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.

 

Does anyone know how the USA is rated?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
If you had a very high income you can always donate money, you should not be forced to pay it. Bill Gates has more money than anyone would know what to do with and he pays huge taxes as well as donates plenty (it's in the $40B area I believe now) and he didn't even graduate from college (the exception proves the rule?) When my great grandfather first came over here from the Netherlands he had nothing, he was literally a ditch digger... By his 50's he was head of a major corporation - he didn't complain about being literally dirt poor - he did something about it. I know there are many examples of such "American Dream" stories, so it's useless to point them out.

There are also many different types of grants and such that the poorest people can obtain. Public university tuition is not really very expensive, usually in the $120/credit hour (I imagine community colleges are even cheaper) range and if you're completely destitute many many universities will even give you free books. The government and other organizations provides tons of loans and such that are easy to qualify for and usually don't charge interest or need to be paid until a good time after graduation. Then there's the Montgomery GI bill. Some universities even allow you to postpone payment until a time after graduation. I have a friend who comes from a salt of the earth lower-middle class family - not wealthy but not impoverished - who was given over $12k/year when he applied for a loan - 12k! When he'll need less than a third of that at most. I think that getting funding for a university degree is not all that difficult as people make the excuses for it to be.

Additionally, if you are very very poor you can take your classes a few or only one per semester... It'll take a lot longer to graduate, but this is your life we're talking about - take it seriously!

[edit on 3-3-2005 by AlphaHumana]




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Your logic doesn't make sense alpha, I mean you are saying that a person of affluence shouldn't be taxed the same ratio that a poor person is being taxed. Why not?
It all adds up to the same percentage of their wages, it shouldn't matter about what the actual dollar value being taken by the government is. Giving tax breaks to the rich is ridiculous, they all ready have all the money. Not to mention they are not the rampant consumers that the lower and middle class are. Giving poorer people tax breaks and increasing taxation for the rich not only keeps the government in the money, or even increases its coffers but also gives millions of others a better chance.
It also allows middle class people to have more spending money, money they will undoubtedly use to buy products that make these rich people richer anyways. I don't see the problem, I think there are more benefits to taxing the wealthy than overtaxing the already burdened.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
All people are not taxed at the same ratio, that's kinda the point. The wealthy have to pay a higher percentage of their income than poor people do - take a look at the tax bracketing system (I'd imagine it's because the government feels they can afford to - and they can - but that also is not the point, the point is that they shouldn't be forced to.) I'm simply arguing that it would be more fair (in a completely unemotional way) for the poor to pay a higher percentage based simply on the fact that they use the services that the government provides - it's like the equivalent of paying for public services directly (e.g. Poor people likely do ride the bus and go to public school so they should be the ones paying for them - another example - I don't like sweet foods so I don't order dessert at the restaurant, should I still be charged for a piece of pie? No, the people who eat pie should pay for the pie.) Just think of how fair it would be for a nondrinker to have liver problems while a vino is perfectly healthy (god, I hope people read that comment the way I intended - I am not comparing poverity to alcoholism!)

[edit on 3-3-2005 by AlphaHumana]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
It's impossible to rate countries on such subjective ideas as "quality of life"



It is in fact very easy.

You select your variables, make certain that the data are measured in the same way for each country, weight your measures, and voila - ranked quality of life between countries.

It is in the selection of variables that this particular talent to lie with statistics rests.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
i still don't think that a rich person being more heavily taxed is wrong. By decreasing the taxation on the middle classes you are in essence increasing thier buying power and helping the richer anyways. It makes economic sense to allow the mass majority of your consumer populace the ability to spend, because they will spend, they will cunsume and they will make the rich richer.
Anyways, the point is that the USA isn't necesssarily the best place to live, which wasn't a suprise at all.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I understand your point, jawa. I wasn't necessarily pondering whether or not it would be best particularly to tax the poor at a higher percentage, just what's fair and more conducive to being more free in its base definition form. Also, on the other side of the coin as far as consumption goes - giving tax breaks to wealthy (or even really making everyone taxed at the exact same rate/bracket) allows for job creation (if I'm saving $100k/year in taxes, I can spend that money to expand my business thus creating more jobs, for example. Likewise, if you just give 1000 people a $100 tax break seriously, what real good is $100 gonna do? They could theorhetically invest such a small amount, but more likely than not it will not go towards anything truly productive - maybe a new pair of shoes for example.)

And sure, the US may not be the best place to live, but certainly it's a better place than most (As is Canada, W. Europe, etc.) It's a joke to, say, compare human rights here with Russia or China.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by AlphaHumana]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
It's a simple matter of personal responsibility. If I have to take the steps and make the sacrifices to do well in school, graduate, get a good job and become successful financially why should I have to provide for other people? I'm not being cold-hearted, just saying I should have the right to keep my own money. People should only have to be responsible for themselves - why should I have to provide money for some highschool dropout drug addict who had to prositute themself out to carrying on their habit that now has diseases and requires expensive treatment. When I make a choice I take responsibility for its consequences.


The typical mind-state of someone from the United States, are you?



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Yup, sure am! As one can see from my "location" line, I'm from and in Fort Lauderdale. Dunno if you're praising or deriding my opinion though, since you didn't seem to feel the need to qualify your statement.


Thanks!

[edit on 4-3-2005 by AlphaHumana]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Observation based on cultural aspects. Not deriding your opinion of how you want to live your life.

Sorry about that. I've been studying cultural anthropology, got taken away in the moment. : P



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Thanks for clarifying
Have studied a small bit of social anthropology in my day myself, differing opinions and points of view are what keeps this world balanced. Thanks for your contribution, now that I know it was (obviously) not in agreement, but not hostile either



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Replying back to this thread I was doing some reading on cultural anthro : P and I got some facts/figures from the book that i thought were pretty interesting. (If anyone wants to pick up the book it's called Cultural Anthropology: A Problem Based Approach by Richard H. Robbins)

Quoted "American children are twice as likely to be poor as Canadian children, three times as likely to be poor as British children, four times as likely to be poor as French children, and 7 to 13 times more likely to be poorer than German, Dutch, and Swedish children."

These facts are related to children/mother situations, so if a child's parents are divorced and he lives with his mother those are the comparisons to other countries.

here are some links.
Poverty in the United States: 1998
www.census.gov...

Inequality.org
www.inequality.org...

Child Poverty in Rich Nations - UNICEF
www.unicef-icdc.org...


[edit on 7-3-2005 by Aether]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join