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: 18
22
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder why this thread isn't in the lol forum since it is bs
.




posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder why this thread isn't in the lol forum since it is bs
.


Good question. "Different strokes for different folks" seems to apply.

I got tired of pointing out the facts of the matter.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I'm not sure what the actual topic here is anymore, given the nature of things, but a modicum of research demonstrates that the issue of corporate tax evasion, far from being manufactured by President Obama, is actually of world-wide concern and will be a topic of discussion at the G-20 summit in September.

To wit: G-20 Plans for World Without Tax Evasion - Forbes Magazine



“We expect a group of countries to agree to a reasonably rapid timeline for implementing automatic exchange of tax information,” Australia’s G20 Finance Deputy Secretary, Barry Sterland, was quoted saying by the Press Trust of India on Friday. Sterland told reporters that the group’s central bank governors and finance ministers we will be “outlining implementation plans, timelines and approaches to be taken” to greatly inhibit overshore tax havens.




Once the sharing of tax information does pass between the G-20, however, it will become increasingly difficult for companies and wealthy individuals to hide money in foreign bank accounts.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That sounds "encouraging".

For whom, I don't know for sure.

Good topic for a new thread.




posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder why this thread isn't in the lol forum since it is bs
.


Astonishing levels of ignorance about the UK?



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: supermouse

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

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...


That simply isn't true. Only the poor (less than 100k per year) get the 10k tax free.

As you point out a lot of the taxes go to subsidizing land-owners which pushes the price of your home to that ridiculous level. This has caused the standard of living to drop in the uk and pushed the economy to the brink of collapse.


That's not correct. The first £10k is not taxable no matter what your earnings are. Not sure how you count people on less than £100k a year as poor though...



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: xuenchen

Denmark is wealthy, and is more socialist than Britain.
So this isn't really a very good argument is it?



underline..........

good point



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: supermouse

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

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...


That simply isn't true. Only the poor (less than 100k per year) get the 10k tax free.

As you point out a lot of the taxes go to subsidizing land-owners which pushes the price of your home to that ridiculous level. This has caused the standard of living to drop in the uk and pushed the economy to the brink of collapse.


That's not correct. The first £10k is not taxable no matter what your earnings are. Not sure how you count people on less than £100k a year as poor though...



Not sure why you are repeating this lie. In 2010 the Government introduced a measure meaning for every £2 an individual earns over £100,000 per annum, £1 will be deducted from their personal allowance. So you are wrong, the first 10k is taxed.

I am counting people on less than 100k as poor because they are often worse off than people on benefits. For example, a two bedroom ex council flat in London can cost around one million pounds, which is unaffordable to the person earning 100k, but easily attainable to an unemployed immigrant on benefits.

You mentioned in your post that you need to earn enough to buy a 40 acre ranch in the US to be able to live in the UK, which is largely the reason why the people outside of Mississippi are better off than the Brits.

Still, at least you're not Socialists?



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Greece, has a higher gdp than Mississippi.

Hmmm all the "socialists" countries in Europe have higher gdp than Mississippi.

Only DC, Delaware, and Connecticut have higher gdp than all the socialist countries in Europe.
wiki



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: supermouse
The tax threshold came up as someone claimed the average income in the UK is 12 k. Now you are saying someone on 100 k is poor.
Even in London 100k is massively above average salary.
As for your comment on unemployed immigrant on benefits you seem to have confused this site with the daily mail.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

Denmark ranks 10th in the Index of Economic Freedom. The United States ranks 12th. Britain is 14th. So, it all adds up. Predictably, the top ranking "free" countries (the US is not ranked as free) have wonderful economies with a very large middle class. The ones at the bottom, most notable Venezuela which is as socialist as you can find almost anywhere, have horrific economies and almost no middle class. I consider Denmark to be less socialist than the United States.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Greece, has a higher gdp than Mississippi.

Hmmm all the "socialists" countries in Europe have higher gdp than Mississippi.

Only DC, Delaware, and Connecticut have higher gdp than all the socialist countries in Europe.
wiki



Per Capita?

Hmmm.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: supermouse

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: supermouse

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

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...


That simply isn't true. Only the poor (less than 100k per year) get the 10k tax free.

As you point out a lot of the taxes go to subsidizing land-owners which pushes the price of your home to that ridiculous level. This has caused the standard of living to drop in the uk and pushed the economy to the brink of collapse.


That's not correct. The first £10k is not taxable no matter what your earnings are. Not sure how you count people on less than £100k a year as poor though...



Not sure why you are repeating this lie. In 2010 the Government introduced a measure meaning for every £2 an individual earns over £100,000 per annum, £1 will be deducted from their personal allowance. So you are wrong, the first 10k is taxed.

I am counting people on less than 100k as poor because they are often worse off than people on benefits. For example, a two bedroom ex council flat in London can cost around one million pounds, which is unaffordable to the person earning 100k, but easily attainable to an unemployed immigrant on benefits.

You mentioned in your post that you need to earn enough to buy a 40 acre ranch in the US to be able to live in the UK, which is largely the reason why the people outside of Mississippi are better off than the Brits.

Still, at least you're not Socialists?



What are you on? I said the £10K wage was one on which you would not be liable for tax - and you are not. I mentioned nothing about buying a ranch anywhere. I would however love to be so poor I only earned £100K a year, that's sarcasm by the way.

You might want to check who posted what before you respond.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I finally went through the OP's calculations and got $28,392 per UK citizen. I couldn't find the UK population number that the article used and I rounded to 1.6 US dollars to 1 UK pound. (a lower exchange rate or larger population at the time of the article could be all of the difference)

UK citizens have $28392 per Capita in US dollars. which is off the chart, below all US states

My Dollar to pound exchange rate must be too low.

The estimate in the OP is as close as Keynesian economics can be.

(GDP numbers are socialistically biased to show government as a source of production)

edit on 29-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: supermouse

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: supermouse

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

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...


That simply isn't true. Only the poor (less than 100k per year) get the 10k tax free.

As you point out a lot of the taxes go to subsidizing land-owners which pushes the price of your home to that ridiculous level. This has caused the standard of living to drop in the uk and pushed the economy to the brink of collapse.


That's not correct. The first £10k is not taxable no matter what your earnings are. Not sure how you count people on less than £100k a year as poor though...



Not sure why you are repeating this lie. In 2010 the Government introduced a measure meaning for every £2 an individual earns over £100,000 per annum, £1 will be deducted from their personal allowance. So you are wrong, the first 10k is taxed.

I am counting people on less than 100k as poor because they are often worse off than people on benefits. For example, a two bedroom ex council flat in London can cost around one million pounds, which is unaffordable to the person earning 100k, but easily attainable to an unemployed immigrant on benefits.

You mentioned in your post that you need to earn enough to buy a 40 acre ranch in the US to be able to live in the UK, which is largely the reason why the people outside of Mississippi are better off than the Brits.

Still, at least you're not Socialists?



What are you on? I said the £10K wage was one on which you would not be liable for tax - and you are not. I mentioned nothing about buying a ranch anywhere. I would however love to be so poor I only earned £100K a year, that's sarcasm by the way.

You might want to check who posted what before you respond.


Didn't you say "That's not correct. The first £10k is not taxable no matter what your earnings are. ", which is a lie since if you earn 120k you don't get any personal allowance.

didn't you also say "my terraced house In south London would buy me a 40 acre ranch...".

I don't really understand the forum software, so perhaps I have you confused with a different retard? How do I check what you posted



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I find that rich, very rich indeed. The right wing DOES own ATS. Look at all the Anti-Democrat threads here that, by the way, have no FACTS, or historical KNOWLEDGE that should go DOWN in flames, but the right wing crowd on here stars and flags everything against the Democrats. THIS thread is the perfect example. BRITISH people themselves have shot this down from page one, yet it's STILL on the front page, 21 flags as I type this and tons of stars for the right wing people coming in here spouting dribble defending what has ALREADY been proven to be right wing BS.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
This thread is a total load of bollocks - basing an evaluation of a country being "poorer" than another based solely on dividing the gross GDP on a per capita basis is so simplistic it's laughable - it fails to take into account a wide range of factors.

First of all, the average UK salary in 2012 is, in US dollars, $43988 is actually higher than the US average on a whole and higher than a good portion of US states when looking at them individually.

US average salaries up to 2012

Also, the average wage in UK might be "less" than the average wage in some states, but that doesn't take into account the expenses that US citizens may have that UK citizens simply do not - one being Medical insurance and/or bills. It's all very well if you've been earning, say, $5k more a year than your UK counterpart, but if you suddenly get a medical bill of $100k then it is totally moot.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The United Kingdom is the WORLD'S 7th largest economy by nominal GDP.

The State of Mississippi (US) ranks between Tunisia at 68th and the Dominican Republic at 69th by nominal GDP.

Source - Comparison between US States and World Countries by GDP

That really settles the relative place of comparison between the NATION of the UK and the NATION (State) of Mississippi.

But since the real question here is an attempt to compare capitalism and socialism, let's do it.

Capitalism is all about creating individual wealth, fair enough?

Let's look at wealth distribution per person in the US to start, shall we?

Isn't that the whole logic here, how much does each person "make"?

Right so, using numbers from a study conducted at the University of California, Santa Cruz in 2010 the top 1% of the population held 35.4% of the total wealth.

From the 2010 US Census the population of the US was 308,745,538. 1% of that number is roughly 308,455 people.

From the World Bank, in 2010 the GDP of the US was $14,958,300,000,000. (Source - World Bank)

Taking 35.4% of the national GDP then for 2010 means that the top 1% (308,455 people) accounted for $5.2952 trillion and the bottom 99% (308,437,083 people) accounted for $9.006 trillion.

Calculating GDP per capita of the US top 1% in 2010 then equals $17,100,971.52 per capita.

Calculating GDP per capita of the US bottom 99% in 2010 then equals $28,181.41 per capita.

There's a much truer "individual wealth" calculation based on per capita GDP that took me about 20 minutes to work up.

Work shown, sources cited. (Of course, it's all just statistical lying, but that's the game we're playing)

EDIT: Soooo ... what this really shows is that 99% of Americans are worse off than the average Mississippian, right?

It also shows that, per GDP, the US top 1% ALONE is wealthier than almost every other nation in the world, excluding China.

If GDP per capita were actually a reflection of "individual wealth" then these folks would also make, on the average, $17,072,790 more per year than the average American.

Go Oligarchy, er, I mean, Capitalism!
edit on 20Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:49:10 -050014p082014866 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.


Edit 2: Oh, by the way, just for S&G, if similar "wealth distribution" numbers were used for the UK 1%-ers, their 2010 per capita GDP would be $1,248,213.
edit on 21Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:00:02 -050014p092014866 by Gryphon66 because: Noted 2.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

the brits are capital elitists. that means the lower class is socialized to the same degree as the lowest casts in india. the financial elites in GB are entirely world order financial capitalists. all lower classes [everyone but the elites] will be socialized into obscurity. the new royals have arrived [but been here all along]. they still stink as of swine.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Britain is much more socialist than the US, but in all fairness, liberals who trumpet socialism often point to small, homogenous countries like the Scandinavian ones when they crow about how great socialism is while completely forgetting that the US is neither small nor at all close to having the degree of homogeneity those countries enjoyed until recently.


EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD read and re-read this post by ketsuko!! This is the KEY to a successful socialist system, and why the USA will only get better when we restore STATES rights.

A multicultural socialist society will ALWAYS FAIL because of the blame game between cultures and the lack of a common national value system that everyone feels committed to. Finland, Sweden, Norway work well this way.

The only large nation with a successful social benefit system is Japan, and only because the population is 99.5% Japanese, as well as being a very conformist society.

I have spent significant time in all the countries mentioned above.
edit on 30-8-2014 by 8675309jenny because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join