2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's a nice chart and all, but it's meaningless when the likes of Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary. The tax code is riddled with needless garbage allowing the rich to escape vast amounts of deductable income because of loopholes neatly inserted inside said garbage.

And if you're going to use OECD statistics, how do you explain America having the 3rd highest poverty rate in the OECD? I mentioned it in this post, which you've ignored.

Perhaps if their companies didn't have to pay such high taxes those people you noted would be paying much more in individual taxes.

What is the standard used for the poverty level you noted? Could an American with a job, a roof over their head, gets 3 square meals every day, has 2 cars, multiple TV's, internet access and cell phones, and goes on vacation several times a year, be considered part of that poverty level?

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps if their companies didn't have to pay such high taxes those people you noted would be paying much more in individual taxes.

What is the standard used for the poverty level you noted? Could an American with a job, a roof over their head, 2 cars, multiple TV's, internet access and cell phones, and go on vacation several times a year, be considered part of that poverty level?

Well I'm sure the Koch's would try to escape as much taxes as they could anyway.

It's the OECD, so it's measuring America against the most developed nations in the world. If you think that every American has the same things as you mentioned then you need to get your head out of the sand.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Well I'm sure the Koch's would try to escape as much taxes as they could anyway.

Everybody does. That's a fact. Even those who espouse higher takes. And if you don't believe me think about all those progressives who demand higher taxes and look into the trust funds they established.

It's the OECD, so it's measuring America against the most developed nations in the world. If you think that every American has the same things as you mentioned then you need to get your head out of the sand.

Perhaps it's not me that needs to get one's head out of the sand.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

What is the standard used for the poverty level you noted? Could an American with a job, a roof over their head, gets 3 square meals every day, has 2 cars, multiple TV's, internet access and cell phones, and goes on vacation several times a year, be considered part of that poverty level?

Which American is that? I haven't met one. You either work to afford all those previous things and you don't go on vacation, or the things you listed were all bought 2nd hand. Because you don't do all of that and go on vacation, and lots of people who have a job and eat 3 times a day, still have to collect SNAP or EIB.

Internet access and cellphone communication is a bit of a non-sequitir, they have become necessary tools in todays society and a cell phone can be any old thing, a tracfone is hella cheap.

If America is a successful world leader why aren't we leading the end to poverty? Why are we happy with the third highest rate of poverty in the OECD?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps it's not me that needs to get one's head out of the sand.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

Your link keeps timing out; please verify.

I did instead while trying to get it to load via google, found this counter-article to the Heritage report (seemingly) that has no problem loading or displaying:

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/the-avenue/97198/why-heritage-wrong-about-poverty-in-america

http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/why-im-not-surprised-by-heritages-qsurprisingq-poverty-facts

In fact now its ringing a bell: this wouldn't be the same Heritage study that was laughed out of it by the news and everyone else for among other things, arguing that "97% of American households have refrigerators" etc. and this was to be the goalpost we now measured poverty by?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Which American is that? I haven't met one. You either work to afford all those previous things and you don't go on vacation, or the things you listed were all bought 2nd hand. Because you don't do all of that and go on vacation, and lots of people who have a job and eat 3 times a day, still have to collect SNAP or EIB.

Internet access and cellphone communication is a bit of a non-sequitir, they have become necessary tools in todays society and a cell phone can be any old thing, a tracfone is hella cheap.

If America is a successful world leader why aren't we leading the end to poverty? Why are we happy with the third highest rate of poverty in the OECD?

I agree with most of that. But when you tag the US with the "third highest rate of poverty" I think it important to note we aren't measuring apples with apples.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Your link keeps timing out; please verify.

I did instead while trying to get it to load via google, found this counter-article to the Heritage report (seemingly) that has no problem loading or displaying:

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/the-avenue/97198/why-heritage-wrong-about-poverty-in-america

Verified. I have no problem seeing it with several tries. Are you running a "Liberal Only" approved filter? :pac:

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Your link keeps timing out; please verify.

I did instead while trying to get it to load via google, found this counter-article to the Heritage report (seemingly) that has no problem loading or displaying:

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/the-avenue/97198/why-heritage-wrong-about-poverty-in-america

http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/why-im-not-surprised-by-heritages-qsurprisingq-poverty-facts

In fact now its ringing a bell: this wouldn't be the same Heritage study that was laughed out of it by the news and everyone else for among other things, arguing that "97% of American households have refrigerators" etc. and this was to be the goalpost we now measured poverty by?

I think the main difference is my link utilized empirical data, where yours relied on opinion.

Overheal

Must be a problem at work; either way, if its the same study I'm think of, its full of **** and basically argues because Americans have the ability to drive to work and store cold food that they aren't impoverished.

And you would not believe some of the stuff poor people have in their homes! Luxuries like ceiling fans, DVD players, answering machines, and coffee makers. I don't have those things. I have central air, a Blu-Ray player, voicemail, and I go to Starbucks every day. Must be nice. Must be pretty nice. - Stephen Colbert

I can walk down to the flea market and get a DVD player for a dollar. Goodwill always has coffee-makers in stock, and every rental I ever had came with the fridge; I've never had to go buy a major appliance, but I'm paying for it somehow. And arguing I shouldn't own a car while simultaneously the same political platform disavows public services including public transport, that's incredibly rich of them in all senses of the word.

InTheTrees

Overheal wrote: »

Must be a problem at work; either way, if its the same study I'm think of, its full of **** and basically argues because Americans have the ability to drive to work and store cold food that they aren't impoverished.

Yup.

More "heritage foundation" right wing nonsense.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yup.

More "heritage foundation" right wing nonsense.

Ah yes... Words of wisdom from Ad-Hominem-Arguments-R-Us?

Can you disprove their published research and empirical data?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Ah yes... Words of wisdom from Ad-Hominem-Arguments-R-Us?



Can you disprove their published research and empirical data?

I cannot disprove that there are a large number of americans that have cars in their driveways and refrigerators in their kitchens. These are not the best indications of poverty, however. A car can be a hand-me-down 1992 Corolla, or it could be a 2016 Tesla Roadster. A fridge can be a GE 1985-era model that's as old as the house, or a new Samsung model that can spew filtered water to the backdrop of LED lighting and give you the weather report with its connected smart capabilities. Neither indicates the ability or inability of the owner of those possessions to handle their medical or other living expenses, including the ability to procure sufficient food and welfare for their families.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Everybody does. That's a fact. Even those who espouse higher takes. And if you don't believe me think about all those progressives who demand higher taxes and look into the trust funds they established.


Perhaps it's not me that needs to get one's head out of the sand.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

That study is absolute rubbish. What good is comparing the standards of living for poor people in 1970 vs today? The only measure a study like this should be using is comparing the standard of living of poor people in America vs the rest of the world, which the OECD has kindly pointed out is much lower.

If you're going to use proper data, at least let it be from some non-bullsh*t source which compares America with the rest of the developed world, especially if you're going to brand America a 'world leader'.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That study is absolute rubbish. What good is comparing the standards of living for poor people in 1970 vs today? The only measure a study like this should be using is comparing the standard of living of poor people in America vs the rest of the world, which the OECD has kindly pointed out is much lower.

If you're going to use proper data, at least let it be from some non-bullsh*t source which compares America with the rest of the developed world, especially if you're going to brand America a 'world leader'.

Are making the claim that the data from the Heritage Foundation is wrong?

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Are making the claim that the data from the Heritage Foundation is wrong?

Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant; it's comparing the standard of living of poor Americans now vs 45 years ago, not the standard of living of poor Americans now vs the standard of living of poor people in other developed nations.

Are you still going to claim America is a world leader?

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant; it's comparing the standard of living of poor Americans now vs 45 years ago, not the standard of living of poor Americans now vs the standard of living of poor people in other developed nations.

Are you still going to claim America is a world leader?

Okay. Then could you provide me some of the standards of living for poor people in other developed nations, that are better than us, so we can compare standards.

And yes.

Overheal

World leader of what?

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Okay. Then could you provide me some of the standards of living for poor people in other developed nations, that are better than us, so we can compare standards.

And yes.

This is the only statistic you need look at when comparing poverty in America vs poverty in other developed countries. Statistics on the "average" American income vs the "average" income in other developed nations are incredibly skewed, because the top10% of Americans own far, far more than the bottom 10.

Earnings at the 10th percentile as a share of median worker earnings in selected OECD countries, late 2000s

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

This is the only statistic you need look at when comparing poverty in America vs poverty in other developed countries. Statistics on the "average" American income vs the "average" income in other developed nations are incredibly skewed, because the top10% of Americans own far, far more than the bottom 10.

Earnings at the 10th percentile as a share of median worker earnings in selected OECD countries, late 2000s

On face value, those figures do appear disturbing.

Here are the poverty guidelines for the US.

Persons In..........Poverty
Household..........Guideline
1.....................$11,770
2.....................$15,930
3.....................$20,090
4.....................$24,250
5.....................$28,410
6.....................$32,570
7.....................$36,730
8.....................$40,890

Also, I don't believe those numbers include additional social benefits provided by the government.

How do those numbers stack up to some of the other selected OECD countries?

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

On face value, those figures do appear disturbing.

Here are the poverty guidelines for the US.

Persons In..........Poverty
Household..........Guideline
1.....................$11,770
2.....................$15,930
3.....................$20,090
4.....................$24,250
5.....................$28,410
6.....................$32,570
7.....................$36,730
8.....................$40,890

Also, I don't believe those numbers include additional social benefits provided by the government.

How do those numbers stack up to some of the other selected OECD countries?

They're gross earnings, so tax hasn't been deducted from them (which should account for a lot considering America is a high tax country in your opinion).

And I imagine the amount of social benefits provided by the US govt. is nowhere near the amount provided by countries in the EU and most others in the OECD.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

They're gross earnings, so tax hasn't been deducted from them (which should account for a lot considering America is a high tax country in your opinion).

You are correct. But at these levels they usually get more money back from the government than they actually pay in.

And I imagine the amount of social benefits provided by the US govt. is nowhere near the amount provided by countries in the EU and most others in the OECD.

So are you saying it is near impossible to compare the US poverty level to other EU countries when you have to consider all the differences that would need to be factored in?

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

You are correct. But at these levels they usually get more money back from the government than they actually pay in.


So are you saying it is near impossible to compare the US poverty level to other EU countries when you have to consider all the differences that would need to be factored in?

True, but this would be the same for the lowest 10% of earners in pretty much every developed country.

No, I'm saying that if you pick any country in the EU on this list, or indeed any country on this list at all, you'll probably find that they're receiving more in benefits than the lowest 10% of Americans. You don't need to be a genius to know that poor people in Ireland receive more benefits than poor people in America.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Amerika wrote: »

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Are you still going to claim America is a world leader?

yes.

World leader of what?

Still awaiting a response.

MightyMandarin

Overheal wrote: »

Still awaiting a response.

I assume he means the greatest country in the world or some nonsense like that.

Although you need perserverance to get a straight answer from Amerika.

Overheal

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I assume he means the greatest country in the world or some nonsense like that.



Although you need perserverance to get a straight answer from Amerika.

In all fairness I would still like a response; to me its not about spin or scoring points I just want to know what the baseline is for calling America a world leader, a leader of what, etc.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

On face value, those figures do appear disturbing.

Here are the poverty guidelines for the US.

Persons In..........Poverty
Household..........Guideline
1.....................$11,770
2.....................$15,930
3.....................$20,090
4.....................$24,250
5.....................$28,410
6.....................$32,570
7.....................$36,730
8.....................$40,890

How does someone live in the US on $11,770 or below? What about the high cost of living in the US? Has that been factored in?

That would not pay my rent to the wealthiest landlord in the country, who declared a one billion dollar gain in net worth 2014/Forbes (by increasing our rents by 8.6 percent last year and 7.9 percent this year, without adding any value to the property). In addition to advancing my education, I have to work two jobs to pay that billionaire. And I live in a tiny 1-bed, 1-bath flat, where the lion's share of my income goes to the billionaire. Oh, I could move to the war zone where there's gangs and high crime to reduce my rent, but then I would have to buy a car and all the associated car expenses, and waste time commuting, or take the bus (public transportation is terrible on the west coast). To make ends meet, I have taken a flatmate to pay half the rent, while this billionaire lives in a Sarah Gore multi-million dollar mansion with ocean view and poor folks servants from the war zone waiting on him hand and foot. But this is only anecdotal evidence, and not statistically relevant, so forget what I said. :pac:

jobbridge4life

Trump may be lurching even further to the right if his latest hire is anything to go by...

Clovis has also suggested that nearly everything that the federal government does to aid the poor, the sick or the elderly is unconstitutional.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/08/26/3695372/donald-trumps-new-campaign-co-chair-makes-donald-trump-look-levelheaded/

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

In all fairness I would still like a response; to me its not about spin or scoring points I just want to know what the baseline is for calling America a world leader, a leader of what, etc.

I can only speak for myself, but it involves a number of factors. Some of them include American having the greatest soft power influence in the world. We lead the world in high technology, finance and business, and higher education. We have the most powerful military. We have a massive world trade profile (exports of consumer and technology goods and imports of natural resources). A Foreign Direct Investment of $180 billion dollars, and the largest GDP at $16 trillion dollars. Also, massive amounts of natural resources. Just those alone added together makes America a, if not the, “world leader” IMO.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

How does someone live in the US on $11,770 or below? What about the high cost of living in the US? Has that been factored in?

That would not pay my rent to the wealthiest landlord in the country, who declared a one billion dollar gain in net worth 2014/Forbes (by increasing our rents by 8.6 percent last year and 7.9 percent this year, without adding any value to the property). In addition to advancing my education, I have to work two jobs to pay that billionaire. And I live in a tiny 1-bed, 1-bath flat, where the lion's share of my income goes to the billionaire. Oh, I could move to the war zone where there's gangs and high crime to reduce my rent, but then I would have to buy a car and all the associated car expenses, and waste time commuting, or take the bus (public transportation is terrible on the west coast). To make ends meet, I have taken a flatmate to pay half the rent, while this billionaire lives in a Sarah Gore multi-million dollar mansion with ocean view and poor folks servants from the war zone waiting on him hand and foot. But this is only anecdotal evidence, and not statistically relevant, so forget what I said. :pac:

Let me guess... You're in California, right? How does the cost of living there compare, to say, Tennessee?

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

How does someone live in the US on $11,770 or below? What about the high cost of living in the US? Has that been factored in?

That would not pay my rent to the wealthiest landlord in the country, who declared a one billion dollar gain in net worth 2014/Forbes (by increasing our rents by 8.6 percent last year and 7.9 percent this year, without adding any value to the property). In addition to advancing my education, I have to work two jobs to pay that billionaire. And I live in a tiny 1-bed, 1-bath flat, where the lion's share of my income goes to the billionaire. Oh, I could move to the war zone where there's gangs and high crime to reduce my rent, but then I would have to buy a car and all the associated car expenses, and waste time commuting, or take the bus (public transportation is terrible on the west coast). To make ends meet, I have taken a flatmate to pay half the rent, while this billionaire lives in a Sarah Gore multi-million dollar mansion with ocean view and poor folks servants from the war zone waiting on him hand and foot. But this is only anecdotal evidence, and not statistically relevant, so forget what I said. :pac:

Sounds like your living the Cali dream

In all honesty, if I ever plan on relocating to America, I'll avoid staying in California. I've heard some accounts similar to this and if I'm being honest, I don't see why you wouldn't think about moving somewhere where landlords don't screw you over and the alternative isn't moving into 'da hood'.