AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
From the Huffington Post
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donna Lea Simpson wrote:
Laura V wrote:
Lots. Just a few of the recent ones I can think of are...


Thank you, Laura!

When I saw LisaW's astounding query
Quote:
Okay. Now, tell me about what medical or scientific discoveries have been made in these countries in the last 30 years.
I just didn't have time to respond, but I knew someone would.

That attitude, that nothing has happened outside of the US - ever - is frustrating to the rest of us!! Thank God most Americans have their eyes and ears open to what goes on outside their borders and know that science and medical research continue on a global scale.



Donna,

It's called willful ignorance. It's deliberate dumbing down and the fear of science that is scary to certain segments of American society. For them everything they need to know is from the Bible. They are living their lives based on teachings of bronze aged shepherds. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to partake of any of the advances in medicine due to scientific research.

The religious right have fought against stem cell research so now the major research in this field is not happening in the United States. We are losing our edge in the world by turning our backs on scientific research which means all the advances will come from other countries. We can't even agree on teaching evolution in the public schools. How can we be in the forefront of science when we can't even get behind a decent science program for our students?

A few years ago I was sitting with my DH and DS at Carrabba's Restaurant while waiting for a table. I was using my Treo to play Scrabble while they talked computers(boring subject for me). I was accosted by some guy who started up the conversation by saying "Isn't technology wonderful?' I agreed with him. Then he segued into how wonderful America is because of all the technology America has. I knew this guy was a Republican at that point. I then said "Yes, America has great technology but so does the rest of the world." He disagreed with me. I then pointed out how advanced many of the other countries were with good or better technology citing Finland with it's innovative cell phone technology. This guy really got upset with me. It was amusing to say the least. He then started disparaging Europe. I said Europe was a happening place. He didn't like it. Needless to say, he left rather quickly. I looked at DH & DS and said I would have liked a little help here. They told me I did just fine on my own. It was a bizarre conversation to say the least but it was funny how this guy quickly tried to turn it into an American rah-rah moment. He would have eventually asked my political party.

Karen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guenevere



Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Camelot

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That attitude, that nothing has happened outside of the US - ever - is frustrating to the rest of us!! Thank God most Americans have their eyes and ears open to what goes on outside their borders and know that science and medical research continue on a global scale.


It's frustrating - as well as embarrassing - to some of us in the US, as well. Not just when speaking of scientific and medical research; I've heard far too many Americans expound on our freedoms (for which I am grateful, by the way) as though there were no other countries in the world with civil liberties.

I've never understood it. One can be proud of one's country without having to think of it as the "best" or the "only" country capable of good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guenevere wrote:
Quote:
That attitude, that nothing has happened outside of the US - ever - is frustrating to the rest of us!! Thank God most Americans have their eyes and ears open to what goes on outside their borders and know that science and medical research continue on a global scale.


It's frustrating - as well as embarrassing - to some of us in the US, as well. Not just when speaking of scientific and medical research; I've heard far too many Americans expound on our freedoms (for which I am grateful, by the way) as though there were no other countries in the world with civil liberties.

I've never understood it. One can be proud of one's country without having to think of it as the "best" or the "only" country capable of good.



I never ever said "nothing happened outside the USA." However, when monies are taken from companies and people who work in the form of taxes and fees to provide monies and benefits for people who don't work, or don't work as hard, it leaves less money for R&D within companies and for grants and support of research by governments. No matter how much someone wants to learn or discover, if there isn't money to support the research, it isn't going far.

And to KarenS -- who seems to loathe and fear Christians -- the "religious right" isn't against stem cell research. Hardly. In fact, President Bush has advocated for it. What we are against is fetal stem cell research because nothing has shown that fetal stem cells provide anything more than adult. Keeping the stem cells from a umbilical cord for future use by the child is one thing. Taking "aborted fetuses" and experimenting leads to the day when someone will be paid for their aborted fetus and eventually to someone getting pregnant just to abort the fetus.

My point was and is when there is a redistribution of the wealth, something suffers. People who might "try harder" don't bother. People who fundamentally work "because they have to" won't have to. And, call it what you want, theft is theft and when you take money from A and give it to B, call yourself Robin Hood or Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham -- it's theft.
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Laura V



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 302
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
when monies are taken from companies and people who work in the form of taxes and fees to provide monies and benefits for people who don't work, or don't work as hard, it leaves less money for R&D within companies and for grants and support of research by governments. No matter how much someone wants to learn or discover, if there isn't money to support the research, it isn't going far.
[...]
My point was and is when there is a redistribution of the wealth, something suffers. People who might "try harder" don't bother. People who fundamentally work "because they have to" won't have to. And, call it what you want, theft is theft and when you take money from A and give it to B, call yourself Robin Hood or Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham -- it's theft.


Lisa, it could well be argued that "when monies are taken from companies and people who work in the form of taxes and fees" this ensures that governments have money which they can use to fund research and development. If one doesn't have taxation of some sort, then it isn't possible for the government to fund anything. Are you arguing that all taxation is theft? Or is it not theft if it's being used to build public infrastructure, fund research, etc? It's still the government taking money from A to give it to Scientist B, Public Engineer C, Soldier D, etc.

I've already supplied considerable evidence that medical and other scientific discoveries are occurring in countries you seem to think suffer from excessive taxation, so clearly the level of taxation and social welfare in these countries is not preventing adequate funding of science.
_________________
Teach Me Tonight - Musings on Romance Fiction from an Academic Perspective
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laura V wrote:
LisaW wrote:
when monies are taken from companies and people who work in the form of taxes and fees to provide monies and benefits for people who don't work, or don't work as hard, it leaves less money for R&D within companies and for grants and support of research by governments. No matter how much someone wants to learn or discover, if there isn't money to support the research, it isn't going far.
[...]
My point was and is when there is a redistribution of the wealth, something suffers. People who might "try harder" don't bother. People who fundamentally work "because they have to" won't have to. And, call it what you want, theft is theft and when you take money from A and give it to B, call yourself Robin Hood or Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham -- it's theft.


Lisa, it could well be argued that "when monies are taken from companies and people who work in the form of taxes and fees" this ensures that governments have money which they can use to fund research and development. If one doesn't have taxation of some sort, then it isn't possible for the government to fund anything. Are you arguing that all taxation is theft? Or is it not theft if it's being used to build public infrastructure, fund research, etc? It's still the government taking money from A to give it to Scientist B, Public Engineer C, Soldier D, etc.

I've already supplied considerable evidence that medical and other scientific discoveries are occurring in countries you seem to think suffer from excessive taxation, so clearly the level of taxation and social welfare in these countries is not preventing adequate funding of science.



I'd like to think everyone of you writing like this aren't really this stupid or actually all reading my words this badly. Rather I think you'll trying to act like I'm the one who is stupid.

I have not once, ever, at all said a country should not tax. Never. Never Never. A country must have funds to provide what it is supposed to provide it's citizens. In the USA, what the Federal government is supposed to provide is carefully spelled out. It isn't "wealth spread amongst you all." It is not "health care for someone paid for by someone else." It isn't "Everyone gets a house, whether they can pay for it or not." There is a thing within the US Constitution called the enumerated powers. These spell out just what the US Government can and cannot do. Period. Not what you might like it to do or not do, but what it is allowed to do and what it cannot do. Period.

Yes, there are studies and findings in other countries ... but, there is more R&D done by companies who have the funding than by individuals given grants. Companies do this to make money. Making money is not a sin. However, stealing that money to give to someone else because the poor little person doesn't have as much as someone else is. I believe in a hand up not a hand out. And I do not give a rat's behind what you do with your money. If you have more money than you think you should or need, give it away, throw it away, burn it, I don't care. What you do with your money is your business. What I choose do with mine is my business. My objection is the "progressives" wanting to "progress" the USA into a copy of Europe. We fought several wars to declare ourselves not Europe, and we've fought several wars helping to protect Europe. I fear the day we become a nation as silly as Spain, who when faced by terrorist bombings, vote to placate those terrorists. As France who cannot control their Moslem youth. As England who keeps banning weapons ... only to find those who want to harm find another weapon and their population has no way to protect themselves.

And, Barack's slide into stealing from everyone has started showing. It was "anyone who made over $250,000" -- of course he never really defined whether that was net or gross which are two very different things (although, he did use the term "revenue" which, as an attorney, he should know means gross). Within the last couple of days, that's slipped to $200,000. How soon until everyone realizes he cannot give "95%" of the people taxcuts (although, of course, to the current crop of Democrats in Washington a "cut" is just "not taking as much as we'd really like" as opposed to actually cutting) -- mainly because about 40% of the people are currently not paying income taxes ("Payroll" taxes, yes, Income, no). Soon, that number will slip to $175,000 and then to $125,000 and not long after that to $25,000. Has to ... even if you confiscated everyone's current monetary worth and evenly spread it, you are not going to produce a country of wealthy ... and you still have to tax to run the government.


Wake up, People!
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Laura V



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 302
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
I fear the day we become a nation as silly as Spain, who when faced by terrorist bombings, vote to placate those terrorists. As France who cannot control their Moslem youth. As England who keeps banning weapons ... only to find those who want to harm find another weapon and their population has no way to protect themselves.


Lisa, how much do you know about Spanish politics? Here's a quick analysis from the BBC of the factors leading to Zapatero's success:
Quote:
When he came to office in March 2004 it was largely because of voter anger over the conservative government's insistence that armed separatist group Eta was behind the blasts, despite the evidence pointing to Islamist extremists.

The attacks, which killed 191 people three days before the election, had all the hallmarks of extremists angered by Spain's role in the Iraq war.

The war was unpopular with the voters and once in office Mr Zapatero moved quickly to bring Spanish troops home.
Opposition to the war was longstanding. For example, in March 2003
Quote:
The Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, the third man on the international stage beside George Bush and Tony Blair in the run-up to war, was staring at political disaster yesterday as anti-war demonstrations spread and opinion polls revealed 91% of Spaniards against the war. (the Guardian)
I don't think either a long-standing opposition to a war, or a deep distaste for a Government that lies in order to gain political advantage, is in any way "silly."

I'm not sure what you mean by "control their Moslem youth." What sort of "control" do you think would be appropriate? In any case, it's not as though all French Muslim young people behave or think the same way. I don't really know enough about the 2005 and 2007 riots to be able to comment on their causes. The New York Times commented in November 2005 that
Quote:
Though a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin, the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones. Youths in the neighborhoods say second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even some children of native French have taken part.

In an effort to stop the attacks and distance them from Islam, France's most influential Islamic group issued a religious edict, or fatwa, condemning the violence. "It is formally forbidden for any Muslim seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public property or could constitute an attack on someone's life," the fatwa said, citing the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad.

Young people in the poor neighborhoods incubating the violence have consistently complained that police harassment is mainly to blame.
As for the UK, I personally feel safer knowing that certain weapons are illegal. Gun control and bans on certain kinds of knives may not ensure safety, but neither does a lack of such controls. There are lots of different factors which affect murder rates. But I had a quick look online to find out about murder rates and "London, Paris, Rome, and Madrid [...] all had rates below 2 murders per 100,000 in 2006" but in New Orleans "Estimates range from 67 (New Orleans Police Department) to 95 (Federal Bureau of Investigation) per 100,000" and Detroit and Baltimore have rates of "46 and 45 murders per 100,000 people, respectively" (Foreign Policy). More precise figures for England and Wales are as follows:
Quote:
The annual homicide figures show that the total number of murders in England and Wales in 2006/07 fell from 769 to 757 - the fifth successive year in which the murder rate has fallen from a peak of 1,047 in 2002/03, when Dr Harold Shipman's victims were included in the total.

The violent crime figures also record a 14% fall in gun crime offences from 21,527 in 2005/06 to 18,489 in 2006/07. Those who died in shootings rose over the same period - the year to April 2007 - from 49 victims to 59. But more recent figures to September 2007 published last week showed that the annual gun death toll has fallen again to 49.

Knife crime led to 258 deaths in 2006/07 compared with 219 the previous year. (the Guardian)
The FBI's figures for "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" in 2004 were 16,148 (5.5 per 100,000) and in 2005 the figures were 16,692 (5.6 per 100,000).
_________________
Teach Me Tonight - Musings on Romance Fiction from an Academic Perspective
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Donna Lea Simpson



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 249
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is not "health care for someone paid for by someone else."


And thus, LisaW, some fundamental differences between our countries. I just sent my elderly mother off in an ambulance - paid for by taxes - to a hospital emergency ward, paid for by taxes. Her stay there will be paid for... by taxes. And I want every senior, every child, every one of the vulnerable and every person regardless of race, religion, ability, disability, age, money or no money, to be free to go to the hospital when they have chest pains. I don't want the poor to have to decide between medical attention or groceries. I don't want parents going without medical help so they can afford it for their children. I'll pay more taxes for that.

I'm just saying.
_________________
Visit my blog for the latest!
http://donnaleasimpson.wordpress.com

http://www.donnaleasimpson.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
tyakoffs



Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Donna and Laura V. for responding with everything I wanted to say to Lisa W.

Donna, I hope your mother does well. I've had a child in hospital for 5 weeks now and I know how exhausting caring for a sick person can be.

LisaW. I think we are all understanding what you are saying. You think that the government should provide limited services to the public. I'm guessing you want to have policing, military security and a court system. What I'm saying is that I want government to provide more and I'm willing to pay the taxes for that. I'm troubled beccasue in your argument you seem to want to point at other countries as failures based on a misunderstanding or distortions of life outside the U.S. Just because we've choosen a different relationship between government and society.

You as a American will be part of the process of choosing what your country's policies will be in the future. I respect your rights to make that decision and would ask that you respect the fact that we Canadian's have made different choices. So in your arguments with other Americans please don't distort the facts about our country or society.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Our tax system explained in terms of beer

A brilliant explanation of our tax system using actual percentages, the
impact of a tax cut, and the public reaction that everyone should be
able to understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, 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.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every
day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he
said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks
for the ten 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 realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so -

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The ten th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the
tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers
without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them
for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1365

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See this recent report:
Income inequality and poverty rising in most OECD countries
http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,3343,en_2649_201185_41530009_1_1_1_1,00.html
Especially eye-catching is the mention that social mobility is LOWER in the U.S. because of the higher inequality.
The article says tax policies in some countries can somewhat mitigate the problem, but doesn't mention that Republican tax policies in the U.S. exacerbate the problem by making war on the middle class and helping the rich get richer. It mentions that inequality has accelerated since 2000 without explicitly pointing out W regime tax policies.
The income tax policy proposed by Obama would begin to rectify some of the evils of the W regime, while McCain's proposal is Dumbya all over again.
The beer analogy is, pardon the phrase, all wet. Dollar amounts are an invalid basis to compare income taxes. You must compare PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
See this recent report:
Income inequality and poverty rising in most OECD countries
http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,3343,en_2649_201185_41530009_1_1_1_1,00.html
Especially eye-catching is the mention that social mobility is LOWER in the U.S. because of the higher inequality.
The article says tax policies in some countries can somewhat mitigate the problem, but doesn't mention that Republican tax policies in the U.S. exacerbate the problem by making war on the middle class and helping the rich get richer. It mentions that inequality has accelerated since 2000 without explicitly pointing out W regime tax policies.
The income tax policy proposed by Obama would begin to rectify some of the evils of the W regime, while McCain's proposal is Dumbya all over again.
The beer analogy is, pardon the phrase, all wet. Dollar amounts are an invalid basis to compare income taxes. You must compare PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.



So, let's look at percentages. In the US, 86% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the federal income taxes. The top 1% of wage earners, all by themselves, pay 39% of federal income taxes (this is up from 37% in 2000 when President Bush took office. And somewhere close to 40% pay no federal income tax at all.

Look at Ireland -- that found itself with one of the highest unemployment rates in the 60's through the 80's. That found it's people leaving for the United States to get a better life (and, if the US "lifestyle" and "opportunities" are so very bad, why are so many people trying to get here?) and those staying all part of a heavy welfare state. Ireland looked and decided "this isn't working." In the 1990's Ireland instituted massive welfare policy reform, government services and enterprises were privatized and corporate income tax rate was dropped from 48% to 12.5%, almost 1/3 the average rate for the rest of Europe. Within 10 years the population grew (people weren't leaving), the GDP was increasing at double the rate of the rest of Europe. Thousands of international companies moved to Ireland for the tax benefits. The unemployment had been at better than 16% in 1988 (that's a Depression in the US!) and dropped to below 5%. When businesses can flourish and has the money to hire, to expand, to discover, tax revenues increase. And, even with Capital tax rate cuts, capital gains tax revenues increased by 60%.

When this kind of growth is allowed and encouraged, everyone benefits.

And, Donna, I'm very glad your mother is getting care. I don't know if you are in Canada or the UK. I do know when I visited the UK in 1993, I cut out (and still have around here somewhere) a newspaper article that voiced the question "Why is Hillary trying to build a health system in the US that is like the UK, when we're realizing ours needs major overhauling and is going bankrupt?" UK doctors are already making noises about who shouldn't be getting care (smoke? won't treat you. Overweight, nope. Waste care on the elderly? Nope)

If health care is the major "social" project that is covered by "Government funding" (and, kindly remember -- Government funds come out of citizen pockets), that's one thing. However, when a country moves constantly toward a welfare state (and that is where the current Democrats in Congress wishes the US to go), all you get is fat cats in government and bankruptcy. Mr Obama strives for a socialist country -- and that didn't work well for the pilgrims when they first hit these shores, and it isn't something to strive for now.
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1365

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those figures are still not helpful for this discussion since a miniscule percentage of the U.S. population holds a massive percentage of the country's total wealth.
The percentages I'm saying to compare are:

Total income taxes paid
-----------------------------
Gross income

Not adjusted gross, not theoretical marginal rates, etc. How much is a person PAYING (after all tricky deductions and special treatments) in total income taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. Compare those two numbers within U.S. populations and you see why I say current tax laws favor the rich.
As income taxes I include all taxes withheld or owed (and PAID) based on incoming money from wages, investments or any unearned income: Federal, state, social security, Medicare, capital gains, inheritance, SDI, etc. I do not include sales taxes, which are always regressive (harder on lower incomes).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Laura V



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 302
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
Look at Ireland -- that found itself with one of the highest unemployment rates in the 60's through the 80's. [...] In the 1990's Ireland instituted massive welfare policy reform, government services and enterprises were privatized and corporate income tax rate was dropped from 48% to 12.5%, almost 1/3 the average rate for the rest of Europe. Within 10 years the population grew (people weren't leaving), the GDP was increasing at double the rate of the rest of Europe. Thousands of international companies moved to Ireland for the tax benefits. The unemployment had been at better than 16% in 1988 (that's a Depression in the US!) and dropped to below 5%. When businesses can flourish and has the money to hire, to expand, to discover, tax revenues increase. And, even with Capital tax rate cuts, capital gains tax revenues increased by 60%.

When this kind of growth is allowed and encouraged, everyone benefits.


Lisa, are you aware of the fact that "Ireland is the first eurozone economy to slip into recession this year"?
Quote:
The economy is now facing its most difficult period since high unemployment and emigration hit in the early 1980s.

Economists pointed to the collapse of a decade-long bonanza in Ireland's property market, coupled with a slump in construction activity. (BBC)


LisaW wrote:
I do know when I visited the UK in 1993, I cut out (and still have around here somewhere) a newspaper article that voiced the question "Why is Hillary trying to build a health system in the US that is like the UK, when we're realizing ours needs major overhauling and is going bankrupt?" UK doctors are already making noises about who shouldn't be getting care (smoke? won't treat you. Overweight, nope. Waste care on the elderly? Nope)
Yes, and that was after years of Thatcherism:
Quote:
The Conservative Governments of 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 oversaw far-reaching reforms of the National Health Service (NHS) which created much controversy. Supporters claimed the reforms brought increased efficiency and effectiveness, but opponents said they undermined the founding principles of the health service.

Under Margaret Thatcher, the government encouraged people to use private medical services (The Health Service Act 1980 being the first step). However, the public remained committed to the NHS and grew concerned when waiting lists increased and wards closed. (BBC)
Of course there's always going to have to be some limit on what the NHS can provide but the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was established to make sure that there were sound medical reasons behind decisions regarding which types of treatment would be provided. NICE
Quote:
produces guidance in three areas of health:

* public health - guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention of ill health for those working in the NHS, local authorities and the wider public and voluntary sector
* health technologies - guidance on the use of new and existing medicines, treatments and procedures within the NHS
* clinical practice - guidance on the appropriate treatment and care of people with specific diseases and conditions within the NHS. (NICE)


LisaW wrote:
when a country moves constantly toward a welfare state (and that is where the current Democrats in Congress wishes the US to go), all you get is fat cats in government and bankruptcy.
I think I'll refer to the thread about Wall Street banks in $70bn staff payout. One can find plenty of fat cats and bankruptcy in big business at the moment.
_________________
Teach Me Tonight - Musings on Romance Fiction from an Academic Perspective
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Laura V



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 302
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know much about economics, but I've just seen something from the Economic Policy Institute which looks interesting. Their Ethan Pollack argues that
Quote:
the current economy demands a final stimulus package that will provide maximum economic bang for the buck. [...] As money is spent, it creates beneficial ripples through the entire economy. The evidence is that most of the money from the recent tax rebate was saved rather than spent, thus blunting its stimulative benefit. By comparison, other options—such as infrastructure spending, aid to states, food stamps, and unemployment insurance (UI) benefits—are much more cost-effective because they target the needs most likely to channel money back into the economy. Mark Zandi from Moody’s Economy.com estimates that each dollar of refundable tax rebates only boosts GDP by about $1.26, while each dollar of infrastructure spending could provide a $1.59 boost. [...] Zandi’s analysis also shows what doesn’t work as stimulus: a variety of tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals, which cost over twice as much as they return to the economy.

_________________
Teach Me Tonight - Musings on Romance Fiction from an Academic Perspective
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Karaa



Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
Our tax system explained in terms of beer

...

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


Unfortunately, LisaW, this humorous parable you chose to post apparently to support your argument is nothing but a bit of Internet lore. Snopes, the urban legends reference page, has a file for this piece "How Taxes Work."

Furthermore, David R. Kamerschen, the Professor of Economics whom this piece is credited, has an announcement on his personal web page where he denies being the author:

Quote:

Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics." Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it.


Falsely crediting a piece like this to a fancy smanchy "Professor" stumbles over the well known logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group