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: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

Thanks. I just thought I'd give it a try to see if we could work together on the thread.

With respect,
Charles1952

I might as well answer your question, though.


Are you more comfortable with the government taking stuff from other people and using that stuff to buy weaponry that is then used, either by our government or other governments that we, in turn, hand out these weapons to, to murder innocent women and children and call it collateral damage?

I myself would rather have my money taken to purchase a phone for someone rather than having it taken to rain down Hellfire from above on kids.


When I work through your words I get "Would you rather be taxed to pay for the military or for social programs?"

It's a question that doesn't provide enough information to give an answer. Right now, the government spends ten cents out of each dollar for the military (Not counting what it pays to veterans for past service).

Is a dime out of each dollar too much for the military? Maybe, maybe not. But there's certainly no high horse in the area to climb up on.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

Thanks for being concerned to want to prevent me from broadcasting mistakes. That's why I hope you'll call in, if this thread is approved.

So, let me look for these mistakes, you're worried about. Give me a minute.

OK, got it. You're afraid some one might say that the average wealth of the individuals is the appropriate measure, while you think it should be the total wealth of the State.

And that's all you've got? Really??? That counts as "fundamental errors of logic?????"

I think the show is safe. Thanks for your concern.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

My friend, if you think that we are living in a socialism, you obviously have no idea what socialism means, or looks like.

We have some of a lot of different political and social conventions playing out in the fabric of our society. We have social programs running, yes it's true, but we also have, running parallel to that, and making it impossible for folks to BENEFIT from these programs, a heavily capitalistic employment structure, as well as an economy based on debt, exactly as does America.

Our currency and economy are based on ghosts and dreams, just as that of the US. Also, I highly doubt that the research undertaken to produce these results, takes into account the debts owed by the States individually, or that owed by the UK for that matter.

But it is entirely probable that our nation is poorer than the least well heeled US state. However, I would argue that the reason for that, has more to do with the stunting of social programs by a disreputable bunch of Conservative lackwits, aided and abetted by the previous "Labour" government having made every attempt to denude the healthier aspects of the socialist paradigm in the eyes of the world, and more importantly, the people of the United Kingdom, by failing in all particulars to actually live up to the name and intent of Labour itself.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

Denmark doesn't poke its nose into other country's problems or create problems for the government/'leader of those countries and send aid to any country that it thinks will benenfit it.

The gap between the very rich here, many of whom are only comparatively recent tax payers and then drip only the min imum they can, is absolutely huge.

Although one of the wealthier country;s in the world our state pension is a disgrace being among the lowest in Europe.
Our infrastructure has been run on a spider's web thin financial input so much is crumbling and add that to the cuts that are in place Socialism isn't doing too good at the moment in many areas of the UK.

The UK politics use to swing from the Conservatives to earn the money and then onto Labour being in and spending that money. Back then things were improving and people had hope and were working and buying their homes. Now we have gone from that bib difference within our political parties and the way they acted, we now have just a slow spiral downwards and the hope factor getting ever less and less regardless of who is in

Since 2008 our property market, which as this is the land of the rich landowners is the only bench mark our government knows how to use, has not recovered apart from London and is bubbling away nicely. Mortgages are getting harder and harder to get, as the deposit, which most cannot afford to save, are sluggish. The social help were one to loose their job has been snatched away in the cuts, so you could say that cameron and osborne that smug wealthy popsie are slowing doing away with socialism in the UK. Maggie damaged socialism's union team supporters club and we have not recovered.

I would gently say that our government has followed a lot of practices in the USA, helped with American companies over here being allowed to bring in practices like short term contracts etc which were against the socialist principles.

Hope that little bit helps.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

Please don't take anything I said to be a major criticism. There are some subjects where one side will make a big issue of words. You know, "I'm not an anti-Semite, I'm an anti-Zionist." "Is that Socialist country failing? Oh, that's because it's not truly Socialist." "is that non-Socialist country succeeding? Well, that's because it has Socialist principles."

At other times, the words don't seem to matter so much. Things like "Ukraine, US, UK, Israel, Germany, Nato are all racist, Nazi, terrorist states bent on conquering the world." And "Islam is a religion of peace drawing undeserved hatred and Islamophobia from all over the world, they're just trying to survive."

Don't let the word "Socialism" throw you. Many sources have declared that there are currently only four socialist states in the world. Just about no one here knows what it means when it refers to a country, so it probably doesn't matter much.

It's only a word used to convey warm and fuzzy feelings if you want the government to take stuff from other people and give it to you. It will probably only clutter up the conversation here.

In regard to the question of whether Socialism pays, it depends what kind of payout you want. If you want economic growth, increased production, more "wealth," Socialism is one of the most widely documented failures in history.

But it has been used fairly successfully to get control over the people and route power to central bureaucrats. Many Americans like that idea. They believe the average American is too ignorant to make his own decisions, so government has to make them for him. Remember Bloomberg's 16 ounce soda ban? Or basically anyone still supporting Obama against the average person?

With respect,
Charles1952


Words and their proper definitions matter especially when comparing apples to oranges. When people are slamming Socialism as bad and propping up Capitalism as good it's important to realize that a person is trying to compare two economic models BUT if what they are really trying to do is condemn welfare than it's important to realize that they are not talking about an economic model but something that exists within the Capitalist economic model.

Socialism is an economic model in which workers own the means of production. We have never seen this model implemented by a nation in the entire history of civilization. So to say "See it doesn't work" is ignorant at best, propagandist and deceitful at worst. What we have seen in history is the tragic mistake of trying to transition from capitalism to socialism by force through states. The problem obviously then becoming states not wanting to let go of power and wealth.

Socialism is not welfare. If you are meaning to condemn welfare then call it welfare. It seems pretty simple to do, doesn't it?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!
Britain is socialist? Has never really been socialist! We've had socialist politicians that have held weight, and even had a party in power that has had socialist roots, but have never ever implemented any real socialist ideas or policies.

Also, poorer in what manner? I can tell you, that despite having poverty over here, we certainly don't have tent cities and whole families that are homeless or people that die due to not having health insurance. We do have a welfare state that looks after people, I suppose that is the closest to our only socialist system in the bloody country.

There aren't really any true socialist systems in the world so we can't really say if it works or not. I doubt other countries would allow a socialist country to exist without attempting every way possible to force them to join in the banking cartel and economic slavery they themselves use. As other have pointed out Scandanavia and Iceland are the best examples........ Iceland certainly know how to tell bankers to f*** off and look how well they are doing.

edit on 26-8-2014 by b14warrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Charles, I'm very confused.

You seem to have misunderstood or in some way taken offense at the facts I stated. I have to say, I am deeply troubled that you didn't see the very obvious and clear point being made here, or that you're upset in any way! I know this because it is very out of character for you to restate or misstate or misrepresent what someone else says as grossly as you have above, and I want to do everything possible to amend any mistakes.

Please allow me to attempt to state the facts in a clear and direct manner; I'm sure your feathers will be unruffled.

The original claim, both in the OP and the linked article was simple: the socialist UK is poorer than any US state except MS. It was not I that made the claim about the total wealth of the states involved; it was the OP and the article. I'm sure you actually did read the article, right?

I merely pointed out, repeatedly, as have others, that not only is the thesis false, but that the evidence doesn't prove the claim. That's quite obvious, and since I know you are a person that prefers facts over rhetoric and the truth over mere partisan agendas, I can only conclude that you're possibly overwrought at your budding media career.

Peace my friend. I'm sure you'll be okay on the radio, even if are unclear about the facts of this matter!


Best,



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952


When I work through your words I get "Would you rather be taxed to pay for the military or for social programs?"

It's a question that doesn't provide enough information to give an answer. Right now, the government spends ten cents out of each dollar for the military (Not counting what it pays to veterans for past service).

Is a dime out of each dollar too much for the military? Maybe, maybe not. But there's certainly no high horse in the area to climb up on.


You are really posting out of character Charles ... because this post of yours is quite simply riddled by gross misstatements. Every comparative analysis states that the US military budget is IN FACT 19-22% of the total budget, year after year.

Here are but a few references for you that substantiate this fact:
Washington Post
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
www.governmentspending.com

I can detect that you're still upset in some way, so please allow me to assuage that ill temper if I may ... I merely highlighted a point in your previous post that was so typically partisan I was certain that you'd want to review it in light of harsh realities.

Because I can't believe that you were merely repeating such an oversimplified and hackneyed political statement so as to imply that the only options available to the American people are between taking money away from people to give away and buying weapons of war that have resulted in a minimum of 100,000 or so civilian deaths just in the last few overseas expeditions our government has undertaken.

Same government, same tax dollars spent. That is just too obvious for you to have missed it; I'm sure you were still preparing for your media event.

Best,
edit on 8Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:38:46 -050014p082014866 by Gryphon66 because: inserted one "by"



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Well, this is all a bit awkward.

Shall I put the kettle on?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


Socialism is an economic model in which workers own the means of production. We have never seen this model implemented by a nation in the entire history of civilization.


Perhaps true Capitalism has also never been implemented ?

Maybe the whole "system this, system that" is a fallacy.

But then again, maybe everything spins back to a true "owner" of production is simply an individual or group of individuals who "own" a business that they themselves operate.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Just had a look at the Brits minimum wage, those who work in the malls and factories, is £6.31 per hour, that is $10.4672,
Most 'working' Brits average £12.000 per year, and pay 43 percent of that in direct and indirect tax per year.
The £27.000 per year average wage bandied about includes people like Lord Groveniers salary of about £20,000 PER HOUR, so it all depends on what figure you want to use.
Some Brits depend on food banks, also government schemes that 'top up their wages' using some of the 43 percent tax they paid in the first place!



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff
What average works out at 12k a year? Both mean and median is a lot higher?
Also if on 12k you would not pay 43% tax. Almost your full income would be under income tax threshold and indirect taxes do not come to 43% ( unless you spend a lot on alcohol and fags)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: pikestaff
What average works out at 12k a year? Both mean and median is a lot higher?
Also if on 12k you would not pay 43% tax. Almost your full income would be under income tax threshold and indirect taxes do not come to 43% ( unless you spend a lot on alcohol and fags)




Only food and children's clothes are NOT taxed, gasoline, water, electricity, adult clothing, beers, wines, spirits, DIY supplies, autos, airport tax, furniture, carpets, tableware, car parks, (even at hospitals) cookware, fridges, cookers, vacuum cleaners, adult shoes, entertainment, not sure how much books and periodicals pay, TV's, hobbies, sports, need I go on? either direct tax, wage packet, or indirect tax, such as VAT (value added tax) 90 percent of gasoline cost is tax, same with cigarettes. I typed the TOTAL tax paid. The Average of people who work with their hands, not seat wamers.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff
Yes most purchase have tax (vat or otherwise) but not any where near 43% and at 12k very little of your income is taxed.
You said the average working. People in office jobs (seat warmers) are working people as well. In fact many manual jobs will pay considerably more than office jobs so still unclear about the 12k average.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

Hi,

I'm puzzled by your comments based on the actual OP. For them to have merit (and I don't think they do, the average wage is not £12k), you would have to do a direct comparison with each American state otherwise it's a little meaningless with regards to the OP isn't it?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I'm American and even I know Britain has been going the opposite direction from where they used to be.
The financialization of everything for the greedy few is the problem. Pretty soon, there is nothing left to steal from the people below them and it all collapses.
London is the financial capital of the world or at least they used to be and Wall Street is right there with them.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I admit I was confused by Charles1952's apparent desire to exclude funding for US Military VETERANS from his errant claims above, so I thought I'd refresh my understanding. Surely, Charles must certainly have been familiar with the fact that US military spending is 19-22% of the annual fiscal budget, not 10% as he claimed above, the amount allotted to supporting, sustaining and caring for our Veterans would not amount to to between 50% and 55% of the total Defense expenditure??? Certainly not with all the cuts and political shenanigans inflicted on the program by the US Congress?

And indeed, we don't.

For example, in 2015, the US Military Budget is $756.4 Billion. Total amount for the Veterans Administration: $65.3 billion, or about 8.6% of the entire overall budget. Of course, unlike some, I find this appalling that we don't do more for our Honored Servicemen and Servicewomen.

The percentages are similar in previous years as well. What an abysmal comment on our national fidelity to those who served!



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder what the UK spends for healthcare and military ?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I should think that would be readily available on the internet, X ... why don't you look it up and report to us?

I mean, surely, you're not just musing mindlessly, right? Why not do the work and let us know?




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Was highly dubious of your figures for U.S. defence (ahem) spending. However a quick google search seems to confirm. (apologies for mentally doubting you).
That seems a ridiculous proportion of government spending.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join