Americans who vote Republican want to feel they looked after themselves and their family through their own hard work. The last thing they want is the government to hand them someone else's money. They don't want it. Unlike in Ireland where people moan if the government refuse to pay for their childs communion or college uniform which doesn't exist.

Also there are so many competing facts. Some person in this thread said that the lower earning people pay 33% tax, more than rich people. But other people say that the lower 48% don't pay any tax. Very hard to get clear facts on this, maybe confusion caused by the fact that there is both federal and state tax.

April O Neill

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Both his folks were teachers and he went to college. Hardly breadline material.

George Soros survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary and put himself through the London School of Economics by working as a waiter and railway porter. He became a billionaire investor.

His uncle paid his college expenses. He did part-time work, like many students.

Ursula Burns, who grew up in a housing project in Manhattan, is CEO and chairwoman of Xerox. She is the first African-American woman to head a Fortune 500 company.

Ursula Burns went to a Manhattan private school. Hardly underprivileged.

K-9

April O Neill wrote: »

Except VAT, which is regressive.

Indeed, we are heavily reliant on VAT and other indirect taxes, that was a big part of why Government didn't see the crash coming. All they saw was huge VAT, VRT and Stamp Duty receipts from the likes of property and cars, didn't see that the income tax base was getting cut to ribbons.

clairefontaine wrote: »

So while I was trying to dig around for that report from Niall Sparkey, I came across a couple of posts I missed earlier, one by Wompa about our food situation here. Its a good example to illustrate why less government is a good idea.

Ok so I am pretty lucky that I have some very good supermarkets around me and a farmers market and am knowledgable enough about food to know what to buy and not to buy.

The relationship between food, corporatism and government is outrageous. Ok, so we had several former neo cons on the board of a particularly nasty producer and Im sure we all know who I'm talking about. And yadda yadda everyone blames the evil republicans. Ok, thats fair enough. Though I ideologically lean closer to the right, I never liked the Bushs, for many reasons, starting with war lending. Anyhow...

I don't know about the example you are giving, maybe US centric? I do remember watching a programme about an English farmer giving out (what else do farmers do? ) about prices he got for milk from the likes of Tesco. It was something ridiculous like 12p a litre. Tesco even recognised the problem, and he's now on a new panel that they've set up, trying to address the problem.

So that is the first example of how we see corporatism gripping washington and viceversa, and people think its the evil republicans.

Oh I'm very critical of Obama. I love that Time made a big deal of how the internet won it for him in the last election, now the masters of the internet are struggling to get people to sign up to Obama care online. Politics can be a great leveller.

That would be until Obama, our nobel peace prize winning drone dropping president appoints a former big wig at this particularly nasty food producer as the next big wig at the FDA, another government institution and monstrosity, continuiing the mutual grip of corporatism and government and people start to realise this is not party specific, this is DC specific, and so you see the rise of libertarianism and tea party who want to shrink government so that it can also shrink corporatism.

Yet the Tea Party gets huge funding from corporatism, politics and hypocritical beliefs! I find Presidential debates fascinating, on both sides, until the nauseating fighting over who is more militaristic.

And what you have to understand as well is that Ireland is the size of west Virginia. The US is huge and with tremendous diviersity, a strong centralised government with such vast distances isnt really workable or suitable to American life.

Well we are tiny, one criticism of our politicians you can't level at our Governments over the last 25 years is not recognising that.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It's a matter of pride - almost 50% Americans who vote Republican want to feel they looked after themselves and their family through their own hard work. The last thing they want is the government to hand them someone else's money. They don't want it. Unlike in Ireland where people moan if the government refuse to pay for their childs communion or college uniform which doesn't exist.

People don't see child benefit as a tax rebate here. The US tax and welfare system is even more complicated than ours from what I can gather.

clairefontaine

April O Neill wrote: »

Both his folks were teachers and he went to college. Hardly breadline material.



His uncle paid his college expenses. He did part-time work, like many students.



Ursula Burns went to a Manhattan private school. Hardly underprivileged.

I went to a Manhattan private school as well.

You know how that happened?

Because my parents made me read books everyday after school and do extra math, just like every other kid of every other **** poor off the boat immigrant. I did really well on entrance exams. I became an asset to the school and had a scholarship, most likely gathered from donations from guess who.... rich people, who then got tax rebates from their donations. And very likely by bringing in bright kids, the school then had a better college entrance record.

And guess what else. I also worked after school and we didnt have the money for extra SAT tutoring. Did we wah wah wah. No we didn't. I had to study that much harder, that's all.

And you would not believe the amount of left wingy rich people I know in NYC who don't want to pay NYC taxes so set up fake residencies in PA.

thebaz

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Why should the rich get taxed more? It kind of goes against the whole system of education and working hard - you get taxed more just because you worked hard to earn it?

surely its only right and just , that billionaires get taxed more than the majority who can barely afford to live and the upkeep of basics (that includes me ) - I guess some people just want a society who dont look after the weak, sick and old or young (for that matter) - i would consider such a society pretty horrid , as you could take it to another level, as certain South American countrys did up until recently , sending out death squads to rid it of the weak & young who were a burden on the finances of the upper classes.

K-9

clairefontaine wrote: »

I went to a Manhattan private school as well.

You know how that happened?

Because my parents made me read books everyday after school and do extra math, just like every other kid of every other **** poor off the boat immigrant. I did really well on entrance exams. I became an asset to the school and had a scholarship, most likely gathered from donations from guess who.... rich people, who then got tax rebates from their donations. And very likely by bringing in bright kids, the school then had a better college entrance record.

And guess what else. I also worked after school and we didnt have the money for extra SAT tutoring. Did we wah wah wah. No we didn't. I had to study that much harder, that's all.

And you would not believe the amount of left wingy rich people I know in NYC who don't want to pay NYC taxes so set up fake residencies in PA.

Again if you go back to the study cited earlier, immigration isn't that big a deal in most OECD countries, can often be a positive in classes. Our children don't see immigration as it was 30 years ago, it's far more a big deal in parents minds.

This is what education and technological advancement is about, breaking down barriers and making what was unimaginable 30 years ago the norm. It's like people saying isn't it great tv is a norm now, twas a luxury 50 years ago, and we've the internet now, look how rich we are.

Guess what? In 20 years the internet will be archaic.

clairefontaine

K-9 wrote: »

Again if you go back to the study cited earlier, immigration isn't that big a deal in most OECD countries, can often be a positive in classes. Our children don't see immigration as it was 30 years ago, it's far more a big deal in parents minds.

This is what education and technological advancement is about, breaking down barriers and making what was unimaginable 30 years ago the norm. It's like people saying isn't it great tv is a norm now, twas a luxury 50 years ago, and we've the internet now, look how rich we are.

Guess what? In 20 years the internet will be archaic.

Right. But 30 years ago immigration was a direct product of poverty. It had much bigger stakes.

Immigrants were poor and alone, just as we were. Poverty is not a destiny as much as the liberal talk would like to keep us convinced we are stuck.

I think also when you grow up with immigrants you learn all about the REAL obstacles they faced in other countries, so you become more aware of how full of **** the imaginary ones are.

Hayte

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Why should the rich get taxed more? It kind of goes against the whole system of education and working hard - you get taxed more just because you worked hard to earn it?

It really depends on whether you think an individual can be self made. You can also argue that the most successful people have derived the greatest benefit from society and so should have the greatest debt.

To do highly skilled and specialized work you need training, and for the fruits of your labour to be commercially successful you need customers - individuals with enough financial security they can afford to buy what you produce. If you have have seen further it can be argued that it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. That is, you have benefited from an equitable society that has paid the price for you until you are ready to pay yours.

On the subject of getting taxed "more", you can think of it in terms of who is handing over the most wealth and in so doing who is left poorer as a result.

By wealth I mean the capacity to buy whatever you want rather than just money (which is a commodity that changes value all the time depending on circumstance).

It is perfectly plausible for the highest earner to be handing over the most wealth and still be the least poor. The marginal utility of income declines as income increases hence where the progressive taxation argument comes in. It is mainly criticised on the grounds that redistributing wealth via income tax is a disincentive to work, save money and earn income in the first place.

Once your income rises to the point where you can satisfy all human needs (food, water, shelter etc) and most wants, what incentive is there to work anyway?

You can argue both sides depending on whether you need to create a more equitable society or a more efficient one. In policy terms its a balancing act. You need to look at wealth distribution per country over a long period of time. In the US, the share of total income going to the top 1% of earners has risen dramatically in the past 40 years and its much higher than most European countries.

donegal__road

clairefontaine wrote: »

Right. But 30 years ago immigration was a direct product of poverty. It had much bigger stakes.

Immigrants were poor and alone, just as we were. Poverty is not a destiny as much as the liberal talk would like to keep us convinced we are stuck.

I think also when you grow up with immigrants you learn all about the REAL obstacles they faced in other countries, so you become more aware of how full of **** the imaginary ones are.

apologies, but Im not sure what point you are making in the last sentence.

clairefontaine

donegal__road wrote: »

apologies, but Im not sure what point you are making in the last sentence.

Well when you grow up with people who come from nations where were literally excluded from math classes because they were female, or a family who had their newsagent confiscated by Castro, things become very clear between these realities and the ideas girls don't do well in programming because the boys don't like it, or poor people can't read because the evil white man takes their books away.

What I'm saying about a thread on America and the poor, is I take a lot of this victim talk about with a huge grain of salt, not that all of it is to be ignored, but that a lot of it is damaging and contributing to the problem because it installs self fulfilling prophesies. It's the language of "you can't."

donegal__road

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well when you grow up with people who come from nations where were literally excluded from math classes because they were female, or a family who had their newsagent confiscated by Castro, things become very clear between these realities and the ideas girls don't do well in programming because the boys don't like it, or poor people can't read because the evil white man takes their books away.

What I'm saying about a thread on America and the poor, is I take a lot of this victim talk about with a huge grain of salt, not that all of it is to be ignored, but that a lot of it is damaging and contributing to the problem because it installs self fulfilling prophesies. It's the language of "you can't."

do you mean computer programming? Are you originally from Cuba? Just curious..

thebaz

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It's a matter of pride - almost 50% Americans who vote Republican want to feel they looked after themselves and their family through their own hard work. The last thing they want is the government to hand them someone else's money. They don't want it. Unlike in Ireland where people moan if the government refuse to pay for their childs communion or college uniform which doesn't exist.

to an extent this is true , but ther are too many American caught in trap of no health insurance , the cost of medical care is frightening in the States - I met so many people who are in dire straits due to medical bills, and getting harassed by hospital debt collectors , even met Vets , living on the streets cause of unpaid medical bills - thats why I for one , think Obamacare is the one thing America needs more than anything - ther is a lot of bashing of Americans here , but as you say the average American are good people , with good hearts , just some of them , particularly the sick , are living in fear of the extotionate medical costs .

clairefontaine

donegal__road wrote: »

do you mean computer programming? Are you originally from Cuba? Just curious..

Yes.

No I'm not from Cuba.

donegal__road

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes.

No I'm not from Cuba.

how do you mean 'evil white men take their books away'?

clairefontaine

donegal__road wrote: »

how do you mean 'evil white men take their books away'?

I'm being sarcastic.

donegal__road

thebaz wrote: »

to an extent this is true , but ther are too many American caught in trap of no health insurance , the cost of medical care is frightening in the States - I met so many people who are in dire straits due to medical bills, and getting harassed by hospital debt collectors , even met Vets , living on the streets cause of unpaid medical bills - thats why I for one , think Obamacare is the one thing America needs more than anything - ther is a lot of bashing of Americans here , but as you say the average American are good people , with good hearts , just some of them , particularly the sick , are living in fear of the extotionate medical costs .

have you watched the Michael Moore documentary Sicko?

thebaz

donegal__road wrote: »

have you watched the Michael Moore documentary Sicko?

No, but I travelled across America a few years ago , and met some great folk , some who made me fearful of ever having to go to an American hospital , even with my travel insurance , with ther horror stories. Think it is scandalous that good people should be so terrified of ther own hospitals , not of the medical procedures, but of the over-inflated billing process. Seamed like a hospital for profit racket to me , instead of hospital for the people.

clairefontaine

thebaz wrote: »

No, but I travelled across America a few years ago , and met some great folk , some who made me fearful of ever having to go to an American hospital , even with my travel insurance , with ther horror stories. Think it is scandalous that good people should be so terrified of ther own hospitals , not of the medical procedures, but of the over-inflated billing process. Seamed like a hospital for profit racket to me , instead of hospital for the people.

It is. There is no transparency in billing and a lot of fraud.

opr

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well when you grow up with people who come from nations where were literally excluded from math classes because they were female, or a family who had their newsagent confiscated by Castro, things become very clear between these realities and the ideas girls don't do well in programming because the boys don't like it, or poor people can't read because the evil white man takes their books away.

What I'm saying about a thread on America and the poor, is I take a lot of this victim talk about with a huge grain of salt, not that all of it is to be ignored, but that a lot of it is damaging and contributing to the problem because it installs self fulfilling prophesies. It's the language of "you can't."

You understand though that this wasn't meant to be what this thread is about? Granted it has veered into many areas which include people with disadvantaged backgrounds having predetermined futures which they can't escape.

Whether you can or can't go to college coming from a disadvantaged background has very little to do with the topic of why such a disparity in wealth exists. If anything it's people who work the hardest to get into decent paying jobs within the existing system who should be most angry about why we have such disparity in wealth.

Generally though anyone who the system spits out, especially coming from disadvantage have very little regard for the overall wrongs at the bigger level because they are just glad in the main that they have proved it has worked in some weird way. It's one of the many genius ways in which the status quo remains.

Opr

Wompa1

thebaz wrote: »

No, but I travelled across America a few years ago , and met some great folk , some who made me fearful of ever having to go to an American hospital , even with my travel insurance , with ther horror stories. Think it is scandalous that good people should be so terrified of ther own hospitals , not of the medical procedures, but of the over-inflated billing process. Seamed like a hospital for profit racket to me , instead of hospital for the people.

I was afraid of hospitals in Ireland!

I think the comparison to other countries where there's a monarchy or women's rights are trampled on is a cop out. I've had others here do that too. Why compare with an extreme like that. Plus isn't this the greatest country in the world??

clairefontaine

opr wrote: »

You understand though that this wasn't meant to be what this thread is about? Granted it has veered into many areas which include people with disadvantaged backgrounds having predetermined futures which they can't escape.

Whether you can or can't go to college coming from a disadvantaged background has very little to do with the topic of why such a disparity in wealth exists. If anything it's people who work the hardest to get into decent paying jobs within the existing system who should be most angry about why we have such disparity in wealth.

Generally though anyone who the system spits out, especially coming from disadvantage have very little regard for the overall wrongs at the bigger level because they are just glad in the main that they have proved it has worked in some weird way. It's one of the many genius ways in which the status quo remains.

Opr

To go back to the OP, the wealthy have very good accountants. They can afford them much more than the middle class can.

K-9

clairefontaine wrote: »

Right. But 30 years ago immigration was a direct product of poverty. It had much bigger stakes.

Immigrants were poor and alone, just as we were. Poverty is not a destiny as much as the liberal talk would like to keep us convinced we are stuck.

I think also when you grow up with immigrants you learn all about the REAL obstacles they faced in other countries, so you become more aware of how full of **** the imaginary ones are.

Tbh, putting it politely but trying to get my point across at the same time, I think you are in some paradigm of your own making and no matter what, you are sticking to it. Got to admire you sticking to your bone, no matter what.

I was on about what countries help the poor and disadvantaged the best. Nordic countries, Canada and Australia fare well, the US, UK and France don't.

Poverty is not a destiny, that's why social democratic countries (what you clarefontaine) call liberal and socialist, fare better than the US and UK.

I'm sorry if libertarian and anti Government thinking are weak, but you believe otherwise. The evidence says social democracy is the way to go, but your belief tells you otherwise.

I hate creationism debates that argue with logical thinking based on evidence, I avoid them. I don't intend to waste my time on a political creationist, somebody who ignores studies and goes on the feeling on their bones instead.

Basically liberals say one thing so I must think the other way. I don't like contrarian thinking, for the sake of it thinking.