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.

 

One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Well, stumason, all my figures were from 2 sources.... it doesn't really matter. We both have to pay the Tax Man.

And yes, we have a lot of taxes that you don't see. From what I understand about GB, the Fed's are the main source of taxers. Here, we have state, local, county, municipal taxes, depending on where you live.




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Pure Utopia, eh, Souljah? At what cost?

Somebody has to pay for it, in one form or another.

It was not pure Utopia, but my former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.

Yes there were of course problems and troubles within the system, but as far as I know there is not perfect political system today, that would serve the people, for the people and by the people. Yes we always had problems, since Yugoslavia used to be described as a small country with big problems: seven neighbouring countries, six republics, five nationalities, three languages, three religions, two alphabets and one political party.

I have lived 15 years in Socialism and I am living 15 years in Capitalism and I can sure spot the major differences between the two systems. But I bet my parents could tell you better. So far I do not know if we went from bad to better or from better to worse. Only time will tell, but so far I can see people are not really satisfied with the new system already. There is no more Middle class, which was a majority in the former Republic - suddenly there are just two classes; working class and the high class. Slowly the middle is just fading away. And the waters are full of sharks if you know what I mean. Just my opinion as an observer of the two systems.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, stumason, all my figures were from 2 sources.... it doesn't really matter. We both have to pay the Tax Man.


Indeed, one of life's two absolute certainties.

I still would trust the Inland Revenue figures over a journalist's though, if you don;t mind.


Originally posted by jsobecky
And yes, we have a lot of taxes that you don't see. From what I understand about GB, the Fed's are the main source of taxers. Here, we have state, local, county, municipal taxes, depending on where you live.


Yes, it is mostly Blair and Brown who tax us, but we do have local council tax ourselves for things like the Fire Brigade and rubbish collection, that sort of thing.

Anyhoo, I think it can be agreed that a proper Socialist country is doomed to fail, primarily because of social and economic stagnation.

A purely Capitalist society may fare better, but at what cost to the well being of the less privelidged? Europe today has social reforms and some left-leaning Governments (take Labour in the UK for example), but we also embrace capitalism to a good extent (especially the UK). Just because some US citizens see social reform and immediately think of the Soviet's, that does not make it so. On the whole, we are well fed, well paid and well cared for people.

It's a nice mix and on the whole work's well. It may mean slightly higher taxation than say, the USA, but we get back alot more from our Government in terms of services rendered.

In fact, we EXPECT more from our Government.

That is not too say we like being nannied, but we look after all the social strata, top to bottom. If you can afford more, great, but many cannot, so the State will provide. After all, is it not OUR country.

We should not be under the Government and look up to them, but rather the Government should look to us and what to do. Granted, especially in the UK, Blair will just ignore us anyway (take the recent online petition of 1.8 million signatures..he still wants to ignore it), but the rest of Europe has deliberately weak political system's which do not allow for one party to easily take control. It works.

I think some Americans confuse the Social Welfare systems with the economic performance of the countries concerned and immediately come to the conclusion we are failing Socialist States. Not true.

The economic problems in France and Germany stem from protectionist economic policy, which is not unique to a social system, but rather national pride.

An entirely different thing.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Stuman -


In fact, we EXPECT more from our Government.


That's where the 2 continents differ. In the states we want less government involvement in our lifes not more. (Though I'm not too sure how successful we've been lately).



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Further proof that your gov't is hungrier than ours:


Even under the stiff new tax law, U.S. Federal income taxes are still far behind Britain's. For a single person, the U.S. tax starts next year at 10% on net income over $750, runs to a peak of 81% on net income over $5,000,000. The British tax begins at 6% on earned income over $480, rises sharply, virtually confiscates all income over $20,000 (97½%). A U.S. married couple without dependents, earning $4,000 a year, will pay only $249 Federal income tax. In Britain they would pay $1,404.

www.time.com...

Emphasis added.


Well jsobecky I've read the article you linked to, and UK top rate Income Tax is 40%, NOT 97.5%.

Why is the article so misleading


Lets read the first paragraph and look for any clues ?


If the Chamber of Commerce is right (and not all tax experts are prepared to admit that it is), in fiscal 1942 the average U.S. citizen will pay $168 in taxes; the average Briton will pay $165.


And the date line on this article ?

Monday, Oct. 13, 1941





Thanks for the comedy


regards

beagle

pip pip !!

[edit on 21-2-2007 by the smoking beagle]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by the smoking beagle

And the date line on this article ?

Monday, Oct. 13, 1941





Thanks for the comedy


regards

beagle

pip pip !!

[edit on 21-2-2007 by the smoking beagle]



I completely missed that!


Nice try Jsobecky and you nearly got away with it


Well, we were at War I suppose, so the Good of the Nation was at risk



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Well, we were at War I suppose, so the Good of the Nation was at risk


Well, I must admit that you guys are right.

I completely missed that one also.

Boy is my face red.

Touche' to you guys!

G*damm Time Magazine!

Mod Edit: Trimmed Quote

[edit on 2/22/07 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
You Were Saying?


U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty

The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.

Damn!

I forgot most people have me on ignore already.

Poverty in the Richest Nation on the world?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Isn't the idea of democracy that fascist, capitalist, socialist, communist and normal people, all have a say in how a country is run, trough compromise and negotiation, striving for a balance between all forms with the main objective to get a ballance between quality of life, welfare and a stable economy?

If you go to far to one side (like the US imho is going now towards pure unadulterated corporate fascism) where the good of the corporations is raised above all, where even the lives, health and welfare of the people are being viewed as goods, while these very people have little or no say in it, in this case they are being misslead in thinking they have an actual choise.

Same goes for the other factions in other nations btw, don't think the US is the only country moving dangerously close to an extreme.

The bottom line is that it seems that we (humans) are unable to keep a balance between whats good for all, good for individuals and good for the country.

Therefor we will likely stay in cycles of war and revolution whenever one faction gets to much power in a nation or even around the world.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join