Bet you a dollar that it stays a "temporary" tax increase for the rest of our lives.So guess what, they want to make the 'temporary' income tax increase into a permanent income tax increase. Fortunately most of the Legislature realizes that their chance of being re-elected is nil if they vote to make it permanent.
Deal. Bury yourself with the dollar, I'll get the shovel.
If you guys honestly think the entire EU is a "unified culture," you need to turn off Fox News for a minute and book a freaking flight. Seriously, this is ignorant to the point of absurdity. In the EU, we're looking at states that fought each other every bit as nastily as the north and south did in the Civil War, but within living memory, and with centuries of animosity before that. And they generally speak different languages and have different religions and radically different customs.
But they manage to get along now, as partners, and have a murder rate a lot lower than ours.
I suspect we could learn from them.
Last I heard, most of their attempts at uniform solutions have been just as much if a failure as the U.S.'s, except in their case it's through the number of exemptions. The UK, for example, still uses the pound despite being a member of the European Union.
So some people having "too much" drives the lower class to rape and murder?
No, it's people not having enough to get by that contributes to a higher crime rate. How can this simple fact escape you constantly?
Less inequality is one of the largest factors why Scandinavia has less problems than the US with regards to several areas.We're by no means perfect, but it's clear that what we're doing certainly has a huge impact on a lot of societal "ills."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You really can't opt out of society: there's no where else left to go. I think that puts a large responsibility on government to use the funds it takes responsibly.BNW: How much would you be willing to pay in taxes, in percent of your income, assuming you do not get any more of it back through handouts than you do today, as an absolute top limit for your generosity? At what point would you say that enough is enough?But that is the game, most that play his lines pay little to nothing, they want others to pay. Often for themselvesTaxes aren't theft. Stop implying that they are. They're an agreed upon mechanism for which we pay for the things that have been agreed upon.
You're free to opt out of society at any time in several different ways, but if you want to stay here and participate, taxes are one of the rules.
I'm totally willing to have a conversation about whether or not government is using the funds responsibly. I think that's a great conversation to have and indeed a necessary and constant topic of debate.
Calling taxes theft does not contribute to that conversation though.
|
An area with shipping containers (seriously, don't you have any other building materials???) with formerly homeless people only, that would be a chilling place to live.
The largest shipping container costs ten thousand. Turning it into a home fourty thousand. Putting it on an acre? Fifty thousand. Properly done is more likely to survive a tornado than a hundred thousand dollar timber house.
You want a bigger house, get a job, achieve self employment. This is all the state owes its citizens.
Calling taxes theft does not contribute to that conversation though.
No, but -you can leave any time you'd like so society can do whatever it wants to you- is just as bad on the opposite end of the spectrum.
That said, I find it laughable someone is using Utah as a prime example of how to treat the homeless.
I know several cities where we tried to get homeless shelters built on a humanitarian drive...and were flat out told it wasn't happening.
Oh, they'd give two or three a voucher for a place to stay...and arrest the rest (and maybe even give them a ride to the borders of the town so they could get arrested in the next town and have the same thing happen).
SLC can be decent at times...but still, very hostile in some ways (at least moreso then any other place I've ever seen with how they treat the homeless...excepting some ME locales and other places).
Utah probably would be the LAST place I'd point out as a shining example of how to treat the homeless.
It shares the conservative Republican (as in far right) viewpoint on a lot of subjects (which is also ironic as many of it's policies regarding it's laws are actually very liberal minded in it's approach...perhaps one of the more liberal leaning states I've seen in regards to some things like taxes, land use, and other items).
It's also ironic that it's the capital of one of the major American Religions (as in a religion that has it's roots in the US as opposed to another continent) and strong "Christian" base, but treats it's poor, it's homeless, and it's beggars and less well off worse than many other states that they would view as far less "enlightened."
I like Utah, seriously...but I'd hate to try to be there and in need...IF...
Are the articles bullshiznit? Did Huntsman really hand out 2,000 free apartments to the homeless? Reducing Utah homelessness by 70something%? And are there (or were there) really only 3,000 homeless people in Utah? Seems kinda wacky, there's 5,000 in NH, I read; but then again, I seem to remember Wanda Sykes on The Chris Rock Show telling me back in the day that nobody actually lives out there except for rocks and coyotes. Entirely new question with a twist: how sizable, do you think, are the "Lost Boys" Mormon fundamentalist outcasts among the Utah homeless? If I think of some more questions, I'll be sure to ask.
Contributor
|
Are the articles bullshiznit? Did Huntsman really hand out 2,000 free apartments to the homeless? Reducing Utah homelessness by 70something%? And are there (or were there) really only 3,000 homeless people in Utah? Seems kinda wacky, there's 5,000 in NH, I read; but then again, I seem to remember Wanda Sykes on The Chris Rock Show telling me back in the day that nobody actually lives out there except for rocks and coyotes. Entirely new question with a twist: how sizable, do you...That said, I find it laughable someone is using Utah as a prime example of how to treat the homeless.
I know several cities where we tried to get homeless shelters built on a humanitarian drive...and were flat out told it wasn't happening.
Oh, they'd give two or three a voucher for a place to stay...and arrest the rest (and maybe even give them a ride to the borders of the town so they could get arrested in the next town and have the same thing happen).
SLC can be decent at times...but still, very hostile in some ways (at least moreso then any other place I've ever seen with how they treat the homeless...excepting some ME locales and other places).
Utah probably would be the LAST place I'd point out as a shining example of how to treat the homeless.
It shares the conservative Republican (as in far right) viewpoint on a lot of subjects (which is also ironic as many of it's policies regarding it's laws are actually very liberal minded in it's approach...perhaps one of the more liberal leaning states I've seen in regards to some things like taxes, land use, and other items).
It's also ironic that it's the capital of one of the major American Religions (as in a religion that has it's roots in the US as opposed to another continent) and strong "Christian" base, but treats it's poor, it's homeless, and it's beggars and less well off worse than many other states that they would view as far less "enlightened."
I like Utah, seriously...but I'd hate to try to be there and in need...IF...
Keep in mind a lot of the fundamentalist Mormons are in other parts of the US - nearby - like Arizona or Idaho.
Are the articles bullshiznit? Did Huntsman really hand out 2,000 free apartments to the homeless? Reducing Utah homelessness by 70something%? And are there (or were there) really only 3,000 homeless people in Utah? Seems kinda wacky, there's 5,000 in NH, I read; but then again, I seem to remember Wanda Sykes on The Chris Rock Show telling me back in the day that nobody actually lives out there except for rocks and coyotes. Entirely new question with a twist: how sizable, do you...That said, I find it laughable someone is using Utah as a prime example of how to treat the homeless.
I know several cities where we tried to get homeless shelters built on a humanitarian drive...and were flat out told it wasn't happening.
Oh, they'd give two or three a voucher for a place to stay...and arrest the rest (and maybe even give them a ride to the borders of the town so they could get arrested in the next town and have the same thing happen).
SLC can be decent at times...but still, very hostile in some ways (at least moreso then any other place I've ever seen with how they treat the homeless...excepting some ME locales and other places).
Utah probably would be the LAST place I'd point out as a shining example of how to treat the homeless.
It shares the conservative Republican (as in far right) viewpoint on a lot of subjects (which is also ironic as many of it's policies regarding it's laws are actually very liberal minded in it's approach...perhaps one of the more liberal leaning states I've seen in regards to some things like taxes, land use, and other items).
It's also ironic that it's the capital of one of the major American Religions (as in a religion that has it's roots in the US as opposed to another continent) and strong "Christian" base, but treats it's poor, it's homeless, and it's beggars and less well off worse than many other states that they would view as far less "enlightened."
I like Utah, seriously...but I'd hate to try to be there and in need...IF...
They have vastly undercounted the amount of homeless in times past from what I've seen.
The numbers go up in the Summer, and down in the Winter. In the summer you have a large number of homeless, many times in the parks and other areas of the mountains around the cities.
From personal experiences in trying to deal with homelessness folks out there and our humanitarian missions...the did NOT reduce the number of the homeless by 70%. It's like an article I read recently that had said they stamped out homelessness in a certain area of SLC...so right after that I went to Pioneer park, found almost 5 homeless immediately, and confronted the writer. They revised the article.
The way they try to do it is to redefine what it means to be homeless. In their definition, if you aren't actually sleeping ON THE STREET (that's on the street or sidewalk, so if you are in a park, in a Walmart parking lot, crashing on someone's couch temporarily or for the night...you don't count in some of their surveys), you aren't homeless.
Utah seems to twist the numbers a LOT so it's hard to say how many there are. They want to show a good picture of how a certain religion is taking care of the poor, as well as how their way of handling it (ignoring it for the most part, or making rulings that actually hurt you for being homeless) is the right way of doing things.
Efforts to create homeless shelters in other cities than SLC have met with very hard resistance. They use the vouchers as a reason why they don't have to, but most of those vouchers are very temporary and don't last long...and even worse...they don't have enough to even come close to tackling the problem. They also say that homeless shelters raise crime around the areas that the shelters are in...and hence they don't want the shelters as that would raise crime. Of course, the homeless are already there and with no place to go...which do you think would raise crime higher?
When confronted with that...their next solution is to say, those who don't "want" to be "helped" they will "help" which is another way of saying, kick out of their city or arrest and then kick out of the city as "undesirables."
I have met more resistance in our volunteer humanitarian projects to help the poor in Utah than many other locations (including international locations).
Maybe it's because of the personal interactions with those who supposedly help the homeless in the state of Utah that has made me so cynical in that regard, but I would hardly hold Utah as a shining example of how to treat the Homeless...more as...perhaps some place that is an example of how those who truly treat the poor and needy badly act.
Hopefully it will change eventually, as there are some other very socialistic ideas they have in the state, but right now, it's been very discouraging on that front.
Utah is a GREAT place in many other ways, especially if you have money. But if you are "looking for handouts" as many would say there...you have other options which are better options. It seems many of those in politics that have power, would prefer those who are "looking for handouts" become some other states problem rather than Utah's problem.
Very Christian of them....(sarcasm intended).
The only good thing in Utah is the occasional "Saint" which feels more inclined to help the beggars...that is of course...before they arrest you and cart you off to jail for begging in an unauthorized area (more areas for street handlers and others in NYC or other places than SLC from what I've seen...though there are locations which are known for it in SLC as well).
In some of those areas, I hear (haven't experienced it myself) you can get some sizeable donations in Utah if you can nab the spot before others do.
I should hope so! The rich getting richer is my entire lifestyle strategy encapsulated in three simple words . . .
Maybe it's because of the personal interactions with those who supposedly help the homeless in the state of Utah that has made me so cynical in that regard, but I would hardly hold Utah as a shining example of how to treat the Homeless...
I'm not sure anybody is. I think, though, that some people (myself included) like the giving away 2,000 apartments free to homeless people. Helps save the state money, apparently.
---
I went and read some articles about Warren Jeffs and whatnot, apparently his base of ops were two towns on the Utah/Arizona border. Anyway, articles kept saying "400 boys wandering southern Utah" or "400 Lost Boys in Hildale" or some such. So that's something like a little less than one-sixth, if you accept the 3,000 number, which, apparently, GreyWolfLord advises us not to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to fling poo at Lord Dice, but instead, I decided to link one of my all-time favorite moral philosophers.
This thread has derailed a few times, but let me offer my constructive criticism of these ideas. As a note, I have no political affiliations, because I don't believe in a person constraining themselves to any one mindset. Every situation requires in-depth analysis and personal judgement, not 'I belong to X or Y, so I therefore believe in X or Y's views'. I respect everyone's right to an opinion and hope that we can have a civilized debate on these things, even though civility is a dying art these days.
Shipping Container Homes: It's a wonderful idea, assuming other services are added as well and the people are given help with whatever made them homeless in the first place. You do a person a better service, as the saying goes, by teaching them to fish rather than just handing them one. Of course, they have to start somewhere, and a stable and decent living arrangement is a pretty good start.
Taxes: Really? Theft-by-government? That's obvious. The only thing I have to say is that no man or organization is owed anything beyond what is necessary to live and sustain themselves with. It is not the job of a group of multimillionaires to swipe money from citizens to pay for science projects, festivities, health insurance, and private jets and it's not the peoples duty to support politicians who have more money than they do. For those who say that taxes go for more than that, you are correct, but tell me, why is it that out of all the things that get cut in federal funding, it's things like schools, fire departments, police stations, and medical services, instead of politician benefits, salaries, funding for their pet projects, vacations, $10,000 dinners, ect.? That's my point. Politicians bash CEOs, rightfully so, for taking more than they truly earn, but don't they do so as well, just under the protection of the force of law? How is it that they own the land that your money paid for? How is it that they are entitled to your money that you labored for? It's theft made legal, plain and simple. If the money was used for nothing but bettering the lives of people who need help, I would gladly give taxes, because it would mean something them. But having money stolen to give to those who already have more? Ridiculous... ludicrous... INSANE.
Living Wages: A person working a full-time job SHOULD be able to pay for utilities, rent, groceries, medical insurance, and at least some entertainment. Why do I say this? Because a person deserves more for the priceless time they spend, and can never get back, working for these wages. Radical Capitalism is becoming the same as any real-world system of Communism, wherein most people are basically forced into servitude, equally poor and laboring for a system run by a select few who are given more. Am I saying pay a janitor as much as a physician? No, most certainly not. Am I saying that their labor should be enough to give them what they need and give them some joy out of life? Absolutely.
Crime from the Lower Class: No excuse for murder, rape, or any other crime where a human being harms another, period. Smoking marijuana or dodging taxes that should not even exist do not, in my eyes, count as crimes, because they hurt no one. I don't do the former, so I have no bias, and am a college student, so thankfully I don't have to worry about taxes, though I will admit I am biased against them.
Homocide Rates In The U.S.: Inexcusable! And not caused by the legalization of guns or the poverty of people. Caused solely by human viciousness, plain and simple. Think about this: what of the significant number of homicides in that rate that are comprised of stabbings? Strangulations? Poisonings? You cannot outlaw all potential weapons of murder, nor can you buy the viciousness out of a person. Poverty drives people to violent crime? Who said? Who, in a hypothetical situation, told a man to kill an entire family after he stole from them, even though he had a mask on? That was the man's choice; he had what he needed to buy his food or medical aid and he had his anonymity, he just WANTED to kill those people. I don't know why people connect the legalization of guns or poverty with homicide. Our society's high homicide rates are due more to the encouraged selfishness and lack of moral responsibility that plagues it than anything else.
EDIT: Perhaps constructive criticism wasn't the right phrase. More like, 'state my opinion and have a debate' lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to fling poo at Lord Dice, but instead, I decided to link one of my all-time favorite moral philosophers.
You did fling poo, dude, and it splattered all across m'lord Dice's face. I was all like, "M'lord and master, let me get you a napkin."
But he said, "Oh Dicey, don't trouble yourself," and he picked me up and wiped his face off with my housecoat before I could actually take the thing off and offer it to him in place of napkin!
Doodlebug, you have literally besmirched me!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Smacks Dicey for good measure]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caused solely by human viciousness, plain and simple
The thing you have to explain with that is why the swedish humans are less vicious than the american humans. Given the vikings, i don't think the answer is genetics.
we revere honor and not dignity.
Plus no f!+!ing respect for authority.
They also don't know what "lane discipline" is in the U.S.A.
Plus they give driver's licenses to any dumbass.
It's our psyche.
Sure seems like it.
"Perhaps unsurprisingly, not everyone buys these arguments, and Monkkonen himself took a different, though equally conjectural, approach. At the time of his death, he had been working on an article called 'Homicide: Explaining America’s Exceptionalism,' which hypothesized that four factors accounted for the centuries-long differences between American and European homicide rates: mobility, federalism, slavery, and tolerance. Mobility breaks social ties; federalism is a weak form of government; slavery not only rationalized a culture of violence among white Southerners (where the murder rate has been disproportionately high, as it has, and remains, in many of the so-called law-and-order states) but also infected American culture; and American judges and juries have historically proved less willing than their European counterparts to convict murderers, tolerating, among other crimes, racial murders and killings by jealous spouses."
Also, apparently, New England's murder rate dropped dramatically after all the Indians were killed.
I'm just glad it wasn't me who posted the link connecting our murder rates with slavery and ethnic genocide.
@BigNorseWolf, that is caused by the amoral selfishness that is lauded in America. I don't disagree with you on that. I do disagree to some extent, with the implications that being poor promotes viciousness, because viciousness existed before that in those who had money and chose to trample the poor to get more of it. So that brings my point to fore: viciousness and selfishness themselves are the root causes of the circumstances... the massive amount of impoverished people are the result. That some of them take on those traits and further the vicious cycle is an aftermath and a personal choice. Does that make more sense?
EDIT: I do share your frustration over the American love of money and results over people and morality. I'm just explaining the logic of the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BigNorseWolf, that is caused by the amoral selfishness that is lauded in America. I don't disagree with you on that. I do disagree to some extent, with the implications that being poor promotes viciousness, because viciousness existed before that in those who had money and chose to trample the poor to get more of it. So that brings my point to fore: viciousness and selfishness themselves are the root causes of the circumstances... the massive amount of impoverished people are the result. That some of them take on those traits and further the vicious cycle is an aftermath and a personal choice. Does that make more sense?
None at all. You're answering the question "why is there murder and theft" not the question "why the hell is it so much higher in the us"
That is a good point, BigNorseWolf! There are several reasons, I suspect, that it's higher in the US: emphasis on individuality, diminished social and familial bonds, the erroneous concept of moral relativity, the fact that crimes are not dealt with in proportional punishments (The fact that someone can murder or rape and get less years than a pot-smoker or a tax evader is something that makes me angry,), the fact that citizens have both corporations AND government making them miserable, the fact that society teaches to care more about results than methods, the fact that the media plasters murderers all over the news constantly (Which makes the nutjobs come out and say 'Hey, let's give my meaningless life 15 minutes of fame by killing someone! Psycho #10,036 did it'.), and so many other reasons.
Basically, it's a compounding of all the possible causes that has contributed to a higher rate.
I'm not a big fan of sociological explanations. They're too vague, unprovable, random and well.. easy. "We need to change society!" sounds like the cry of someone that doesn't want to do anything.
There's an emphasis on individuality, therefore steal stuff! seems like gnome underwear logic. There's a big missing middle step there.
the erroneous concept of moral relativity: is Sweden any less into relativistic morality than the us? Given the US's religious bent I doubt it.
Does Sweden have harsher punishments for murder and rape than the us? No. So that's not it either.
Does sweden give its serial killers less publicity? Even if the answer is yes, the fact is that this is a tiny, tiny, almost imperceptable blip on the number of homicides that are commited. This can't be the answer.
This looks like more "get off my lawn!" old man complaining about things than an examination of what the problem is and why its there.
Personally, I think the reason for the Swedish low murder rate (and our conformism, and a lot of other things) is our climate. It's one thing to be homeless in Spain or other warm country. If you need to sleep outside, you can. In Sweden, during winter? You die. No ifs, ands or buts about it. So, in a country where you don't survive unless you can cooperate with others on at least a minimal level, those that couldn't didn't make it. If you want to talk genetics, every swede has that in the DNA - society IS important, even if you don't always have to do what it says. Hospitality grew vital, there are large areas of the North (where this situation is even more marked) where it is a matter of course to let people come in to your house, because nobody shuts out someone who might freeze to death.
This bred a sense of community at some level, with an appreciation for slightly more authoritarian leadership under several centuries of kings, but always with some of the attitude that "Remember, king, that you are only king for life". It made for a society that was receptive to the ideas of the german rechtsstaat, or Rule of Law. Up until the mid-nineties, the checks and balances worked.
It is always fun to hear people discuss the evils of an uneven wealth distribution. What these people always miss is that, even today, the US figures for it don't come anywhere near those of the Soviet Union at its height. Certainly, it wasn't money they got out, instead they got various tax-financed apartments, perks and so on. Take home message, I guess, is don't think taxes will solve that particular situation for you.
I don't think its the gap between yourself and the CEO that matters, but how far the gap is between where people are and a comfortable living.
Indeed. So long as people stay out of poverty, it doesn't matter much how much someone else makes. The fact of the matter is, no matter how you look at it, if you were to take the money from the ten thousand richest and distribute them evenly, most people wouldn't even notice. It's just a way for socialists to play on people's envy.
@BigNorseWolf, that is caused by the amoral selfishness that is lauded in America. I don't disagree with you on that. I do disagree to some extent, with the implications that being poor promotes viciousness, because viciousness existed before that in those who had money and chose to trample the poor to get more of it. So that brings my point to fore: viciousness and selfishness themselves are the root causes of the circumstances... the massive amount of impoverished people are the result. That some of them take on those traits and further the vicious cycle is an aftermath and a personal choice. Does that make more sense?None at all. You're answering the question "why is there murder and theft" not the question "why the hell is it so much higher in the us"
Lol. +100 points for using a 'The world according to Quark' argument. As true today as when it was written.
|
|
Indeed. So long as people stay out of poverty, it doesn't matter much how much someone else makes. The fact of the matter is, no matter how you look at it, if you were to take the money from the ten thousand richest and distribute them evenly, most people wouldn't even notice. It's just a way for socialists to play on people's envy.
Exactly, and the envy is sad. Should our country pay the lower workers more? sure but i really do not think the minimum wage is the best tool as it is just a race to the bottom and those slightly above the bottom are pushed down. This is a problem of the soul, both in the business owners paying slave wages and the entitled thinking they should be payed to not work. Few answers would be easy for either
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Andrew R I've been reading this thread and i think i've finally gotten the joke. You've been RPing this entire time, you're playing your avatar Asmodeus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Andrew R I've been reading this thread and i think i've finally gotten the joke. You've been RPing this entire time, you're playing your avatar Asmodeus.
I am not so patiently waiting for him to suggest eating the poor. They stand around all day like livestock anyway, why not take the next logical step?
@Andrew R I've been reading this thread and i think i've finally gotten the joke. You've been RPing this entire time, you're playing your avatar Asmodeus.
Bet you a dollar that it stays a "temporary" tax increase for the rest of our lives.So guess what, they want to make the 'temporary' income tax increase into a permanent income tax increase. Fortunately most of the Legislature realizes that their chance of being re-elected is nil if they vote to make it permanent.
Yes and no. The law enacting the tax has a sort of end date. Jan 1, 2015 most of the increase goes away, then later it drops again, but never to the original rate. They actually have to vote to extend it, unlike the auto pay raises that they have to vote to cancel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. So long as people stay out of poverty, it doesn't matter much how much someone else makes. The fact of the matter is, no matter how you look at it, if you were to take the money from the ten thousand richest and distribute them evenly, most people wouldn't even notice. It's just a way for socialists to play on people's envy.That's just not true. You're still underestimating how extreme the divide is.
I haven't seen numbers for the top 10,000 specifically, but in the US, the top 0.01% hold about 10% of the country's wealth. Which is more than the bottom 2/3 of the population. They'd notice.
Not that I'd advocate actually doing so. There's still time for gentler measures to work.
Worldwide the billionaires have a total of $6.4 trillion, that is less than $1000 per person worldwide. That total is a bit over 1/3 of the current US debt.
If we take all 12 million High Net Worth people, they have $46.2 trillion which is less than $7000 per person. So yeah, the poor in the US would "notice," but it's not going to change their lives.
It is always fun to hear people discuss the evils of an uneven wealth distribution. What these people always miss is that, even today, the US figures for it don't come anywhere near those of the Soviet Union at its height. Certainly, it wasn't money they got out, instead they got various tax-financed apartments, perks and so on.
You have any data available for this? The best I can come up with is this which posits that at its height of income inequality, the richest 10% were 7.2x as wealthy as the bottom 10% in 1946 and steadily dropped until 1970 when the graph does something weird that I don't understand. It doesn't, however, attempt to quantify perks.
I have a lot of trouble believing that the top 10% are or ever were only 7 times as wealthy as the bottom 10%. Not using any metrics I'm aware of.
I'm not even sure how you measure that. The net worth of the bottom 10% in the US at the moment is negative, right?
The 7x figure is for the Soviet Union in 1946. I only mention it because reading your post I'm not sure if you're on the same page.
EDIT: [Rereads post a couple of times.] Oops, now I get it, nevermind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. So long as people stay out of poverty, it doesn't matter much how much someone else makes. The fact of the matter is, no matter how you look at it, if you were to take the money from the ten thousand richest and distribute them evenly, most people wouldn't even notice. It's just a way for socialists to play on people's envy.That's just not true. You're still underestimating how extreme the divide is.
I haven't seen numbers for the top 10,000 specifically, but in the US, the top 0.01% hold about 10% of the country's wealth. Which is more than the bottom 2/3 of the population. They'd notice.
Not that I'd advocate actually doing so. There's still time for gentler measures to work.
Worldwide the billionaires have a total of $6.4 trillion, that is less than $1000 per person worldwide. That total is a bit over 1/3 of the current US debt.
If we take all 12 million High Net Worth people, they have $46.2 trillion which is less than $7000 per person. So yeah, the poor in the US would "notice," but it's not going to change their lives.
In parts of Africa owning a bicycle is a big deal. Many farmers don't own one. That means they have to walk to their fields/flocks. They can only bring to market as much as they can carry and they have to walk there. They have to walk to get the water they need for the day. Everywhere and anywhere, they walk. It eats up hours of productivity.
They save up for months or even years to buy a bicycle and when they do buy one, it improves their lives immensely. Now they have more time to work. They have time to take classes on how to read and write. They no longer rely on the labor of the children and can send them to school.
Please explain how a family which has difficulty affording a $50 bicycle isn't going to have their lives dramatically changed by $1000, let alone $7000.
Please explain how a family which has difficulty affording a $50 bicycle isn't going to have their lives dramatically changed by $1000, let alone $7000.
He doesn't have to, because that's not what he claimed. See Comrade Jeff's post above and "the trick".
For the record, as a poor American, albeit one without a family to provide for, I wouldn't know what to do with seven thousand dollars, let alone twenty thousand, and would probably die from a drug overdose or prostitution-related mishap within, oh, let's say, six-eight months after receiving such a princely sum.
Thank you, American plutocrats, for knowing what is best for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first four letters in "sociology" are the same as in "socialism."
Hmm. Seems suspicious.
Gobbo: The number I found with a cursory googling was a Gini-coefficient for Soviet Union of 0.38 in the seventies. The US has 0.45 now according to the same site. Brazil is going down and has 0.55 now. The EU is at around 0,3. Note, though, that this is just INCOME. The population in Soviet had rights to all sorts of things that are not free in the US today, but that right quite often did not mean they actually got those things. According to a man I know from Poland, the catch-phrase was "Feel free to demand it then" if you tried to get something without bribing. On the other side of the equation comes the various perks the wealthy people got, stuff that would have cost a lot to anyone NOT high up in the hierarchy, that also doesn't show in the equations. I would suppose the perks come out to far, far more than people imagine, and thus the Gini-coefficient is lower than it should be.