PDA

View Full Version : Should the Government Lower Taxes?



HornyPope
11-22-2004, 04:11 PM
99% of you won't be affected by this decision, but let us discuss us anyways because only the wise elite can talk Wall street economics. And once all is said and done and the issue is resolved, we can all go out for coke and ice cream with the allowance money you just got! Yay!

wheelchairman
11-22-2004, 04:13 PM
hmm but I am 18 years old and I do live off the teat of the state as a Student in Denmark. It surely would affect me.

Although if the cokes are on you, I'll go along just for the ride.

HornyPope
11-22-2004, 04:28 PM
That was a typo. I meant COCK.

wheelchairman
11-22-2004, 04:33 PM
alright then change the word coke to cock in my reply as well. I'm still going for the ride.

Moose
11-22-2004, 05:25 PM
tax cuts seem pretty good. if ou pay more taxes, the obvious percentage will give you a bigger tax cut. plus getting a check in the mail of a rebate does help put some money back into the economy, but i also have to admit i dont know much about how the economy is affected by everything and all that. so maybe someone could enlighten me on the subject.

SicN Twisted
11-22-2004, 08:47 PM
There shouldn't be a government to determine taxes.

Moose
11-22-2004, 08:48 PM
what do you mean by that?

SicN Twisted
11-22-2004, 08:51 PM
Exactly what I said: There shouldn't be a government to raise taxes.

RXP
11-22-2004, 11:32 PM
Raising or lowering taxes effects everyone. It acts on the thorttle on the whole economy.

jimmyjimjimz
11-24-2004, 07:12 PM
Here's what I think:

The US is trillions of dollars in debt. When President Clinton left office, we were $0 in debt. It took four years to go from being $0 in debt, to being trillions of dollars in debt. I believe some of our tax money goes to paying off the national debt. With the national debt being trillions of dollars, who would wanna lower taxes? Don't you think we should pay off this debt as soon as possible and get on with our lives?

nieh
11-24-2004, 07:21 PM
When President Clinton left office, we were $0 in debt.

wrong.

10

jimmyjimjimz
11-24-2004, 07:29 PM
wrong.

10
what? 10 what? 10 dollars in debt?

lousyskater
11-24-2004, 07:47 PM
a lot of people don't seem to understand the importance of taxes in this country. they just don't like paying their government because they're greedy little bastards. lowering taxes right now in the U.S. is probably one of the stupidest actions a president can make. and of course, bush is going to lower them like a retard instead of trying to get us out of debt.
________
GLASS SMOKING PIPES (http://glassgallery.tumblr.com)

nieh
11-24-2004, 07:52 PM
10 characters...it wouldn't let me just post 'wrong.' because it wasn't 10 characters long. But yeah, as I explained over the im thingy thing, we were in debt even with Clinton. While we did have a surplus for a little while (that's what was on the news anyway...the numbers below suggest otherwise, unless they went by a different fiscal year), it wasn't enough to cover the debt that was already there. Bush did push the debt to a record high though. He added...what, $2 trillion? It's now up to $7,519,477,431,758.56 (wow...that's a big number)

Here's a list of the national debt over the last 15 years or so

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

Revolver-2005?
11-24-2004, 08:19 PM
i think taxes need to be rasied.....if we dont raise thm our great grandchildren will be paying for this war...and this is a true statistic...if we dont raise taxes were gonna be so far in dept it would make us look like a dick glued in a pussy and not able to get out

killboypwrheadjx
11-25-2004, 01:11 PM
our country is in too much debt to cut taxes right now. we need to get out of this deficit. the only problem i have is that instead of our tax dollars going to helping people, they're going to killing people.

wheelchairman
11-25-2004, 01:36 PM
Do use a different viewpoint. Who would want to pay money directly to the American military? I believe half the budget goes to the military, if not more. I wouldn't want to fund America's military. Do you?

SicN Twisted
11-25-2004, 01:40 PM
Taxes simply validate state power, and cut off people from having a say in the structures of their own society. I'd accept a localized tax system where people pay directly to certain tax divisions, so people can chose what gets the most funding. There's a certain amount of taxes people need to pay which is determined by income, but they chose weather to pay it to schools, the military, ect.

hereforone
11-26-2004, 12:34 AM
Well what if everybody wanted to pay the military? That leaves the schools high and dry. I don't think we should raise taxes, I think we should reorganize our tax system so that instead of our tax money going to some fund for the study of some tropical slug's mating habits, it goes into schools, fire, healthcare and THE NATIONAL DEBT. Sic, while I agree with the idea of controlling where the money goes, I don't think there should be direct control, because then certain parts of the government would get more money than others depending on the way the political wind is blowing.

RXP
11-26-2004, 01:03 AM
Taxes simply validate state power, and cut off people from having a say in the structures of their own society. I'd accept a localized tax system where people pay directly to certain tax divisions, so people can chose what gets the most funding. There's a certain amount of taxes people need to pay which is determined by income, but they chose weather to pay it to schools, the military, ect.

Under your system, however, a countries borders woudln't be safe. People are fucking stupid and don't need to be deciding where their tax dollars go because they'll fuck up more than the current system.

SicN Twisted
11-26-2004, 12:13 PM
Under my system, countries wouldn't have borders, because their wouldn't be any countries, so that wouldn't really be an issue would it?

RXP
11-26-2004, 12:33 PM
Your system would fail because it's not in human nature. We're territorial animals. No question.

SicN Twisted
11-26-2004, 01:01 PM
Cultures define terretories, not tankes. Countries are obviously not human natures, because countries constantly fight wars and destroy themselves.

RXP
11-26-2004, 01:02 PM
Nuclear age, however. Only small wars.

You hope for a world that will never flourish becuase human's are scum and social darwinism rules supreme.

SicN Twisted
11-26-2004, 01:52 PM
Not at all. That's the world that exists now you're describing. I hope for a world in which humans live together in communities defined only by cultures without conflict and without borders.

sKratch
11-26-2004, 02:45 PM
Another one of Vlad's joke topics taken seriously, proving his point.

nieh
11-26-2004, 04:06 PM
Cultures define terretories, not tankes. Countries are obviously not human natures, because countries constantly fight wars and destroy themselves.


of course today's world is natural. If something evolves a certain way, it's natural. The only unnatural acts are ones that cannot occur.

By your logic, anarchy is not human nature because it's not what evolved.

discuss

Betty
11-26-2004, 05:47 PM
Taxes simply validate state power, and cut off people from having a say in the structures of their own society. I'd accept a localized tax system where people pay directly to certain tax divisions, so people can chose what gets the most funding. There's a certain amount of taxes people need to pay which is determined by income, but they chose weather to pay it to schools, the military, ect.

Wow, Sic, I REALLY like that. Yay! Agreement!

I don't know if it would work though... cause yeah, people can be pretty dumb.

Also, if some things didn't get enough money (e.g. hospitals/schools) people would have to pay our of their own pocket which is a very right wing way of thinking...

RXP
11-26-2004, 10:07 PM
Anything that relies on people is dumb. That's why 'democracy' at it's present state in most countries is more ideal than the theortical concept of democracy because democratic accountabilty doesn't really work all that well. Just as well.

Not Ozymandias
11-26-2004, 10:34 PM
I like to think that people should directly control where their taxes go, but I fear that they'd give just as much, if not MORE, to the military and corporate welfare. Groups like that could afford extensive marketing campaigns to sway public opinions, wheras the education people couldn't.

SicN Twisted
11-27-2004, 10:38 PM
Saying that people are dumb and for that reasons qualified people deserve to make desisions for them in the basis of fascism. People may be stupid, but they have the right to control their own fates.

StayInTheHouseCarl
11-27-2004, 11:49 PM
taxes should be proportionalized, the rich do not need all the tax breaks they are getting from their asshole friend george w. bush. they can afford, the lower and middle class aren't as well. a set percentage for all americans isn't fair as well; 10% of a rich mans check is nothing, but it's a big chunk for a family depending on minimum wage.

Betty
11-28-2004, 01:11 AM
Saying that people are dumb and for that reasons qualified people deserve to make desisions for them in the basis of fascism. People may be stupid, but they have the right to control their own fates.

Sic, it seems like you have contradictory views...

Like, WHO is going to pay taxes to say, welfare. I can't picture very many people choosing to do that. So, the whole choosing where your taxes will go thing probably would not help out the "disenfranchised" of the society... because most working folk would not want part of their paychecks going to the non-working folk.

RXP
11-28-2004, 01:31 AM
Saying that people are dumb and for that reasons qualified people deserve to make desisions for them in the basis of fascism. People may be stupid, but they have the right to control their own fates.

Call me a facsist then. People are fucking stupid who wont make the correct choices, infact the best choices cause there never is a correct chioce.

SicN Twisted
11-28-2004, 01:15 PM
So who decides what the correct choices are? God? Il Duce? You? There are no correct desisions, society is constantly evolving to the current of the people, and it's nobody's right to determine whether or not they're making the correct desisions.

SicN Twisted
11-28-2004, 01:20 PM
More people would pay taxes to welfare then the military I think. Not here or now, but if my system was in place it would be because of an anarchist revolution, so people would probably have minds towards welfare rather then war. But realistically, there are some things that would be defined as rights which would be ensured from the taxes of the most wealthy. If you make more then a certain income bracket, higher and higher percentages automatically go to aid for the poor. So I suppose the super rich would sacrafice their rights for money - that would kill two birds with one stone because it'll maintain a comprehensive welfare program and also make it less motivating to get incredibly wealthy which will balance the inequalities.

Betty
11-28-2004, 03:04 PM
But then you're deciding what's right. And not the people. But whatever, your views just seem contradictory. You're totally taking away the freedom of choice of the rich. Apparently they're less equal than everybody else.

SicN Twisted
11-28-2004, 04:21 PM
They make up less then 10 percent of the population. I'm sure the working and middle class majority would prefer that the rich pay more taxes then they do.

In some cases I do believe that the wealthy, a privledged minority, should lose benefits to the majority. I'm not being contradictory, I don't believe in absolute freedom. I don't believe that a convicted killer who's proven guilty should not go to prison. Do you? You obviously don't consider the mass accumulation of wealth to be any sort of a crime, but I do and I think certain laws should benefit those that suffer from it, because one can't abolish the ability to get really rich in general without authoritarian rule, which I don't believe in?

You don't think the wealthy should forfeit some benefits? You obviously believe in freedom and self determination, so do you believe in the freedom of the underpriveledged to succeed, because in this top down society, they don't really have that freedom.

Betty
11-28-2004, 05:44 PM
I have already said what I think about that. HP will beat us for having the same discussion over and over.

But the point is not whether it's good or not to tax the rich and give it to the poor, the point is that you say people should decide where their tax money goes... except for the rich. Which seems like a double standard.

But like, when you look at figures, that top 10% still contributes what? 90% of tax money anyway. (I'm just making that up, but I think it's something like that)

I just think that if you want certain money to be directed in certain ways, you can't claim to support freedom of choice of where your money will go.

Fair?

And again to stress, cause it doesn't seem like it's getting through... morally the (super) rich should get taxed to hell cause who needs that much money right? But economically it is not beneficial for a country as a whole, and the country will become more poor, and then the poor people will be even more poor, even if they are getting a higher relative share of money. I'm not just totally cold-hearted. I just think it's more logical. Your ideas seem to be way too idealistic, although morally right.

SicN Twisted
11-28-2004, 05:57 PM
It's completely beneficial to heavily tax the rich. Have you ever studied economics? Sweden at one point had the highest standard of living in the world because the government put heavy taxes on wealthy corperations. Rich people have so many assets to tax that the government will have higher production funds, and a higher economy. Poor people will get paid higher salaries and their will be more job opportunities to them. The only group that such policies will hurt is the super rich minority. Countries with regressive tax policies, like the United States, have much poorer lower classes then countries with progressive taxes, like the Netherlands.

And morally, I don't believe rich people should have the freedom to chose where their taxes go, as much as I don't believe the mafia should have the freedom of choice to coerce companies through bribery and threats. Nor do I believe a human being should have the freedom of choiuce to go into someone's house and steal things. I don't think freedom of the minority should compromise the freedom of the majority. The freedom of the rich to chose where their taxes go would obviously mean the wealthy chose to put their taxes into what benefits them - corperate subsidy program and private undustries. This would devestate the working class completely, and I think the freedom of the majority of people in a country to make the amount of money they deserve and not live in poverty is more important then a corperate criminal's right to basically pour his tax dollars back into his own wallet. It's funy how capitalist's are all about freedom - free trade, free market, but don't stress freedom of food and shelter at all. I basically believe in a workers society, so of course the wealthy shouldn't have free reign.

Moose
11-28-2004, 07:19 PM
So who decides what the correct choices are? God? Il Duce? You? There are no correct desisions, society is constantly evolving to the current of the people, and it's nobody's right to determine whether or not they're making the correct desisions.

how can you say there are no correct decisions when you say what you are saying right now is correct...the decision you made in your head about the taxes or about this post is correct, granted to you...but to say there are no correct decisions in every case and situation would be hard to prove...that is like saying there is no truth...that is a contradictory statement in itself.

so saying there are no correct decisions, but this one i am saying right now that i just made is a contradictory...basically there would be no reason to discuss or have reason or to fight if we all believed that no decision mattered.

Betty
11-28-2004, 07:36 PM
Gah! I feel like our arguments are totally circular and like you disregard what I say and then counter with something different.

And no I haven't studied economics. I'm pretty sure I have said that as well?

I linked to something before that I thought proved my case quite nicely. Not sure if you read it, disagreed with it, you didn't say...

Anyway, the study found these conclusions:

-Countries with more economic freedom have substantially higher per capita incomes.
And the kickers:
-The SHARE of income earned by the poorest 10% of the population is UNRELATED to the degree of economic freedom in a nation.
-The AMOUNT of income earned by the poorest 10% of the population is MUCH GREATER in nations with the most economic freedom than it is in those with the least.

Economic freedom being described in the introduction of the study but basically involving all those "free" things those damn capitalists want you talked about...

So to me, this seems pretty point proven.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/1EFW04ch1.pdf#

Maybe you don't think it is a representative study... but at least I am backing up my claims with something tangible. It's difficult because you flat out say I'm wrong, but many sources support what I say.

RXP
11-28-2004, 08:17 PM
So who decides what the correct choices are? God? Il Duce? You? There are no correct desisions, society is constantly evolving to the current of the people, and it's nobody's right to determine whether or not they're making the correct desisions.

There are no correct choices indeed but like Ronald Dworkin said there's always a best choice to fit the facts.

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 12:00 AM
Alright, you got me Betty, I just have to stop saying you're flat out wrong. Here, have some statistics.
INCOME INEQUALITY
As mentioned earlier, America has the greatest inequality of income and wealth in the industrialized world:

Inequality of income (0 = most equal society, 100 = the least equal):

United States 99
Canada 83
Netherlands 82
Switzerland 79
United Kingdom 78
Germany 66
Norway 60
Sweden 60

Average CEO's pay as a multiple of an average
worker's pay:

United States 17.5 (More)
United Kingdom 12.4
Japan 11.6
Canada 9.6
France 8.9
Germany 6.5

Percent of Union Membership in Workforce:

Sweden 85.3%
United Kingdom 41.5
Canada 34.6
Germany 33.8
Japan 26.8
Netherlands 25.0
United States 16.4

Size of Middle Class (More):

Japan 90.0%
Sweden 79.0
Norway 73.4
Germany 70.1
Switzerland 67.2
Netherlands 62.5
Canada 58.5
United Kingdom 58.5
United States 53.7

Poverty level (More):

United States 17.1%
Canada 12.6
United Kingdom 9.7
Switzerland 8.5
Germany 5.6
Sweden 5.3
Norway 5.2

Children under the poverty level:

United States 22.4%
Canada 15.5
United Kingdom 9.3
Switzerland 7.8
Sweden 5.0
Germany 4.9
Norway 4.8

Deaths from malnutrition (per million):

Men Women
United States 7 13
France 4 9
Canada 5 7
Japan 2 1
United Kingdom 1 2
Norway 0 1

Head Start (percent of age group enrolled in preschool)

2-year olds 3-year olds 4-year olds
France 35.7% 96.3 100
Norway 22.8 31.6 44.1
Finland 20.2 16.0 19.6
Germany 9.1 32.3 71.6
United Kingdom 1.3 25.9 69.2
United States 0.0 28.9 49.0

HEALTH CARE

Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP)4

United States 13.4%
Canada 10.0
Finland 9.1
Sweden 8.6
Germany 8.4
Netherlands 8.4
Norway 7.6
Japan 6.8
United Kingdom 6.6
Denmark 6.5

Doctors' incomes:

United States $132,300
Germany 91,244
Denmark 50,585
Finland 42,943
Norway 35,356
Sweden 25,768

Percent of population covered by public health care:

ALL NATIONS (except below) 100%
France, Austria 99
Switzerland, Spain, Belgium 98
Germany 92
Netherlands 77
United States 40
Average paid maternity leave (as of 1991; this changed with Clinton's signing of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act):

Sweden 32 weeks
France 28
United Kingdom 18
Norway 18
Denmark 18
Japan 14
Germany 14
Netherlands 12
United States 0

Life Expectancy (years):

Men Women
Japan 76.2 82.5
France 72.9 81.3
Switzerland 74.1 81.3
Netherlands 73.7 80.5
Sweden 74.2 80.4
Canada 73.4 80.3
Norway 73.1 79.7
Germany 72.6 79.2
Finland 70.7 78.8
United States 71.6 78.6
United Kingdom 72.7 78.2
Denmark 72.2 77.9

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

United States 10.4
United Kingdom 9.4
Germany 8.5
Denmark 8.1
Canada 7.9
Norway 7.9
Netherlands 7.8
Switzerland 6.8
Finland 5.9
Sweden 5.9
Japan 5.0

Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 101.5
Japan 92.2
Norway 90.2
Denmark 85.1
France 84.9
United Kingdom 82.2
Canada 82.1
Netherlands 80.3
Germany 77.6
Switzerland 72.5
Sweden 64.7
Finland 53.3

Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):

United States 203
Switzerland 175
Canada 161
France 156
Finland 154
Norway 128
Germany 122
Denmark 120
United Kingdom 114
Sweden 109
Japan 96
Netherlands 90
Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list.

Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people):

United States 5.8 years
Denmark 4.9
Finland 4.8
Canada 4.5
Germany 4.5
United Kingdom 4.4
Norway 4.3
Switzerland 4.1
Netherlands 4.0
Sweden 3.8
Japan 3.3

Percent of people with normal body mass:

Men Women
Germany 53% 37
Finland 51 37
United Kingdom 46 38
Canada 52 29
Switzerland 49 30
France 44 30
Denmark 44 25
United States 47 22
Sweden 44 25
Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change (More):

United States 60%
Sweden 58
United Kingdom 52
Japan 47
Netherlands 46
France 42
Canada 38

CRIME

People per police officer:

Sweden 328
Canada 358
United Kingdom 400
United States 459
Netherlands 553
Japan 556
Denmark 594
France 632
Finland 643
Norway 661

Annual reports of police brutality (per 100,000 people)

United States 92.5
United Kingdom 6.0
France 0.7

Prisoners (per 1,000 people):

United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.0
Germany 0.8
Denmark 0.7
Sweden 0.6
Japan 0.4
Netherlands 0.4

Death row inmates:

United States 2,124
Japan 38
Europe and Canada 0

Percent of households with a handgun:

United States 29%
Finland 7
Germany 7
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1
Looking at the above statistics, one would think that Europe is soft on crime, while the U.S. approach to law and order is based on no-nonsense deterrence. In reality, Europe is relatively crime-free, and the U.S. has the worst crime rate in the world:

Murders committed with handguns annually:

United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7

Murder rate (per 100,000 people):

United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70

Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):

United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5

Rape (per 100,000 people):

United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
Japan 1.40

Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)

United States 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Norway 22
Japan 1

DEMOCRACY
The U.S. may be the oldest existing democracy in the world, but it is also the weakest, and one of the only democracies where voting is not required by law. It shows:

Voter participation:

Germany 87%
Sweden 86
Norway 83
Netherlands 80
Finland 76
United Kingdom 75
Canada 75
United States 49

Average number of national referenda per year:

Switzerland 169
Australia 18
Denmark 11
France 10
Ireland 8
Italy 4
Sweden 3
Norway 1
United Kingdom 1
Canada 0
Finland 0
Germany 0
Japan 0
Netherlands 0
United States 0

Number of political scandals since 1945 (More):

United States 53
United Kingdom 42
France 16
Canada 5
Germany 3
Japan 2
Sweden 2
Netherlands 1
Norway 1
Number of politically motivated demonstrations, strikes, riots and armed attacks over 30 years:

United Kingdom 5,136
United States 4,258
France 1,566
Germany 622
Japan 524
Canada 260
Finland 63
Netherlands 57
Denmark 55
Switzerland 39
Sweden 33
The United Nations Human Freedom Index (0 = least freedom, 40 = most freedom. More.):

Sweden 38
Denmark 38
Netherlands 37
Austria 36
Finland 36
France 35
Germany 35
Canada 34
Switzerland 34
Australia 33
United States 33
Japan 32
United Kingdom 32

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Betty
11-29-2004, 01:21 AM
Sic, nice stats. Slightly outdated however, although I'm not sure what would change in 13 years.

I could agree that the US may be more unequal.

But my point is that poor people in the US could still be better off. And I'll tell you the stats that (do not) counter that.

-Size of the middle class is interesting. However, classes are measured relatively, so if everybody is rich, the lower class is not that poor. Hypothetically.
-Poverty level... interesting. I have ranted before about the twisting of poverty level statistics. It's basically the same as for the middle class, all relative. And if the poverty line is set high, more people are under it.

A lot of the stats just measure inequality... which doesn't necessarily equate to just how poor the poor people are.

Some of the other stats are more unrelated... like life expectancy can be due to lifestyle (ie Fast Food lifestyle vs healthier diets in other countries)... although I will admit that this is still a problem. But not entirely related to the economy.

So overall, I will concede that the poor might be taken care of better in a few other select countries... this may or may not be true as I have not seen unambigous facts... however... looking at some of those stats, I sure wouldn't want to be a doctor in Sweden! I suppose if I were poor, I might want to move to Sweden, but as I'd rather live a bit more comfortably, I would choose to be a doctor in the US.

I am glad you posted stats though, and even though I questionned their validity, I'm not just shrugging them off as unvalid. More to look into.

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 02:07 AM
The full report is linked and cites it's sources. Everything is accountable. It's also explained that poverty rate is percentage of people who make less then half the national average. This is simply reletive to the size of the economy, so an argument can be made that it's not comparable to Sweden, which has a much smaller economy, but it's also comparable to Japan, which is an industrial powerhouse, or Switzerland, which is the richest country in the world. But the inequalities are obvious, and are mainly the fault of our laissez-faire system.

Also, one would have to admit that looking at the malnutrition rates, crime rates, and the pollution rates which I didn't even have room to post, the US has a regressive society by first world standards.You proved my point quite clearly when you said you'd rather live in Sweden if you were poor but you'd rather have a comfortable lifestyle in the states. You need to understand that most people are not blessed with a comfortable lifestyme. The working class and lower middle class (I'd so proletariate and petty bourgeois but I don't wanna sound like a fucking commie) are the basis of society. America's national average income is 27,000 dollars a year, about the salary of a skilled manuel laborer with independent assets. The workers built our society from the bottom, and the make up a huge part of it. The statistics I've just presented prove that they're obviously not fairly represented, and this whole "free market" bullshit only makes for more poverty, more inequality, and more crime. I've just proven that the more socialistic countries are more advanced in so many different ways. If you're going to argue that you don't think this is good because you prefer complete freedom etc, etc, etc, do that, but you can't really deny America has a much more problematical social structure then nations in comparrison.

Betty
11-29-2004, 02:32 AM
I never questionned the stats, just their interpretation.

For now I'll leave the idea of which type of country takes better care of its poor... I'm finding it hard to get out of this one. (You win? For now? Unless somebody else can help me out, probably not...)

I guess I will finish off by saying, that since I intend to be middle/upper middle class... not one of the super rich people though... I would support an economy that catered to my needs. Not that I'd want to cut the rest of the population, but there needs to be a certain amount of self-interest.

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 05:54 PM
Yup, we're both lucky to born into comfortable lifestyles. I'm obviously happy about that, and wouldn't change it. I still don't believe states should be structured to favor people in my socioeconomic class, just as I don't believe in white supremecy even though I'm white.