DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on January 07, 2008, 06:03:08 PM
-
[....]
The average UK person will this year have a greater income than their US counterpart for the first time since the 19th Century, figures suggest...
Mr Cooper said: "The UK has been catching up steadily with living standards in the US since 2001, so it is a well-established trend rather than simply the result of currency fluctuations."
[............]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7174372.stm
-
However, because goods and services are cheaper in the US, Americans will have stronger purchasing power, it added.
-
And yet, while I was over there visiting last week the PM warned of a "shaky" year coming up due to the credit crisis..
-
Hey Jw.
You do the football hooligan thing while you were there?
-
Football thing, yes I was in London for two days checking out the sites then up to Manchester for a United match. Our seats were right next to the visiting team's supporters but there was no hooligan mischief.
Jw
-
However, because goods and services are cheaper in the US, Americans will have stronger purchasing power, it added.
Purchasing Power is a meaningless statistic if income equality is not considered (Pareto or another such stat). And before you consider that the ramblings of a socialist, consider the fact that Equatorial Guinea has the second highest PPP ranking in the world (behind Luxembourg) and I'm guessing y'all aren't standing in line with all of your belongings to move there. ;)
What is not mentioned in the article is that the UK is less unequal (I wouldn't say that it has more equality) than the United States when it comes to income disparity.
-
Should i be concerned with your salary?
Why?
-
Should i be concerned with your salary?
Why?
No. We need to be concerned with salaries across classes. Why? Because equality is an extremely important goal. Or do you wish to live in Equatorial Guinea? Why not?
-
Because equality is an extremely important goal.
why?
And as your salary is your business, wouldn't my living arrangements be mine?
-
Because equality is an extremely important goal.
why?
And as your salary is your business, wouldn't my living arrangements be mine?
Ummm...OK.
My point, if we can go back to that, is that the statement on purchasing power (which was made in the article and not by you) is actually quite irrelevant. The reason it makes a difference is because that purchasing power must be attainable by the people for it to have any meaning. I think you agree, or you wouldn't have made the statement that you did as a reply to Lanya.
The contrary would be to have the purchasing power lie in the hands of the elite few and a mass of impoverished workers. Hence my point, to clarify that misleading statement in the article. Yes purchasing power is higher here in the United States, but it is also higher in Equatorial Guinea. Now, does that mean the working class Brit, working class American, or working class Eq. Guinean is better off? Well, we cannot tell from a statistic like PPP.
Make sense?
-
Seems to me if you can buy with 45 minutes labor what it takes a brit to buy with one hours labor then you are better off.
Don't see what income equality has to do with it.
And really don't see where the working stiff has a legitimate claim on the earnings of the wealthy elite, no more than i have a claim on your salary.
-
Seems to me if you can buy with 45 minutes labor what it takes a brit to buy with one hours labor then you are better off.
Don't see what income equality has to do with it.
And really don't see where the working stiff has a legitimate claim on the earnings of the wealthy elite, no more than i have a claim on your salary.
That's the issue though BT, can you buy with 45 minutes labor what it takes a Brit an hour of labor to purchase? PPP doesn't tell you that. If it did, then that same item could be purchased by an Equatorial Guinean with just 30 minutes of labor.
By the way, there are different approaches to measuring PPP relative to the goods in that country. You can measure it with an identical good in all countries, or a similar local good relative to each country.
The problem, BT, is that a few mega-wealthy can make the per capita based measure present a faulty picture as to who can really purchase what. That is, of course, what we see in Equatorial Guinea...whose purchasing power is higher than the US or the UK. By your standards of supporting the elite, they are simply more productive than Americans or Brits. A simple check at productivity schedules indicates that is not true.
And really don't see where the working stiff has a legitimate claim on the earnings of the wealthy elite, no more than i have a claim on your salary.
That is a different issue altogether, but if you'd rather argue that I have no problem doing so.
-
That's the issue though BT, can you buy with 45 minutes labor what it takes a Brit an hour of labor to purchase?
Depending in the amount of difference between cost of goods vs cost of goods there, i would say yes.
If a coke costs .75 her and a 1.50 there, i would say i can work less time to get that coke and a smile.
That is a different issue altogether, but if you'd rather argue that I have no problem doing so.
I don't think i have a claim to your salary, why do you think i do?
-
Depending in the amount of difference between cost of goods vs cost of goods there, i would say yes.
If a coke costs .75 her and a 1.50 there, i would say i can work less time to get that coke and a smile.
What if it is a country where people generally dislike coke? Then clearly the price would be higher as demand is low. The comparison would be favorable to the US, but not paint a true picture.
I don't think i have a claim to your salary, why do you think i do?
As a society there should be a basic level of living provided for everyone. The wealthier the individual, the more easily they can pay into the total collection to pay for this basic level of living standards for all of society.
-
The wealthier the individual, the more easily they can pay into the total collection to pay for this basic level of living standards for all of society.
What does ease have to do with it? If it is an societal obligation shouldn't all share the burden equally?
-
The wealthier the individual, the more easily they can pay into the total collection to pay for this basic level of living standards for all of society.
What does ease have to do with it? If it is an societal obligation shouldn't all share the burden equally?
No. Those who can afford to pay should pay more.
-
No. Those who can afford to pay should pay more.
Why?
Do they pay more for gasoline?
Do they pay more for food?
-
No. Those who can afford to pay should pay more.
Why?
Do they pay more for gasoline?
Do they pay more for food?
Gasoline has inelastic demand. So no, the price does not change with one's income level.
Yes, I have not run the data to see, but nominal spending on food does likely increase with one's income as the individuals frequent more expensive establishments and purchase more expensive products. Obviously with the exception of some products, which like gasoline have an inelastic demand (milk, for example).
The question itself is irrelevant to public taxation.
-
I don't see why it is irrelevant.
They do not check w-2's at the check out line and set prices accordingly.
They do not check w-2's to determine sales tax.
So why on earth should they check w-2's when deciding what is a fair burden on society for taking care of those with less.
-
What you're really asking is why we should have progressive taxation.
First, you just helped to explain part of the reason. A percentage of every household budget is spent on price inelastic commodities. That percentage to income ratio is clearly higher as income is lower. Therefore, removing income from the poor and working class detracts from necessities whose demand by those classes will not change. In other words, they will still require those items.
Second, vertical equity. Higher incomes have higher percentages of disposable income which means that they are in a position to afford more money spent on the public.
Third, the wealthier classes receive more benefits from Government spending in terms of defense and infrastructure than do the poorer classes.
Fourth, Adam Smith and Karl Marx both agreed that taxes should be based on proportion to income. Supply-side economics and benefits for the wealthy came later from the likes of bogus economists like Laffer and Friedman. It has never been found to achieve anything more than very high income disparity and stagnant wages. Note that most economists do not support the views of Friedman or Laffer. Most support redistribution: Link (http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/w4q363786573275h/)
Fifth, the law of diminishing marginal returns.
-
I don't see why it is irrelevant.
They do not check w-2's at the check out line and set prices accordingly.
They do not check w-2's to determine sales tax.
So why on earth should they check w-2's when deciding what is a fair burden on society for taking care of those with less.
Because tax is not a price.
You are confusing two distinctly separate notions. Prices are determined in a much different way. You are comparing vinegar and water and then asking me why the two aren't identical.
-
Do you tithe?
is tithing based on a progressive scale?
-
What you're really asking is why we should have progressive taxation.
First, you just helped to explain part of the reason. A percentage of every household budget is spent on price inelastic commodities. That percentage to income ratio is clearly higher as income is lower. Therefore, removing income from the poor and working class detracts from necessities whose demand by those classes will not change. In other words, they will still require those items.
So?
Second, vertical equity. Higher incomes have higher percentages of disposable income which means that they are in a position to afford more money spent on the public.
Again, so? That someone else can afford a Porsche doesn't necessarily make them obligated to provide me with a car.
Third, the wealthier classes receive more benefits from Government spending in terms of defense and infrastructure than do the poorer classes.
So, you're telling me Bill Gates is a bigger consumer of Medicare, public education, public transportation, police protection, social security, etc. than the poorer classes?
I think he's in a position to provide most of those things for himself. Try again.
Fourth, Adam Smith and Karl Marx both agreed that taxes should be based on proportion to income.
I'd like you to show me where Adam Smith ever advocated an income tax. Excise taxes, sales taxes and tariffs by definition paid in greater proportion by people of higher income because - surprise! they're spending more money.
Supply-side economics and benefits for the wealthy came later from the likes of bogus economists like Laffer and Friedman. It has never been found to achieve anything more than very high income disparity and stagnant wages. Note that most economists do not support the views of Friedman or Laffer. Most support redistribution: Link (http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/w4q363786573275h/)
So, an organization of left-wing economists (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/index.htm) is polled and is shown to favor left-wing economic policies?
I'm shocked, shocked!
-
Do you tithe?
is tithing based on a progressive scale?
Catholics do not tithe 10% if that is what you are after. We give what we can to support the Church, the Diocese, and the Holy See as well as Catholic Charities or the poor directly. This includes time as well as financial contribution. I contribute both money and time (I help teach RCIA, as well as sponsor a converting adult) plus give time and money to the poor.
Some people do follow a formula as a percentage of income simply because that is easier for them, but it is certainly not required.
I don't think you really want to follow this course of logic out because you won't like where it takes you. The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership. The same is true with all the fruits of creation, which Catholicism believes should be shared amongst all of God's people.
-
So, you're telling me Bill Gates is a bigger consumer of Medicare, public education, public transportation, police protection, social security, etc. than the poorer classes?
No. I'm telling you that Bill Gates has more property and money to defend through Government regulation and military support than millions of poor folks do.
I'd like you to show me where Adam Smith ever advocated an income tax. Excise taxes, sales taxes and tariffs by definition paid in greater proportion by people of higher income because - surprise! they're spending more money.
Smith has many quotes supporting taxes that are based on proportion to income (or revenue as the case may be).
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
The ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the study was listed. ::)
-
What does ease have to do with it? If it is an societal obligation shouldn't all share the burden equally?
==========================================
This sounds most logical, until you think about it. Should a two-year old pay the same as a twenty-year old?
Or should the parents of the two-year old be required to pay her share? And what about those who are too old and too sickly to work?
There must always be some manner of accommodation for the different abilities of the members of a society with regard to taxes and/or other obligations.
Or, at least, that is the way it seems to me.
-
I doubt a two year old draws a salary, nor do i think the elderly or too sickly to work.
JS says i should have a claim on his salary. Since your two examples draw no salary, i would not have a claim on them . And that is the accommodation you require.
-
I don't think you really want to follow this course of logic out because you won't like where it takes you. The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership. The same is true with all the fruits of creation, which Catholicism believes should be shared amongst all of God's people.
You are Catholic. Do you own anything?
-
The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership.
I thought it belong to Ceasar?? Go figure
-
The Church is, as always, practical in such matters. She recognizes the ownership of private property insofar as it relates to temporal existence. Though the Church does recommend voluntary poverty.
Do I own anything?
Legally? Yes.
Philosophically? No.
-
The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership.
I thought it belong to Ceasar?? Go figure
If that is the best you can do then you need to find something more suitable to your style. May I suggest, My Pet Goat?
-
If that is the best you can do then you need to find something more suitable to your style. May I suggest, My Pet Goat?
I think Sears still sells home installable senses of humor.
-
Oh, I have a sense of humor, it just requires the source material to have some element of wit, comedy, or you know - humor. ;)
-
Oh, I have a sense of humor, it just requires the source material to have some element of wit, comedy, or you know - humor. ;)
Must be defective; I found it humorous.
Of course, there are many around here that seem to think throwing food in someone's face is the height of humor, so I understand your confusion.
-
Oh, I have a sense of humor, it just requires the source material to have some element of wit, comedy, or you know - humor. ;)
Must be defective; I found it humorous.
Of course, there are many around here that seem to think throwing food in someone's face is the height of humor, so I understand your confusion.
I'm more of the subtle, high-brow type. I'm fond of allusions quite a bit too. Though, on occasion, I admit to a Three Stooges marathon especially if Shemp is there, but never Curly Joe.
For the record, I used to work at Sears and the only sense of humor to be found was watching customers rip off the company non-stop. Everyone should experience a job in the service industry just to understand how full of shit the guy who came up with "the customer is always right" cliche really was!
-
The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership.
I thought it belong to Ceasar?? Go figure
If that is the best you can do then you need to find something more suitable to your style. May I suggest, My Pet Goat?
Naaa, I'll stick with the true intentions of Christ's teachings vs the socialist application of contorting scripture to fit their ideology
-
Naaa, I'll stick with the true intentions of Christ's teachings vs the socialist application of contorting scripture to fit their ideology
By all means, what are the "true intentions of Christ's teachings?"
I find this interesting coming from a Protestant who undoubtedly believes in sola scriptura.
Please, teach me.
-
Actually, I'll start a new thread for it because it deserves that.
-
Everyone should experience a job in the service industry just to understand how full of shit the guy who came up with "the customer is always right" cliche really was!
My job IS service industry.
If you tell the customer that he's wrong, then you don't get paid. Kinda self-defeating.
-
Everyone should experience a job in the service industry just to understand how full of shit the guy who came up with "the customer is always right" cliche really was!
My job IS service industry.
If you tell the customer that he's wrong, then you don't get paid. Kinda self-defeating.
Give a customer a brand new lawn tractor after he or she has destroyed the one they purchased two years ago because they tried to attach a tool to it that only a garden tractor could handle. Now multiply that stupidity by thousands of stores across America and it is equally self-defeating.
-
Naaa, I'll stick with the true intentions of Christ's teachings vs the socialist application of contorting scripture to fit their ideology
By all means, what are the "true intentions of Christ's teachings?"
They would include GIVING of ones self and volitionally doing God's will in helping our fellow man
They do NOT include advocating that a 3rd party forcibly TAKE something that belongs to you, and then claim it's not being Christian if you don't support or allow such
The former is along the lines of Christ's teachings. the latter is along the lines of twisting/contorting scripture to fit a socialist ideology. Again, it all comes down to free will and choosing paths
I find this interesting coming from a Protestant who undoubtedly believes in sola scriptura.
Please, teach me.
[/quote]
-
Surely Christ taught more than that.
Respond to the new thread, please?
-
Surely Christ taught more than that. Respond to the new thread, please?
I said INCLUDED. Of course he taught more than that, but to address your prior flawed points of a supposed pro-taxation Christ, my current response is perfectly adequate.
Yet somehow the money is now both Ceasar's and God's. Does that make Ceasar = God? Is Ceasar, God?
-
Give a customer a brand new lawn tractor after he or she has destroyed the one they purchased two years ago because they tried to attach a tool to it that only a garden tractor could handle. Now multiply that stupidity by thousands of stores across America and it is equally self-defeating.
Doesn't hurt Sears. They would return the lawn tractor to the manufacturer, who will investigate the cause of damage, build in suitable safeguards if possible, add a warning about it to the owners manual, and recycle all the usable parts that they can from the item. All to minimize costs. Also, a number of these type of incidents are built into the manufacturing costs for just this reason; the same thing is done by retail stores to cover "shrinkage" - theft by customers or employees. They know they can't eliminate some loses, so they minimize them and build them into the cost.
-
Yet somehow the money is now both Ceasar's and God's. Does that make Ceasar = God? Is Ceasar, God?
I had a lightbulb go off.......To the religious left, Ceasar (representing Government) IS God....at least in earthly manifestation. It'd answer alot, such as the disconnect between Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars, and render unto God that which is belongs to God with "The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership" and how folks like Js can actually even fathom the notion that Jesus would support the forced taking of what belongs to someone, in order to give it to someone else.
Of course, maybe, hopefully, he's differentiating between what "the Church" believes and what is truely God's intentions, as relayed thru the Bible. Let's hope that's the case
-
I had a lightbulb go off.......To the religious left, Ceasar (representing Government) IS God....at least in earthly manifestation. It'd answer alot, such as the disconnect between Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars, and render unto God that which is belongs to God with "The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership" and how folks like Js can actually even fathom the notion that Jesus would support the forced taking of what belongs to someone, in order to give it to someone else.
Of course, maybe, hopefully, he's differentiating between what "the Church" believes and what is truely God's intentions, as relayed thru the Bible. Let's hope that's the case
*sigh*
You cannot understand the difference between the temporal and the celestial? Clearly that was what Christ was saying when He said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.
I cannot have this conversation if you are unwilling to think beyond such basic terms as you've outlined here (and insulted the Church as well).
-
Just speculating here Js, though it does seem to fit