Comparisons with other countries
Percentage of people living at or below the poverty line:(relative to median income)
Sweden 12.3%
Germany 13.1%
France 14.1%
United Kingdom 21.8%
United States 18.3%
are we still a fair country
-
steven1976
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am
What is the poverty line?
Just for the record my Mrs here in Thailand received 6months dole of 75 quid a month and that was it. Survival of the fittest after that.
A decent school costs us 10,000 quid a year, hospitals and medical care we have to pay for. As an immigrant I have no rights, the second your out of the job your no longer needed and not supported to stay. Jesus, you think its tough for people in the uk with their free skoolin, medical care, maternity leave, dole, sick, holidays, free housing etc.....
There is a reason so many have immigrated to england and it isnt the weather.
Just for the record my Mrs here in Thailand received 6months dole of 75 quid a month and that was it. Survival of the fittest after that.
A decent school costs us 10,000 quid a year, hospitals and medical care we have to pay for. As an immigrant I have no rights, the second your out of the job your no longer needed and not supported to stay. Jesus, you think its tough for people in the uk with their free skoolin, medical care, maternity leave, dole, sick, holidays, free housing etc.....
There is a reason so many have immigrated to england and it isnt the weather.
-
mister man
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm
-
steven1976
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am
The gap isnt going to get any smaller either. As much as the bankers are disliked by the general public, where else is new money going to come into the economy from? if they went overseas where would money come into the economy from. Without the new money it will be tough on the whole eco system. A bit like betfair really, the money will end up in only a few pockets
Try telling someone living in a shanty town in Bogota that 22% of the people in Britain live in poverty!
BTW, it's interesting that you didn't answer my questions re. our hypothetical unemployed person...
Jeff
BTW, it's interesting that you didn't answer my questions re. our hypothetical unemployed person...
Jeff
mister man wrote:Comparisons with other countries
Percentage of people living at or below the poverty line:(relative to median income)
Sweden 12.3%
Germany 13.1%
France 14.1%
United Kingdom 21.8%
United States 18.3%
Quite. I worry that this country is out to scare off the goose that lays the golden eggs...steven1976 wrote:The gap isnt going to get any smaller either. As much as the bankers are disliked by the general public, where else is new money going to come into the economy from?
I agree. People often forget that domestic spending sprees - whether by government or individuals - cause money to go around in circles, but aren't great at generating wealth. Basic economic theory says that economies grow only due to investment, innovation and exports.steven1976 wrote:if they went overseas where would money come into the economy from. Without the new money it will be tough on the whole eco system. A bit like betfair really, the money will end up in only a few pockets
Jeff
-
mister man
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm
ferru i have answered twice now, and re bogota in colombia, i really dont see that as a reasonable comparison, nor do i ever recall colombia being called or considered a fair and equitable society (which Britain once was, alas no longer it would appear) whereas i, and most writers on this topic do see germany, france, sweden etc as a reasonable comparison.
You have yet to provide specific answers to my questions. Your answers have resembled those given by an evasive politician!
Here's another specific question for you: In precise terms, how do you define a 'fair and equitable society'?
Jeff
Here's another specific question for you: In precise terms, how do you define a 'fair and equitable society'?
Jeff
mister man wrote:ferru i have answered twice now, and re bogota in colombia, i really dont see that as a reasonable comparison, nor do i ever recall colombia being called or considered a fair and equitable society (which Britain once was, alas no longer it would appear) whereas i, and most writers on this topic do see germany, france, sweden etc as a reasonable comparison.
From http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ia ... d-in-beer/:
Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something like this;
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So the bar owner suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 . The seventh paid £5 instead of £7. The eighth paid £9 instead of £12. The ninth paid £14 instead of £18. And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important – they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half the bill.
That's how our tax system works.
Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something like this;
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So the bar owner suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 . The seventh paid £5 instead of £7. The eighth paid £9 instead of £12. The ninth paid £14 instead of £18. And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important – they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half the bill.
That's how our tax system works.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... e_equality
Have a look at the 'Gini coefficient, before taxes and transfers' table.
According to that info, we have less inequality than Spain, Japan, Finland, Australia, France, Italy and the USA.
Do you consider those countries to be reasonable comparisons?
Jeff
Have a look at the 'Gini coefficient, before taxes and transfers' table.
According to that info, we have less inequality than Spain, Japan, Finland, Australia, France, Italy and the USA.
Do you consider those countries to be reasonable comparisons?
Jeff
mister man wrote: whereas i, and most writers on this topic do see germany, france, sweden etc as a reasonable comparison.
-
mister man
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm
ill have a pint of birra moretti please but
i hope thats not a bar in the UK
see relative rates of tax per £.
Beer
£ per pint tax
5% ABV or
12˚ Plato
level of tax comparison
Austria 0.10
Belgium 0.08
France 0.05
Germany 0.04
Italy 0.12
Netherlands 0.10
Spain 0.04
Sweden 0.31
UK 0.38
i hope thats not a bar in the UK
see relative rates of tax per £.
Beer
£ per pint tax
5% ABV or
12˚ Plato
level of tax comparison
Austria 0.10
Belgium 0.08
France 0.05
Germany 0.04
Italy 0.12
Netherlands 0.10
Spain 0.04
Sweden 0.31
UK 0.38
-
mulberryhawk
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 am
Quite. I worry that this country is out to scare off the goose that lays the golden eggs...
Arguably more rotten than golden depending on your pov.The Treasury has pledged to spend £1.2 trillion on the bail-out since the crisis began. But the real outlay has been much smaller. By March it was committed to spending £456.33bn: £123.93bn in loan or share purchases, which required an actual cash injection from the government to the banks, and £332.4bn in guarantees and liabilities. It costs taxpayers up to £5bn a year just to service the loan that the crisis incurred.
-
mulberryhawk
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 am
If the financial sector was not so bloated and over leveraged then taxpayers wouldent have to backstop the system with over £1 trillion.
Even Qe ( which I think its fair to say you are not the biggest fan of
) is a direct consequence of the UK`s over reliance on the Financial sector.
Historic low interest rates and high inflation can both be traced back to the failings of the banking sector.
SO one one hand you champion the financial sector but on the other you protest at the monetary policy being used by the BOE to keep the sector afloat......
In the interests of a balanced argument though, it does employ hundreds of thousands of workers and contribute to the state coffers.
I just wonder how you would weigh up the costs and benefits of having one sector so pivotal to an economic models success.
Even Qe ( which I think its fair to say you are not the biggest fan of
) is a direct consequence of the UK`s over reliance on the Financial sector.Historic low interest rates and high inflation can both be traced back to the failings of the banking sector.
SO one one hand you champion the financial sector but on the other you protest at the monetary policy being used by the BOE to keep the sector afloat......
In the interests of a balanced argument though, it does employ hundreds of thousands of workers and contribute to the state coffers.
I just wonder how you would weigh up the costs and benefits of having one sector so pivotal to an economic models success.