The very poorest should be no more than three times worse off than the very richest

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
most people are born into wealth or born into poverty. who has more chance of becoming rich? The African child born into poverty or the American child into a history of wealth. is this fair/ i just want to see a fairer way of living. i did state this would be needed on a global scale.

But it never works out that way... even in to poorest of places Africa, you see elitists classes, warlords, groups that take from the have nots ,and keep for themselves... Watch the movie blood diamond , where a rebel group meaning well forced a good number of people they claimed to be fighting for, into slave labor... the goal mining diamonds of course...

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
most people are born into wealth or born into poverty. who has more chance of becoming rich? The African child born into poverty or the American child into a history of wealth. is this fair/ i just want to see a fairer way of living. i did state this would be needed on a global scale.

look at the way you've phrased it, do we use the people that are richest as our bench mark or the people that are poorest?

we can't make everybody as wealthy as americans, the planet can't sustain it.
we wouldn't want to make everybody as poor as the people living off a rubbish tip in somalia.

where is your point of fairness?

where nobody has to eat off the rubbish tip in somalia would be a good start

[edit on 3-6-2009 by woodwardjnr]

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
where nobody has to eat off the rubbish tip in somalia would be a good start

[edit on 3-6-2009 by woodwardjnr]

Isnt that the alleged goal of all of these governments and organizations who keep interfering with Somalia? How many millions of pounds of supplies and dollars head that way and how many ounces of good has it done?

I suppose we start this endeavor of yours off pretty easily. Lets say the barrel you are puling from is bottomless. Fix Somalia.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


i agree, it's absolutely horrific but that, on a world wide scale, is about as bad as it gets, the poorest people in the poorest country.

three times better off than than is still intolerable. so, that's not our bench mark. the average american is to high a mark for the planet to sustain, so that's not our bench mark.

where do you see the point of fairness? the bench mark where we say no-one should have any less than this ammount or any more than 3 times this amount?

it's a serious question.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Lets say the barrel you are puling from is bottomless. Fix Somalia.

build schools, then build a few more schools and finally, build some schools.

there is less given in aid every year than there is given to banks, ignoring the bail outs and almost nothing goes to Somalia. make no mistake about it, there is no international aid initiative, it's just a bullsh t salve for you concience that the government bleats about.

[edit on 3/6/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


Cant stop there. You;ll have to convince people to attend then protect those who do attend from the warlords. It would have to be a fairly large security/military operation as well as an educational one.

Then there's the inevitable "misconduct" that will arise turning the effort into some debacle.

It would be just like Iraq but a little further South.

It would drag on for decades like this.

It's never as easy as "build a school."

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by octotom
I think that due to socialism, people feel that the only way they can help people is through being taxed. Why wait until you're in a high tax bracket? Why not start now?

I know this argument lol - I'v had it before. I get what you are saying but I am too busy to walk around all day every day putting euro coins in poor peoples polystyrene cups... If i did, I would also be poor very quickly because I would not be working..

With the system that is in place in "western" countries and the way capitalism creates charities that only give a small percentage of donations to those who need it.. Thats where the problem arises with donating it directly to those that need it.

Social donation thtough taxation is the best way, in my opinion, to ensure that money gets to those that need it while also ensuring that money stays in the economy and goes back to the gevernment through taxation etc etc.

Know what I mean? Or are you just going to keep your own view and not respect anything past that?


[edit on 3/6/09 by Dermo]

That is the exact problem right there. You haven't even thought of the fact of writing a check and giving it to a charity. Instead you want the government to take the tax money and give it to the "people who need it".

Sorry it doesn't work like that the politicians in government will use your tax money to give it to people that will vote for them. Last I heard there is a big scandal going on over in the UK about the MP's living off the taxpayers.

That is all that taxes do, instead of taking the initiative yourself to donate to charity to help the poor your want the government to tax you so you can give to the rich. That is all taxes do is giving to the rich politicians.

The fact is there are going to be poor people and there are going to be rich people. That is facts of life. And in places like Somalia there is barely even a government, you also don't take into account in most poor countries they are run by dictators that take the aid richer countries give them and they keep it for themselves. Just the way it is.

Payment schemes like the one in your OP has already been tried and have failed miserably. Why you would think failed idea's are good idea's is beyond me.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

i agree, it's absolutely horrific but that, on a world wide scale, is about as bad as it gets, the poorest people in the poorest country.

three times better off than than is still intolerable. so, that's not our bench mark. the average american is to high a mark for the planet to sustain, so that's not our bench mark.

where do you see the point of fairness? the bench mark where we say no-one should have any less than this ammount or any more than 3 times this amount?

it's a serious question.

I dont know the answer, it's a good point. i'll have a think about an answer

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Cant stop there.
-----------------------------
It's never as easy as "build a school."

no, it's as easy as "build schools, build some more schools and then build some schools"

you educate, you provide employment and you raise the level of the society.
there is nothing, by a huge margin, that will lift a country out of poverty like universal education, if you provide that one thing, the country fixes itself.

reply to post by jjkenobi



When my grandma would tell one of us grandkids to do something and we'd say "I can't" she'd say "can't means won't" --- DO IT.

I am all for aiding the disabled but not the able-bodied. If someone has two arms and two legs and chooses not to use them it's their problem not mine.

reply to post by pieman


Where I grew up there was this massive ghetto project housing complex. Large enough to be it's own town.

The crime was ridiculous. Deliveries couldnt be made to the area without police escort. Several attempts were made to build a police sub-station in the area in effort to curb crime. Each time the sub-station was burned down.

None of the kids were attending local schools. A sort of sub-station school was built several times. Several times it was burned to the ground. Finally the city bulldozed the complex and the "residents" relocated.

That was maybe a couple thousand people. A simple neighborhood gang defeated the police and the educational efforts of the local government.

I'm glad you seem optimistic about all a simple school can accomplish but when people are animals the game changes a bit.

There has to be a safe way for those interested in the educational opportunities to receive them. Eventually, over time, the measured success of those participating would begin to turn the tide but that takes generations.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Education is really the only way to bring about change. But I cant help but think you're over simplifying the massive undertaking and extremely costly long-term ordeal.

It would be exactly like Iraq.

Maybe the UN can git-R-done. They were so successful in Rwanda after all.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
That is the exact problem right there. You haven't even thought of the fact of writing a check and giving it to a charity. Instead you want the government to take the tax money and give it to the "people who need it".

Sorry man but I have a direct debit from my bank account every month that transfers money directly to 'trocaire Ireland' which is a charity that provides food and shelter for the worst off in various African countries so whats the story with the assumptions???

Sorry it doesn't work like that the politicians in government will use your tax money to give it to people that will vote for them. Last I heard there is a big scandal going on over in the UK about the MP's living off the taxpayers.

I don't live in the UK.. see 'Ireland' under my avatar.

I understand your views.. and I will assume that by your argument that you are American..
Now, without meaning any offense to you.. I would like to point out that where your government spends a certain amount of money on war, mine spends that percentage on social policies that benefit everyone and keep that money in the economy..

Which is better for its citizens? Which is better for the families of those killed in said war?

That is all that taxes do, instead of taking the initiative yourself to donate to charity to help the poor your want the government to tax you so you can give to the rich. That is all taxes do is giving to the rich politicians.

Sorry m8 but you haven't got a clue what you are on about.. and that is a fact.

Our taxation system is completely transparent and we can see exactly where everything is going.. I know where the welfare money is going.. whomever told you that the system works any differently is talking rubbish. Yes, it can be wasteful but nothing is perfect.

Politicians can be corrupt in this countries but scamming the social welfare is a serious taboo.. our politicians prefer to take backhanders from property developers.

Why you would think failed idea's are good idea's is beyond me.

How has it failed? Its working in our EU countries every day.. and the majority of these countries have very low or no fiscal debt.. contrary to popular belief amongst those die hard brute force capitalists.

You clearly have a problem with it.. and I understand that.. I have been to the US many times and seen/talked about it to people.. but don't give me that condescending rubbish please.

Your system is as perfect as ours... and that is a fact. The only difference is ours helps our disadvantaged by 'force'.. yours is left up to compassion for the most part.. and that also hasn't worked.

The funny thing is how very few of ye will even entertain the fact that this system works as just as well as yours but has some big differences where you have to pay more taxes but get specific things for free.. which puts those extra taxes back in your pocket anyway.. and can make your life easier in the long run.. See free healthcare..


[edit on 3/6/09 by Dermo]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


you did say a bottomless bucket.

i don't know where this project was, somewhere in the US i assume. the difference is, in somalia people are in actual poverty. $1.60 a month kind of poverty. in the US, people are in relative poverty, they'ld bend down to pick up $1.60 kind of poverty. the mindset is different. people have no compunction risking their lives to get an education in many third world countries. when you risk your life drinking water, the risk of going to school so you can have the chance of not risking your life drinking the water is well worth it.

not every school you start will be built, i'm not saying that, but some will succeed, and educate.
then more schools would be built and succeed.
and more, and more. eventually it works.

like i said, a bottomless bucket solution, just keep building schools.

Yes sounds like the ranting of a deadbeat,some spend their formative years studying and learning,others drop out,live off parents till they get the boot,then have the oddasity to whine and complain that the world owes them a favor,grow up OP

Originally posted by Dermo
Our taxation system is completely transparent and we can see exactly where everything is going.

alright, now that's enough, that's just silly talk.

i'm on PAYE and i have a hard time working out what i'm supposed to be paying, never mind where it's going. are you an accountant or something? i'll give you "our tax system is translucent" but to say it's transparent......why thats just fianna fail talk.

Originally posted by pieman
i'm on PAYE and i have a hard time working out what i'm supposed to be paying, never mind where it's going. are you an accountant or something? i'll give you "our tax system is translucent" but to say it's transparent......why thats just fianna fail talk.

Haha.. fair enough, we'll go with translucent.

Its more transparent than the vast majority mind you, which is my point.
If you want to know where your PAYE is going.. Check the budget site - Much of the PAYE use is broken down - Here

You can reference that against
Here
and
Here

Then if you have an interest in exactly what they are funding in each section from specific taxes, you can usually find out about the funding on the website for that service or industry.

Its not too hard to find out TBH, whether you could be bothered is another story

Also not Fianna Fail btw.. I take mild offense to that

reply to post by Dermo

I would like to point out that where your government spends a certain amount of money on war, mine spends that percentage on social policies that benefit everyone and keep that money in the economy..

Yep, so does our government spend money on social welfare programs. In upwards of about 500 billion a year, right around the same cost as our defense budget in peace times.

Fist, you have to prove that welfare helps anybody, I've researched policies in Europe and I compare the EU to the USA since the population is the closest. the EU's unemployment rate is just as high as America, and the EU as a whole is in debt just like America.

All welfare does is create dependency, if welfare worked there would be no poor people.

Sorry m8 but you haven't got a clue what you are on about.. and that is a fact.

No, you have that backwards you don't know what you are talking about, Governments are filled with mostly rich politicians, politicians get paid with tax payer money, politicians also have expense accounts that are taxpayer funded. If you give the government more tax money all that stuff goes up. That is fact.

How has it failed? Its working in our EU countries every day.. and the majority of these countries have very low or no fiscal debt.. contrary to popular belief amongst those die hard brute force capitalists.

Soviet Union, North Korea, Old School Communist China before they went almost completely free market, Cuba, etc.

Your system is as perfect as ours... and that is a fact. The only difference is ours helps our disadvantaged by 'force'.. yours is left up to compassion for the most part.. and that also hasn't worked.

The US Gov has spent upwards of 10 trillion dollars on the War on Poverty yet still there are just as many poor people. We have charities such as Habitat for Humanity that builds houses for people that need a home. In most cases those Habitat homes are destroyed within a few years, because most of the people that get them don't have any respect for things they don't earn themselves.

Welfare has been around since the beginning of time, it is not a new concept. It is also proven not to work. The point of Welfare is to help people back on their feet, when in reality most people just take advantage of the system.

The funny thing is how very few of ye will even entertain the fact that this system works as just as well as yours but has some big differences where you have to pay more taxes but get specific things for free.. which puts those extra taxes back in your pocket anyway.. and can make your life easier in the long run.. See free healthcare..

Again, no the system doesn't work. People dependent on handouts that are able to work, is not a a sign of success it is a sign of adjunct failure. And another thing Free Health Care is not Free.

Our income tax rates here in America are right around the middle of the bunch we just don't have a national sales tax which puts us in a slightly lower tax bracket. On the other hand our Business taxes are the second highest in the world.

If welfare worked then there would be no poor people. All welfare does is make people dependent on other people.

Your system is as perfect as ours... and that is a fact.

I brought that quote of yours back up just to further reiterate the fact that you are the one that doesn't know what they are talking about. Before FDR came along with all his social safety nets America's unemployment rate was around 2% at most but it regularly stayed at just about 1%. After those safety nets were initiated unemployment has been at the lowest 4% when not in a wartime economy. And since you brought up the issue of War Ireland has had their own problems with internal conflicts.

The fact is I didn't vote for these people that send our troops off to die and wage war and Empire build that is other people that votes these people into office.

Welfare creates sponges that don't do anything for society. When the only choice presented to people is either work so you can eat or don't work and starve people tend to want to work. Then those people also go on to support themselves and contribute to society not take from society. If welfare worked I wouldn't have a problem with it, but the truth is that it doesn't as the numbers show.

Your condescending attitude is one of ignorance not intelligence.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


na, you're just wrong.

that 1 or 2% figure was skewed in many different ways.

yeah, sharecropping meant that, technically, people weren't unemployed, but in reality, they were exploited and purposely kept in poverty, or coal miners in kentucky (i think kentucky, might be somewhere else, not good on specifics) or vegetable pickers in california. there are many examples of the same stark choice between starvation and exploitation.

a total lack of welfare just allows exploitation just as to much welfare allows spongers.

there is a balance between overall good and overall bad, the trick is to strike it.

[edit on 3/6/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
All welfare does is create dependency, if welfare worked there would be no poor people.

Its not perfect and has to evolve to something better.. if there were jobs for everyone, it would be a different story. Also, I have never been on welfare so don't get me wrong, im not a dole head, I have always worked my own way.. I would just prefer to have a welfare system in my country because there are no jobs to be gotten with a 10% unemployment rate.. thats it.

No, you have that backwards you don't know what you are talking about, Governments are filled with mostly rich politicians.

1) Im not in your country.. remember that... Our politicians are not generally rich... you are right about the expense accounts BUT you are making it sound like every cent goes to pay politicians...
2) you missed my point altogether.. How does money allocated to social welfare go to politicians? We may have some level of corruption but we are not that stupid.. and if you are generalizing from personal experience.. remember everywhere isn't the same.

Soviet Union, North Korea, Old School Communist China before they went almost completely free market, Cuba, etc.

So why is your country heading in our direction.. remember that social, economic and political policies have been cyclical since the time of the Roman empire.. and there is nothing we can do about it.

Welfare has been around since the beginning of time, it is not a new concept. It is also proven not to work. The point of Welfare is to help people back on their feet, when in reality most people just take advantage of the system.

Again.. so has capitalism.. and that has always failed.. and returned.. and failed etc

My point remains.. which is more correct if both are failing?

I brought that quote of yours back up just to further reiterate the fact that you are the one that doesn't know what they are talking about. Before FDR came along with all his social safety nets America's unemployment rate was around 2% at most but it regularly stayed at just about 1%. After those safety nets were initiated unemployment has been at the lowest 4% when not in a wartime economy.

Why were these systems implemented in the first place? Just interested.

Welfare creates sponges that don't do anything for society.

Look.. I never said it didn't, what I said was, what are you supposed to do with people that cant afford an education, cant get jobs because there are none and cant afford food because they have no money? This is borne of capitalism, which leads to socialism, anarchy and back again.. thats life.. None works perfectly or else 1) We wouldn't be in this global recession and 2) we wouldn't have any poor.

What I am pointing out is that you really don't realize that your perfect capitalist system is also flawed because of human greed and a plethora of other things that have doomed it. I can see the future of socialism.. and its bleak.. Capitalism will also be there unfortunately.

Your condescending attitude is one of ignorance not intelligence.

You had to end with an insult.. Cheers. i love how the ignorance word is thrown around on this site.. especially directed at those who disagree with you.

reply to post by pieman


That is when unions came about.

So what is the difference between welfare and exploitation it is the same thing. The government keep people on welfare poor too.

I really don't see where the difference is. There is even exploitation going on right now because people refuse to live on welfare.

What's the difference. The only difference is that people think, "the government does it is good, if companies do it its bad".

Also people could work their way out of exploitation, where as when you are on welfare when you go apply for a job they want to know if you are on welfare or have collected welfare in the past. It mainly leaves people with a negative outlook on you.

The real point is that even while those people were being "exploited" they were contributing to society, where as with people on welfare only take from society.

Also that was before minimum wage came along.

I would still like to know how spending 10+ trillion dollars to fight poverty when there are just as many poor people as there were then, is a "success". That's right it isn't people are still wanting me to work harder so they can sponge more.

edit - spelling

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]