Originally Posted by flash

It actually makes the rich richer and the poorer richer also.

No such thing. For one group to get richer, another must get poorer- there is no "free energy"

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

No such thing. For one group to get richer, another must get poorer- there is no "free energy"

No, not true, both groups can get richer as has been happening here. It's largely a matter of perception; what happens is if your personal income isn't increasing as fast as mine, 9 times out of 10 you'll see yourself as getting poorer, despite the fact that you'll also have a far better standard of living than some years ago because of cheaper and more available consumer goods. Your political view also affects that perception; if you want to think that the poor are getting poorer, the more you'll see the difference between the two groups in a negative light.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with gun control....

Originally Posted by Midas

No, not true, both groups can get richer as has been happening here. It's largely a matter of perception; what happens is if your personal income isn't increasing as fast as mine, 9 times out of 10 you'll see yourself as getting poorer, despite the fact that you'll also have a far better standard of living than some years ago because of cheaper and more available consumer goods. Your political view also affects that perception; if you want to think that the poor are getting poorer, the more you'll see the difference between the two groups in a negative light.

Is that true though? In reality as the gap widens consumer goods rise in price, meaning the poorer side of the equasion is even worse off!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Is that true though? In reality as the gap widens consumer goods rise in price, meaning the poorer side of the equasion is even worse off!

But only in comparative terms only, not in real ones. If you look at what any typical family could buy at intervals through time, regardless of their income band, and compare them to now, the standard of living graph is still rising. OK, I agree that it's not rising as fast at the lower end of the income scale as it is at the top, and the gap is widening, but much of 'the poorer are even worse off' isn't true in real value for money and what they have in their life by way of consumer items terms, only in terms of their perception of that gap.

Originally Posted by Midas

But only in comparative terms only, not in real ones. If you look at what any typical family could buy at intervals through time, regardless of their income band, and compare them to now, the standard of living graph is still rising. OK, I agree that it's not rising as fast at the lower end of the income scale as it is at the top, and the gap is widening, but much of 'the poorer are even worse off' isn't true in real value for money and what they have in their life by way of consumer items terms, only in terms of their perception of that gap.

OK accepted, the average wage buys more than it did in the fiftees (ignoring rationing of course) but my food bill has virtually doubled in last two years, despite buying same things each week, and in that time our earnings haven't increased proportionally, that's what I consider to be "real terms", luxury items I am sure are a different story, but I wouldn't know.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

No such thing. For one group to get richer, another must get poorer- there is no "free energy"

I disagree. Economics is not a zero sum game.

In most of the world people live better now than they ever have in history.

I suspect the average middle class American or European lives better than a King did a few hundred years ago. Maybe not in power but certainly in comforts, diet, health care etc.

I am not bothered by somebody making more money than me. The difference to me and somebody that is very rich is really not important as long as I live well, is it?

My middle class life style of today is probably better in most ways of a rich life style of a few years ago. For instance, I live in an air conditioned home. Growing up in the 1950s in Central Florida only the very rich had AC.

Originally Posted by flash

It is really not at the expense of others as you claim. The "others" you speak of only think they are being held down because they are unwilling to be productive.

The saying that Conservative policies makes the rich richer and the poor poorer is not true. It actually makes the rich richer and the poorer richer also.

This is an impossibility once you consider that poverty is relative and that the crucial difference between rich and poor is the disparity of the rate at which earnings increase.

Originally Posted by Midas

But only in comparative terms only, not in real ones. If you look at what any typical family could buy at intervals through time, regardless of their income band, and compare them to now, the standard of living graph is still rising. OK, I agree that it's not rising as fast at the lower end of the income scale as it is at the top, and the gap is widening, but much of 'the poorer are even worse off' isn't true in real value for money and what they have in their life by way of consumer items terms, only in terms of their perception of that gap.

In pure darwinian terms, poverty is relative. What is actually being debated is the individual's place in the social pyramid - in relation to their peers. Not their absolute earnings in relation to their grandparents.

"Being wealthy is earning $100 more a month than your wife's best-friend's husband." - I forget who said that.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

OK accepted, the average wage buys more than it did in the fiftees (ignoring rationing of course) but my food bill has virtually doubled in last two years, despite buying same things each week, and in that time our earnings haven't increased proportionally, that's what I consider to be "real terms", luxury items I am sure are a different story, but I wouldn't know.

I don't have the statistics to hand, but from memory the RPI has gone up by about 80% over the last 20 years whereas the average wage has gone up by something like 110%. But a major issue in any topic like this is personalisation. I don't mean in the sense that we know each other, but in that to discuss potentially emotive subjects objectively you (one!) needs to stand at a distance and deal with averages. But of course I accept that averages are just that, they don't take into account your or mine or anyone's individual circumstances; how job changes or losses might have affected anyone, likewise a larger family, illness, or 1,001 other circumstances.

But as Flash rightly points out, "I suspect the average middle class American or European lives better than a King did a few hundred years ago. Maybe not in power but certainly in comforts, diet, health care etc. I am not bothered by somebody making more money than me. The difference to me and somebody that is very rich is really not important as long as I live well, is it?". In practical terms, and personalisation apart, as long as they are better off in real terms, unless they're desperately trying to keep up with the Jones', it makes little practical difference to anyone's life what the difference between their income and anyone else's is; it's the perception of the difference rather than the factual difference which is surely a key factor here?

What does concern me a little though is where you say about the cost of food having almost doubled in the last two years. That certainly hasn't been my experience, nor is it an impression I've gained from elsewhere. Yes, some things are up, but others are down, and given that the RPI this year (including an average food basket) is slightly lower than two years ago, I'm wondering why this should be! Local profiteering on the tourist market living where you do perhaps?

Originally Posted by JAMC

This is an impossibility once you consider that poverty is relative and that the crucial difference between rich and poor is the disparity of the rate at which earnings increase.

I think poverty is also absolute. If you don't have food to eat you are pretty improvised. If somebody else can eat at a 5 star restaurant and you can only afford a 3 star does that make you poverty stricken? I don’t think so.

What difference does it make if somebody else is doing better when you are doing pretty damn good?

It is mostly envy that begats Socialism.

Originally Posted by flash

I think poverty is also absolute.

That may be your view, but the research is against you.

The relative nature of status explains the paradox observed in 1974 by an economist called Richard Easterlin that, while rich people are happier than poor people within a country, average happiness does not increase as that country gets richer. This has been disputed recently. But if it withstands scrutiny it means the free-market argument—that because economic growth makes everybody better off, it does not matter that some are more better off than others—does not stand up, at least if “better off” is measured in terms of happiness. What actually matters, Darwinism suggests, is that a free society allows people to rise through the hierarchy by their own efforts: the American dream, if you like.
Conversely, the Darwinian explanation of continued support for socialism—in the teeth of evidence that it results in low economic growth—is that even though making the rich poorer would not make the poor richer in financial terms, it would change the hierarchy in ways that people at the bottom would like. When researchers ask people whether they would rather be relatively richer than their peers even if that means they are absolutely worse off, the answer is yes. (Would you rather earn $100,000 when all your friends earn $50,000, or $150,000 when everybody else earns $300,000?) The reason socialism does not work in practice is that this is not a question that most people ask themselves. What they ask is how to earn $300,000 when all around them people are earning $50,000.
A Darwinian analysis does, however, support one argument frequently made by the left and pooh-poohed by the right. This is that poverty is relative. The starkest demonstration of this, discovered by Richard Wilkinson of Nottingham University, in England, is that once economic growth has lifted a country out of penury, its inhabitants are likely to live longer, healthier lives if there are not huge differences between their incomes. This means that poorer countries with low income-variation can outscore richer ones with high variation. It is also true, as was first demonstrated by Michael Marmot, of University College, London, that those at the bottom of social hierarchies have worse health than those at the top—even when all other variables are statistically eliminated, including the fact that those who are healthier are more likely to rise to the top in the first place.
In the 1970s, when Dr Marmot made this observation, expert opinion predicted the opposite. Executives were expected to suffer worse stress than groundlings, and this was expected to show up as heart attacks, strokes and so forth. In fact, the opposite is true. It is the Darwinian failure of being at the bottom of the heap that is truly stressful and bad for the health.
Darwinism: Why we are, as we are | The Economist

Originally Posted by Midas

I don't have the statistics to hand, but from memory the RPI has gone up by about 80% over the last 20 years whereas the average wage has gone up by something like 110%. But a major issue in any topic like this is personalisation. I don't mean in the sense that we know each other, but in that to discuss potentially emotive subjects objectively you (one!) needs to stand at a distance and deal with averages. But of course I accept that averages are just that, they don't take into account your or mine or anyone's individual circumstances; how job changes or losses might have affected anyone, likewise a larger family, illness, or 1,001 other circumstances.

Wouldn't normally use it to back up an argument but: Daily Express | UK News :: Cost of bread and butter up 43%- and based on a uSwitch report the average national wage Average wage goes up by 3.4%, but cost of living shoots up by 9%.

But as Flash rightly points out, "I suspect the average middle class American or European lives better than a King did a few hundred years ago. Maybe not in power but certainly in comforts, diet, health care etc. I am not bothered by somebody making more money than me. The difference to me and somebody that is very rich is really not important as long as I live well, is it?". In practical terms, and personalisation apart, as long as they are better off in real terms, unless they're desperately trying to keep up with the Jones', it makes little practical difference to anyone's life what the difference between their income and anyone else's is; it's the perception of the difference rather than the factual difference which is surely a key factor here?

Sorry unable to depersonalise it; but yes I do think there is a truth to poverty being relative and I certainly don't consider myself to be living in poverty, given that I am clothed, sheltered, able to buy food and drink and some luxuries and have access to free health care.

What does concern me a little though is where you say about the cost of food having almost doubled in the last two years. That certainly hasn't been my experience, nor is it an impression I've gained from elsewhere. Yes, some things are up, but others are down, and given that the RPI this year (including an average food basket) is slightly lower than two years ago, I'm wondering why this should be! Local profiteering on the tourist market living where you do perhaps?

It's undoubtedly more expensive to live in the South East that's for sure, but no I don't think it's specific to tourist towns, in fact in quite good position here given number of farmer's markets and they tend to be more reasonable. I'm guessing perhaps the RPI is down because the average food basket is full of processed food?

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Wouldn't normally use it to back up an argument but: Daily Express | UK News :: Cost of bread and butter up 43%- and based on a uSwitch report the average national wage Average wage goes up by 3.4%, but cost of living shoots up by 9%.

But then again - Cost of shopping basket down 8% in a month | This is Money - however I will absolutely accept that few people probably buy the 'average shopping basket' of food, and as we were talking about earlier, I also quite accept that I'm probably the last person to comment on this since my food shopping simply involves picking up what I want without even looking at the price. But regardless of that, you know who I'm going to quote here don't you! Benjamin Disraeili and his "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Sorry unable to depersonalise it; but yes I do think there is a truth to poverty being relative and I certainly don't consider myself to be living in poverty, given that I am clothed, sheltered, able to buy food and drink and some luxuries and have access to free health care.

This is of course one of the reasons why it's always difficult to be objective, particularly when you do know about someone's personal life and situation and you're discussing matters which are close to their heart.

It's undoubtedly more expensive to live in the South East that's for sure, but no I don't think it's specific to tourist towns, in fact in quite good position here given number of farmer's markets and they tend to be more reasonable. I'm guessing perhaps the RPI is down because the average food basket is full of processed food?

I'm being quite honest and saying I really don't know. All I can say is that as far as I'm concerned, I haven't noticed any difference over the last couple of years, neither do some statistics.

Originally Posted by JAMC

That may be your view, but the research is against you.

I think what you posted is really nothing more than justification for class hatred and envy and has nothing to do with real poverty.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. In relative terms I am a pauper compared to Bill Gates. My net worth is probably not even in the round off of his net worth. He probably spends more money in one or two days than I spend in a year.

However I have a comfortable life. I live in a spacious home. I eat whatever I want. I have good medical care. I have many gadgets in my home. I have a boat. I have all the clothes I want. I have disposable income that I can spend on toys and entertainment. I can take vacations. I will leave a nice little inheritance for my sons.

I am not that different from many Americans. I am probably not that much different from most people living in any developed country.

There is no way in the world that you can reasonably ascertain that because of the relative difference between me Bill Gates that I am somehow living in poverty. It just doesn't fly. It doesn't pass any reasonable intelligence test. Liberals say things like this to foster class envy but it is not a reasonable argument.

Capitalism has produced a dilemma for the Leftist. They can’t argue with success so they make up things like you posted in order to justify socialism. Because of envy they hate the idea that capitalism has produced wealthy people so they won’t admit that it also makes poorer people richer.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Wouldn't normally use it to back up an argument but: Daily Express | UK News :: Cost of bread and butter up 43%- and based on a uSwitch report the average national wage Average wage goes up by 3.4%, but cost of living shoots up by 9%.

I love it when I see references like this.

There is dark secret that is hardly ever mentioned in polite company that the Leftist ignore when discussing economic growth. It is the fact that the cost of government is the thing that keeps people from having a decent standard of living.

In the US (and I am sure it is also in the UK) the cost of government is the single largest household expenditure, regardless of income. People spend more money on taxes, both direct and indirect, than they do on any other single item like housing, food, etc.

With the tremendous amount of government spending in places like the US and the UK there has to be almost phenomenal economic growth before the average person can come ahead at the end of the year.

The governments take a very large percentage of the GNP and spend it on inefficient things and then the people complain that they are losing spending money from year to year.

If the people wanted to have more money then the best thing from to do is to reduce the size of government and pocket the money. In the US about 33% of the GNP goes to the cost of government and that will rise under this jerkoff Obama's administration. In the UK about 45% of the GNP goes for the cost of government.

The problem is an out of control government that is taking our money and we are getting very little in return. The larger the government gets the less money we will have for our own selves.

Originally Posted by flash

... If the people wanted to have more money then the best thing from to do is to reduce the size of government and pocket the money. In the US about 33% of the GNP goes to the cost of government and that will rise under this jerkoff Obama's administration. In the UK about 45% of the GNP goes for the cost of government.

The problem is an out of control government that is taking our money and we are getting very little in return. The larger the government gets the less money we will have for our own selves.

Yes, as is shown in the http://www.politic.co.uk/political-t...html#post77886 thread, the current UK figure for someone on a typical average income is a bit over 47% of gross going to the government by way of taxes of one sort or another. Probably even more by way of other hidden taxes which aren't included in JAMC's original calculation. A significant percentage of it wasted one way or another too I wouldn't be surprised.

Am I right in thinking that some years ago Harry Browne's Libertarian Party did a calculation to show how much additional cash every American would have in their pocket if the administrative burden was reduced by various levels of percentage; something which could be done without adversely affecting any single part of the economy too?

Originally Posted by flash

In the US (and I am sure it is also in the UK) the cost of government is the single largest household expenditure, regardless of income. People spend more money on taxes, both direct and indirect, than they do on any other single item like housing, food, etc.

Errr, no that would be mortgage/rent over here (well fixed cost anyway)!

The governments take a very large percentage of the GNP and spend it on inefficient things and then the people complain that they are losing spending money from year to year.

Not complaining about that per se, more the ever widening inequality, after all that's thread title.

In the UK about 45% of the GNP goes for the cost of government.

Which includes universal healthcare, state pensions, social security etc, not a bad return if you ever require any of those services.

The problem is an out of control government that is taking our money and we are getting very little in return. The larger the government gets the less money we will have for our own selves.

Yes well if we will fight illegal wars (regardless of moral imperative) then what do we expect? Again, here we don't get little return!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Errr, no that would be mortgage/rent over here (well fixed cost anyway)!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

I don't think so when you look at total taxation, both direct and indirect.

I can't speak for the UK because I don't know the specifics of the way the government collects revenues so I would just be speaking out my ass. However, in the US it is not only the income tax but the Social Security taxes, the government fees, the property tax and the state taxes like sales tax. It also includes fuel taxes, and telephone taxes and the indirect taxes that every consumer pays on purchased good and services. All corporate taxes, which are significant, are passed on some way or another to end user of the good and service. I gave a little analysis of this in an earlier thread.

I am probably an average American and I spend more money on government than I do on a mortgage, or on food or on any other single item.

If the UK collects 45% of the GNP for the cost of government then you are paying a significant cost. Over the long run you will pay about 45% of your income to the government. Is there anything else that you buy that cost 45% of your income?

Which includes universal healthcare, state pensions, social security etc, not a bad return if you ever require any of those services.

You would be better off in the long run to pocket the money and pay for your own health care, you own retirement and any other thing the government provides for you. Any government is an inefficient supplier of services because they have no competition and they don't make decisions based upon economics or market conditions. They make decisions based upon political considerations or special interest groups.

I think the right size of government should be in the 12%-15% bracket. At that amount of income a government should be able to provide for a national defense, build the roads, provide a basic education do the few absolute government necessities.

If your government only collected 12% of the GNP instead of 45% just think how much more money you would have to spend each month. You could purchase your own health care and your own retirement instead of taking what a government bureaucrat has determined you should have. Just think how much more productive the economy would be and that would spawn lower unemployment, higher productivity and greater personal wealth.

Yes well if we will fight illegal wars (regardless of moral imperative) then what do we expect? Again, here we don't get little return!

Without looking it up I don't know what the UK spends on defense but it is really not very much compared to your total economy. In the US we spend about $450 billion a year for defense. The total government (including state and local) collects about $4.5 trillion in revenues. That means we only spend 10% for the military. I suspect it is even a smaller percentage in the UK. That means 90% of the cost of government goes for other things. The military expenditures are not the problem. Stupid worthless social programs are the culprit.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Errr, no that would be mortgage/rent over here (well fixed cost anyway)!

I don't think so when you look at total taxation, both direct and indirect.

I can't speak for the UK because I don't know the specifics of the way the government collects revenues so I would just be speaking out my ass. However, in the US it is not only the income tax but the Social Security taxes, the government fees, the property tax and the state taxes like sales tax. It also includes fuel taxes, and telephone taxes and the indirect taxes that every consumer pays on purchased good and services. All corporate taxes, which are significant, are passed on some way or another to end user of the good and service. I gave a little analysis of this in an earlier thread.

I am probably an average American and I spend more money on government than I do on a mortgage, or on food or on any other single item.

If the UK collects 45% of the GNP for the cost of government then you are paying a significant cost. Over the long run you will pay about 45% of your income to the government. Is there anything else that you buy that cost 45% of your income?

Which includes universal healthcare, state pensions, social security etc, not a bad return if you ever require any of those services.

You would be better off in the long run to pocket the money and pay for your own health care, you own retirement and any other thing the government provides for you. Any government is an inefficient supplier of services because they have no competition and they don't make decisions based upon economics or market conditions. They make decisions based upon political considerations or special interest groups.

I think the right size of government should be in the 12%-15% bracket. At that amount of income a government should be able to provide for a national defense, build the roads, provide a basic education and do the few absolute government necessities.

If your government only collected 12% of the GNP instead of 45% just think how much more money you would have to spend each month. You could purchase your own health care and your own retirement instead of taking what a government bureaucrat has determined you should have. Just think how much more productive the economy would be and that would spawn lower unemployment, higher productivity and greater personal wealth.

Yes well if we will fight illegal wars (regardless of moral imperative) then what do we expect? Again, here we don't get little return!

Without looking it up I don't know what the UK spends on defense but it is really not very much compared to your total economy. In the US we spend about $450 billion a year for defense. The total government (including state and local) collects about $4.5 trillion in revenues. That means we only spend 10% for the military. I suspect it is even a smaller percentage in the UK. That means 90% of the cost of government goes for other things. The military expenditures are not the problem. Stupid worthless social programs are the culprit.

Originally Posted by flash

I think what you posted is really nothing more than justification for class hatred and envy and has nothing to do with real poverty.

Somehow I thought you might....

Originally Posted by flash

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. In relative terms I am a pauper compared to Bill Gates. My net worth is probably not even in the round off of his net worth. He probably spends more money in one or two days than I spend in a year.

However I have a comfortable life. I live in a spacious home. I eat whatever I want. I have good medical care. I have many gadgets in my home. I have a boat. I have all the clothes I want. I have disposable income that I can spend on toys and entertainment. I can take vacations. I will leave a nice little inheritance for my sons.

I am not that different from many Americans. I am probably not that much different from most people living in any developed country.

There is no way in the world that you can reasonably ascertain that because of the relative difference between me Bill Gates that I am somehow living in poverty. It just doesn't fly. It doesn't pass any reasonable intelligence test. Liberals say things like this to foster class envy but it is not a reasonable argument.

You can come up with all the comparisons under the sun in terms of lifestyle, definitions of poverty, access to life's essentials, but they're all secondary to the comparison of current accounts. Everything you just mentioned, the home, the food, the health insurance, the boat - are all secondary forms of the lump of currency you happen to command.

I do not view the chosen ends (in your case; home, boat etc... but will vary from person to person) as representative of the means. What you do with your money once it's earned is an irrelevence to me. Ultimately the only apt comparison is of the means, as everything else is subjective. You mention Bill Gates - we all know him to be a man who supports many charities and other worthy causes, but with the means available to him he could decide out of the blue to start acting in ways that may destabilize society - bankrolling political parties, develop his own army of robotic killing machines (Not a great example, they'd be useless because they'd be running on Windows and therefore would just shout "Invalid Page Fault 0x0001516" at passers by). This is not my justification however; as I said, how people spend their money is not what I am concerned with. To do so is to make moral judgements and that is outside the scope of this economic argument. I am attempting to highlight the difference between the kind of wealth that buys consumer goods like cars and boats, and the kind of wealth that shapes the direction of the world, but yet also escapes any form of responsibility or accountability.

Originally Posted by flash

Capitalism has produced a dilemma for the Leftist. They can’t argue with success so they make up things like you posted in order to justify socialism. Because of envy they hate the idea that capitalism has produced wealthy people so they won’t admit that it also makes poorer people richer.

Forgive my smirk at the irony of the Economist, probably the most ardent pro-capitalist publication in existence, being described as 'a justification of socialism'.

Originally Posted by Midas

Yes, as is shown in the http://www.politic.co.uk/political-t...html#post77886 thread, the current UK figure for someone on a typical average income is a bit over 47% of gross going to the government by way of taxes of one sort or another. Probably even more by way of other hidden taxes which aren't included in JAMC's original calculation. A significant percentage of it wasted one way or another too I wouldn't be surprised.

Am I right in thinking that some years ago Harry Browne's Libertarian Party did a calculation to show how much additional cash every American would have in their pocket if the administrative burden was reduced by various levels of percentage; something which could be done without adversely affecting any single part of the economy too?

As stated on the other thread, I make it 32.8%.

Originally Posted by JAMC

I do not view the chosen ends (in your case; home, boat etc... but will vary from person to person) as representative of the means.

You have very distorted view of poverty in my opinion. If you define poverty as not having the same political influence as a super billionaire like Bill Gates then there is not much I can say.

You are talking in the abstract when you talk about means. It doesn't mean anything when I (and others) live well, does it?

It is true that wealth can buy power. My meager wealth doesn't buy anywhere near the same power that Bill Gates can muster. Big deal, I still enjoy going out into Tampa Bay on my boat.

Allowing money to influence politics and national policy is an interesting discussion to have but it doesn't mean anything significant relative to fact that Americans and Europeans live well, even with a disparity in wealth.

Originally Posted by JAMC

As stated on the other thread, I make it 32.8%.

The true figures are here - http://www.politic.co.uk/political-t...html#post77926

Originally Posted by flash

You have very distorted view of poverty in my opinion.

If you were to ask me to define it, I would say that it is a measure of the fiscal capability you can muster. How you choose to direct that capability, and the net result of exercising it, are personal choices and therefore out of scope.

Originally Posted by flash

If you define poverty as not having the same political influence as a super billionaire like Bill Gates then there is not much I can say.

Bill Gates is an extreme example, and the lengths to which he can exercise his fiscal capabilities are also at the extreme end. However, in the real world, outside the realm of the millionaries, the difference between an individual earning X and an individual earning 150% of X compounded over time can be politically significant. It can be the difference between state and private education for his/her children - lower down the scale it can be the difference between health insurance and no coverage. It can be the difference between a life expectancy of 68 and 88.

Originally Posted by flash

You are talking in the abstract when you talk about means. It doesn't mean anything when I (and others) live well, does it?

What you're really asking is "Poverty doesn't mean anything, does it?" Centuries of effort trying to understand it's origins and eliminate it would indicate that yes, it does. And to those experiencing it, it means quite a lot.

And yes, the means are abstract, but it is the only true measure that eliminates factors you allude to above such as bad choices (i.e. the human factor). In my way of looking at things, someone stuffing $100 of charlie up their nose a day (for the purposes of this example assume that the money is earned legally) cannot be considered in poverty because a minimum of $36,500 passes through their hands in a year. The fact that they've exhaused their means in such a stupid manner is a seperate issue worthy of it's own thread. You and I would probably be in agreement that if the person in question has no money left for food after their gargantuan cocaine binge, it's their own fault and they should simply be allowed to starve.

Originally Posted by flash

It is true that wealth can buy power. My meager wealth doesn't buy anywhere near the same power that Bill Gates can muster. Big deal, I still enjoy going out into Tampa Bay on my boat.

Exactly. I enjoy taking my sports car out on country roads. Not everyone is interested in power, or boats, or cars.... but most people will have something that they either need to spend their money on (i.e. kids, mortgage) or have a hobby or passion that they will endulge, assuming it's within their means. This is why measuring poverty in consumer goods doesn't always give a true picture. In the UK, you can pick up a half-decent used Porsche for £5,000, yet the average house price currently stands at £158,000.

Originally Posted by flash

I don't think so when you look at total taxation, both direct and indirect.

"After mortgage and rent, regular household bills are the next biggest expense report found here

I can't speak for the UK because I don't know the specifics of the way the government collects revenues so I would just be speaking out my ass. However, in the US it is not only the income tax but the Social Security taxes, the government fees, the property tax and the state taxes like sales tax. It also includes fuel taxes, and telephone taxes and the indirect taxes that every consumer pays on purchased good and services. All corporate taxes, which are significant, are passed on some way or another to end user of the good and service. I gave a little analysis of this in an earlier thread.

Well direct taxation is progressive, so I guess if you're in an upper income bracket (assuming you're not a dom res.) and you had little or no mortgage then tax would certainly be your largest outgoing, but for your family living on the average wage or lower it most certainly remains rent / mortgage. Yes, we also pay VAT on goods, higher than you do too and it is undoubtedly one of the main reasons why food prices have risen so steeply!

I am probably an average American and I spend more money on government than I do on a mortgage, or on food or on any other single item.

That's good that the cost of living is reasonable on the whole over there, but it is partly I think because being such a big country you don't need to import as much as we do and also your fuel prices are so much lower. Also doesn't help that every war we've fought along side you against OPECs results in your low cost gas prices stablising whilst ours rocket.

If the UK collects 45% of the GNP for the cost of government then you are paying a significant cost. Over the long run you will pay about 45% of your income to the government. Is there anything else that you buy that cost 45% of your income?

After direct taxation rent is currently 52.6%, food 21% which leaves 26.4% on other household bills (which does include council tax),clothes and miscellaneous (I am such a clichéd example of a house wife!). I'm afraid that even with my calculator I cannot for the life of me work it out by first deducting all tax and NI, due to the complication of tax credits; as an aside how the hell, if two people with degrees (granted humanities ones) can't work out how these things are calculated, do these so-called "scroungers" manage to cheat the system? But this is one of those cases where I am arguing from the personal so dismiss it if you must.

You would be better off in the long run to pocket the money and pay for your own health care, you own retirement and any other thing the government provides for you.

Just not true, I really don't want to get too personal in my response, but if I were to have gold standard insurance in your country they would likely have refused to pay for life saving treatment I received free here in the past (due to an unknown, and undetectable pre-existing condition), let alone the physio and occupational therapy which have given me a good quality of life.

Any government is an inefficient supplier of services because they have no competition and they don't make decisions based upon economics or market conditions. They make decisions based upon political considerations or special interest groups.

Yes it is fraught with bureaucratic problems I agree, although I have no problem with decisions being made on political considerations given that the running of public services is always a campaign platform here and therefore the people get what they deserve! Special interest groups aren't so important in the political process here as I understand them to be in your country.

I think the right size of government should be in the 12%-15% bracket. At that amount of income a government should be able to provide for a national defense, build the roads, provide a basic education and do the few absolute government necessities.

This is one area we're going to have to agree to disagree on, or just accept that a comparison is futile given our two countries cultural differences.

If your government only collected 12% of the GNP instead of 45% just think how much more money you would have to spend each month. You could purchase your own health care and your own retirement instead of taking what a government bureaucrat has determined you should have.

On what? Televisions, cars and fast food? What about those who simply can't afford the health care, pensions, not for me I'm afraid! What we do for one benefits all, to quote the bible (I know everyone's going to hate me for it, but I don't care) ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it for one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it for Me.’ Matthew 25 v40 and I am sure you (flash) have mentioned you do so in the form of charity, I just have no problem with the government doing it on my behalf.

Just think how much more productive the economy would be and that would spawn lower unemployment, higher productivity and greater personal wealth.

And yet every country in the world, regardless of how little tax they pay, have got economic problems at the moment.

Without looking it up I don't know what the UK spends on defense but it is really not very much compared to your total economy. In the US we spend about $450 billion a year for defense. The total government (including state and local) collects about $4.5 trillion in revenues. That means we only spend 10% for the military. I suspect it is even a smaller percentage in the UK. That means 90% of the cost of government goes for other things. The military expenditures are not the problem.

It is currently 2.6% of GDP here I believe, the lack of funds causing huge problems here currently, a discussion for another thread perhaps.

Stupid worthless social programs are the culprit

How can the cost of a life be measured in financial terms? I just do not accept that they are worthless.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

"After mortgage and rent, regular household bills are the next biggest expense report found here Well direct taxation is progressive, so I guess if you're in an upper income bracket (assuming you're not a dom res.) and you had little or no mortgage then tax would certainly be your largest outgoing, but for your family living on the average wage or lower it most certainly remains rent / mortgage. Yes, we also pay VAT on goods, higher than you do too and it is undoubtedly one of the main reasons why food prices have risen so steeply!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Your little brochure did not look at the cost of taxation as a household expense.

Most references ignores the cost of government to an individual, which are enormous.

That's good that the cost of living is reasonable on the whole over there, but it is partly I think because being such a big country you don't need to import as much as we do and also your fuel prices are so much lower.

There is a worldwide market in oil. A US importer will pay just as much as a British importer for a barrel of Saudi oil.

Our fuel costs are lower because we don't have as large a tax as you do. In fact fuel prices are a great example of what I was talking about. Your government collects money from you when you buy fuel and that is the reason you don't have as much to spend on other things.

Also doesn't help that every war we've fought along side you against OPECs results in your low cost gas prices stablising whilst ours rocket.

I don't remember going to war with OPEC. Maybe you can refresh my memory.

While you are at it maybe you can explain why the price of oil increased worldwide after the last two wars. Our prices did not go down. In fact they skyrockets just like yours.

After direct taxation rent is currently 52.6%, food 21% which leaves 26.4% on other household bills (which does include council tax),clothes and miscellaneous (I am such a clichéd example of a house wife!). I'm afraid that even with my calculator I cannot for the life of me work it out by first deducting all tax and NI, due to the complication of tax credits; as an aside how the hell, if two people with degrees (granted humanities ones) can't work out how these things are calculated, do these so-called "scroungers" manage to cheat the system? But this is one of those cases where I am arguing from the personal so dismiss it if you must.

You are correct, taxes are complicated. There are many ways for the government to get a hand on your money, both direct and indirect. It also varies from individual to individual.

The best way to generalize it is to look at the amount of money your government collects as a percentage of GNP. Some way or another, over a period of time, you are going to pay a significant amount.

Like I said, here in the US the amount is 33% and in the UK the amount is around 45%. Most people don't spend 33% of their income on any single expense although some will go overboard with a high mortgage and many of them default.

I think the reason you are spending 53% for mortgages is because the government is taking so much of your gross salary.

By the way, I wonder how much of that mortgage payment has some hidden government fees in it?

Just not true, I really don't want to get too personal in my response, but if I were to have gold standard insurance in your country they would likely have refused to pay for life saving treatment I received free here in the past (due to an unknown, and undetectable pre-existing condition), let alone the physio and occupational therapy which have given me a good quality of life.

Except for the time I was in the Army I have always paid for my own health expenses and it has been very good. I have never been really sick but my wife has a chronic disease that would be life threatening if not treated properly. We have excellent health care. I would call it a gold standard.

My wife belongs to a large worldwide discussion forum about the disease she has. She mentioned to me that on her discussion site many people from the UK and from Canada complain about how hard it is to get treatment. My wife has no problem getting treatment.

Yes it is fraught with bureaucratic problems I agree, although I have no problem with decisions being made on political considerations given that the running of public services is always a campaign platform here and therefore the people get what they deserve! Special interest groups aren't so important in the political process here as I understand them to be in your country.

I would rather make my own decision instead of having some stupid politician make the decision for me. I can spend my own money more wisely than anybody elected to office.

This is one area we're going to have to agree to disagree on, or just accept that a comparison is futile given our two countries cultural differences.

We can lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day government is nothing more than allowing somebody else to control your life. I would rather have that to be minimal.

On what? Televisions, cars and fast food? What about those who simply can't afford the health care, pensions, not for me I'm afraid! What we do for one benefits all, to quote the bible (I know everyone's going to hate me for it, but I don't care) ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it for one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it for Me.’ Matthew 25 v40 and I am sure you (flash) have mentioned you do so in the form of charity, I just have no problem with the government doing it on my behalf.

My position as stated before is that if you weren't paying so much money to the government you could afford other things.

Please don't lecture me on charity. I give a substantial amount of money to charity each year. It usually runs 12%-14% of my income. Do you give that much?

There is a difference between being charitable and allowing stupid politicians to spend your money.

And yet every country in the world, regardless of how little tax they pay, have got economic problems at the moment.

True. I think most of the problem comes from government intervention.

It is currently 2.6% of GDP here I believe, the lack of funds causing huge problems here currently, a discussion for another thread perhaps.
How can the cost of a life be measured in financial terms? I just do not accept that they are worthless.

You made the statement earlier that defense spending was causing economic problems. I just merely point out that it was not very much.