It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism Doesn’t Pay: Britain is Poorer Than Any US State But Mississippi

page: 16
22
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


Will there be notifications like that when threads or at least the topics of threads are going to be featured on the "Next Level BullS##t"?

It's up to the show host. Some of us drop a notice in the relevant threads, some do not, so PM the guy that's doing NLBS and let him know that you think it's a good idea.




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Grimpachi


Will there be notifications like that when threads or at least the topics of threads are going to be featured on the "Next Level BullS##t"?

It's up to the show host. Some of us drop a notice in the relevant threads, some do not, so PM the guy that's doing NLBS and let him know that you think it's a good idea.


I'll say again, it's disappointing that a thread that is almost totally about the UK will be on air at 03:00 UK time when it's unlikely you will get that many people from the UK attending, which basically means people with an opinion of the UK, but not actual citizens will get to sprout their opinion with little to level set them. Glad this truly is a global site.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Power_Semi


But it isn't quite socialism and it isn't quite capitalism and it isn't a free society or free trade economy.

Maybe we need a new term.

Scamalism? Fraudalism? Usealism? Jokealism? Hadenoughalism?


Actually makes a little sense.

Sounds like the UK and US have many things in common.

Gotta wonder how much of the "Socialism" parts are amplifying the money trouble.





posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Power_Semi


But it isn't quite socialism and it isn't quite capitalism and it isn't a free society or free trade economy.

Maybe we need a new term.

Scamalism? Fraudalism? Usealism? Jokealism? Hadenoughalism?


Actually makes a little sense.

Sounds like the UK and US have many things in common.

Gotta wonder how much of the "Socialism" parts are amplifying the money trouble.




Perhaps not socialism but since both the US and UK provide ludicrous levels of welfare for the rich and for corporations in the form of cutting or eliminating their just portion of taxes that the rest of us pay ... THAT might be a similarity.

After all the UK has it's own "rabid right" in power at the moment.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Which one cost more?

The "Socialism" welfare or the "Corporate" welfare.

And which one produces more for the governments?

Interesting comparison.




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

sorry but you stat's are wrong, (2012 figures)

California the US richest state with a GDP of around 2 Trillion USD
Mississippi around 88.55 billion USD

the UK GDP is around 2.5 trillion USD. So the UK would the richest state in the US.Mississippi GDP is comparable to some small African country.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

im not from Norway , but i don't think it has many sheep but it does have a lot of Oil for such a small country and it didn't waste it. Norway standard of Living is a lot higher than the US , in fact it's one of the highest in the world.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Which one cost more?

The "Socialism" welfare or the "Corporate" welfare.

And which one produces more for the governments?

Interesting comparison.



It depends how you look at it.

Corporate welfare will "produce" more income for campaign contributions and such.

Social welfare will increase tax revenue, increase product demand and help drive local economies because if someone needs welfare, you can guarantee they are going to spend it.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: nibbles2008

I seem to remember Norway does not drill for oil.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: nibbles2008

Very true.

But the stories are using GDP per capita for comparisons and adding in some kind of PPP ratios.

[ gulp ]




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

But does "Corporate" welfare produce tax revenue or reduce tax revenue?

And maybe "Social" welfare produces extra votes.




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: nibbles2008
a reply to: xuenchen

im not from Norway , but i don't think it has many sheep but it does have a lot of Oil for such a small country and it didn't waste it. Norway standard of Living is a lot higher than the US , in fact it's one of the highest in the world.


"Sheep" is a term for "People".



And Norway has deep national debt.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

By definition, corporate welfare includes allowing companies to skirt by paying little or without paying any of their fair share of taxes, their contribution to government is nil.

On the other hand the social safety net provides funds for recipients to purchase items like basic housing, communication ability and sustenance level food, which contribute to the local economies, which then, eventually, contribute to the tax base.

But, let's see here, you like guessing games Xuenchen ... gross estimations that prop up your agendas ... let's see what I can do:

The extended Bush tax cuts alone are estimated to cost the American people $4.5 trillion in the period 2009-2019, or roughly $450 Billion each year. (Source)

Estimates of the cost of corporate tax evasion are difficult to calculate but have been estimated at $92 billion per year (Source)

Cost of the 13 programs usually included in the social safety net: $357 Billion for FY 2013 (Source)

You do the math.



PS: The math is $542 billion - $357 billion = a savings of $185 billion outright.
edit on 14Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:58:22 -050014p022014866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:59:36 -050014p022014866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff

Most 'working' Brits average £12.000 per year, and pay 43 percent of that in direct and indirect tax per year.




The first 10k is tax free for each earner, with a greater allowance for dependents etc.

Besides, the average wage is £26,500.

And lets not even start on house prices. Even in the 90s, my terraced house in South London would buy me a 40 acre ranch in Michigan...
edit on 28-8-2014 by Whodathunkdatcheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: nibbles2008

I seem to remember Norway does not drill for oil.


How do they get it up from the bottom of the North Sea? Do they tempt it with tasty snacks, perhaps?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But don't tax cuts keep more money in the general economy with less government interference?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: sheepslayer247

But does "Corporate" welfare produce tax revenue or reduce tax revenue?

And maybe "Social" welfare produces extra votes.



As far as corporations are concerned, I would guess that it would even itself out. Sure, the corporations create jobs and products to sell on the market, but they are granted federal and state exemptions in certain circumstance. In my local area, Facebook just built a massive data center that employs around 100 poeple, but they were granted millions in tax write-offs and property tax exemptions.

I'm not so sure about social welfare producing votes for one particular party over the other. The nation is split pretty evenly on politics and half the nation is on welfare. I believe it's safe to assume that not all the people on welfare are not exclusively democrat...so I pretty much reject that notion.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Not a bad analysis.

Now we see "Corporate" welfare is at all levels of government.

I wonder if the real "Local" politicians that grant these "welfares" are getting paid off?

I'm staying shallow.




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

But don't tax cuts keep more money in the general economy with less government interference?



A complicated question.

The answer is No.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247


Facebook just built a massive data center that employs around 100 poeple, but they were granted millions in tax write-offs and property tax exemptions.


In this example, I wonder if the taxed salaries & benefits make up the "Corporate" welfare difference.

I would think the local "breaks" might generate more local revenues on several levels.




top topics



 
22
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join