Americans still give over 2 times more per capita than the UK does. Do the math. We gave over 15 times more money last year than the UK did, and only have 4 times the population. The argument is that in America, we attempt to help our own as private citizens rather than pass the buck.

Yes, the American education system is worse than the British. I am going to ask you (again) why that's the case. Ours is not privatized, and the vast, vast majority of students attend public schools.

Oh, here's the charitable giving highlights per capita:

http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf

The UK is 0.7% of the GDP. Ours is closer to 1.7%.

SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: coolestguyever said: SciFiBoy said: use Progressive Taxation to raise more money, then make a NHS in the US, afterall healthcare is a basic human right   Progressive taxation: Punishing people for working hard - rewarding the poor   wrong, statistics show someone on the average wage works the same hours as someone in a multi-million dollar hedge fund   The number of hours one works is not the sole determiner of how "hard" someone works.  And yes, progressive taxation is a dis-incentive to working harder, how could it NOT be?   because a banker who earns 500k a year and failed there employer works alot harder than a nurse on 20-30k year who makes people feel better, somehow i dont think so, progressive taxation is fair as you pay what you can afford to pay rather than making the poor pay more than 600k a year financial sector workers I never claimed salary was the indicator of how hard someone works, either.  But I agree with you, in terms of physical and mental labor, those with lower salaries or who are low on the "ladder" work harder, so they can rise.  But how do you think the 100K+ bankers got where they are?  Hard work of course!  Not sure what "making people feel better" has to do with this argument though? Fair to me is paying the same percentage of your income to taxes as everyone else.  And it still means the poorer you are, the less you pay, so what's unfair about that?     so anyone who dosent earn enough to get private healthcare just isnt working hard enough and deserves to die from cureable diseases, thats good to know, besides how can you define hard work? surely a low paid nurse works harder than a programmer but the nurse is payed much less and may like her job and be happy to stay in it, we do need nurses afterall, if everyone got promoted, no-one would do low paid jobs that are essential to any nation, also like i said you should pay in tax what you can afford to pay in tax, thats fair, and that will help thoose less fortunate then you to get healthcare and an education.   If the nurse is happy to stay at her job then she can't complain about low wages, duh!  Perhaps the nurse does work harder than a programmer, but that's not what determines a salary.  What determines a salary is how rare a skillset is, and you simply cannot argue that more people could excel at being a nurse than excel at being a programmer.  That's why a programmer makes so much money.  And there will ALWAYS be people to the entry-level, low paying jobs, simply because ANYBODY can do them.   "You should pay in tax what you can afford to pay in tax" ????????  Are you serious?  That is so backwards and against the principles of the founding of America it's unbelievable.  You're saying everything that people earn beyond "living wage" should be surrendered to the government?  Wow i live in the UK not the US for which im eternaly greatfull, anyway its often still more than a living wage. example: someone earning up to 10k a year pays 0% tax 10-20k pays 5% 20-50k pays 10% 50-100k pays 25% 100-1m pays 50% 1m+ pays 75% so if you earn 50k you pay 5k in tax (45k after tax salary), if you earn 500k you pay 150k in tax (at you earn 350k) if you earn 2m you pay 1.5m in tax (500k at salary) seems reasonable enough to me It doesn't seem reasonable to me.  What you earn should be yours to do with whatever you want (outside of whatever equal % of taxes you pay as everybody else), it's nobody else's business what you do with that money even if others believe it's more money than necessary for one person.  I just can't justify taking someone's money from them, that person that earned that money through work, and handing it to another person who didn't work for that money at all. On top of that, like I said having a progressive tax is a dis-incentive to working harder.  We'll say working harder here means contributing more to GDP.  If people don't have an incentive to working harder (increasing GDP), then eventually you get what happen in the Soviet Union.   why do you need or deserve all that extra money? when it could be used to help the less fortunate, again watch Robin Hood

Doesn't matter why I need or deserve that money, I earned it and it's mine.  But most people do have compassion for those who are less fortunate, and they VOLUNTARILY donate a lot of money to these people.  America is actually the most compassionate and gracious country in this respect.  But it's the forced taking of money that isn't right.

Seriously. People really believe in 'rights?' How does one define the right to 'life'?

-As some has claimed its the freedom from someone else 'from killing you' - of course this would simply be an interpretation as the declaration is full of elevated and intentionally vague language.
-Of course one could argue that to have 'life' one needs food, water, shelter, clothing, medicine etc.

Apparently the right to 'life' isn't a right to 'life' but a 'right' to be left alone- which is a bit redundant because liberty also indicates one should be left alone.

Buying into the declaration of independence as the canon of basic rights is nonsensical.

I would argue that all 'basic rights,' which were endowed by man's creator, are bullshit and totally mutable, as all should know.

If we can make up rights, or priveleges (as long as the government and people can sustain them) we should make up more 'rights' that are better for society as a whole.

The right to a free and good education (benefits society as a whole), a right to healthcare (benefits society as a whole. This will become apparent once we have another 1918 style influenza pandemic) and we could list other things as well like clean water and food.

The whole concept of rugged individualism and the self-made man is quite nonsensical. It's like saying Einstein or Newton are solely responsible for their own genius. It gives waaaaaaaaaaaaay to much credit to the individual. The same is true for this almost idolatrous worship of entrepreneurs who somehow had the gusto and a particularly unique talent to get where they were.

Bullshit. It's luck. They're outliers and fortunes are made upon the backs of others (occasionally the relationship is not so hierarchical and more symbiotic between boss and worker), so any individual talent or 'hard work' is the delusions of a human mind trying to rationaliz inequity and its own success. This same rationalization process occurs when someone gets cancer, dies in a car accident (caused by someone else) or just has an unfortunate date with fate (I mean chance but fate sounds better).

There has to be a reason Bill Gates is soooo rich. Nope, there isn't for the most part. (Of course there are people who 'don't want to work,' but for the most part the sense of individual achievement is an overblown self-pleasing action).

This turned into a rambling mess.

Here's another one I love. "You're taxing achievement"-Nope, your taxing luck. Not to mention if these self-important egotistical rich individuals who have the delusion that somehow they are the keystones of society ever decided to go Galt (as I continually here on fox news), there will be people ready to take their places and take that entrepreneurial risk.

Would we have a 'drug problem' if people weren't willing to take risks for profit? (They say its easy money but it comes with a lot of risk, investment banking is 'easy money' but comes with very little personal risk - who's a more daring entrepreneur?)

Nevermind. Forget all of this if you took the time to read this.

I ... don't believe those numbers.

 I hate debates, so don't expect me to argue. Go ahead and pin me down and whatnot, but whatever.

Anyway, the bolded:

1. 70 mill. X 5 = 350 mill.

9 bil. X 5 = 45 bil.

Compared to the 300 mil to 150 bil. in the US.

And taxation and welfare gives half to the homeless while the government keeps the rest.

Private charities give 90%+, which is what we Americans perfer. :)

ok, again, im not talking about charity, im talking about welfare and taxation, and again, i dont think the UK is perfect, i just think its a better place for me as a liberal to live.

Education wise, i dont know what youre doing so wrong, but its possible its similar to the problem in the UK, here schools concentrate too much on meeting targets and too little on whats best for students, i think our system should be reformed to be more student friendly, maybe this would help in the US too

I have to go to bed, so this is the last post tonight.

I am not against taxation, it's what it's used for that matter however.

Let's say I was not in a country at all. Just a guy with some land. To protect my rights, I would have to guard my house, protect my property and livestock, and do the things needed to survive. Let's say that took 18 hours a day.

One day a man comes up and asks if I want to join his group to collectively protect ours, and 10 other peoples land. I say sure, Now I only have to work 16 hours a day. Not a bad deal. Let's say they then come to me and say “well, we need a fill time cop, and instead of the two hours a day you put in as a cop, we can hire one that's better then us, and pay him. it will cost you 2 hours a day worth of corn.”

So, being I am a better farmer then a cop, I can make the payment in an hour compared to two hours policing. Now I am down to 15 hours a day, and being taxed an hour of it.

This is the kind of taxation that's required, and I should have to pay.

So, now the guy comes to me and say's. Well, some people just aren't pulling that share, so can you work an extra hour a day to pay the cop?

Now we are in a progressive tax system. Sucks, but I am still not horrified by it. Up to 16 hours a day though.

Now the man comes to me and says. Well, some people don't have food, so your going to have to work another 3 hours so we can take your crops and give it to them. Now I am up to 19 hours.

This is where taxation becomes wrong. You are indenturing me, to provide for people. I am now working in the service of others, and it's an infringement of my rights. It's not what I signed up for when I entered this agreement, but if I don't, they are going to throw me in jail.

Take my corn to pay for my responsibilities. Ask me for corn to feed others. Taking my corn to feed others is wrong.

Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: Broncos724 said: SciFiBoy said: coolestguyever said: SciFiBoy said: use Progressive Taxation to raise more money, then make a NHS in the US, afterall healthcare is a basic human right   Progressive taxation: Punishing people for working hard - rewarding the poor   wrong, statistics show someone on the average wage works the same hours as someone in a multi-million dollar hedge fund   The number of hours one works is not the sole determiner of how "hard" someone works.  And yes, progressive taxation is a dis-incentive to working harder, how could it NOT be?   because a banker who earns 500k a year and failed there employer works alot harder than a nurse on 20-30k year who makes people feel better, somehow i dont think so, progressive taxation is fair as you pay what you can afford to pay rather than making the poor pay more than 600k a year financial sector workers I never claimed salary was the indicator of how hard someone works, either.  But I agree with you, in terms of physical and mental labor, those with lower salaries or who are low on the "ladder" work harder, so they can rise.  But how do you think the 100K+ bankers got where they are?  Hard work of course!  Not sure what "making people feel better" has to do with this argument though? Fair to me is paying the same percentage of your income to taxes as everyone else.  And it still means the poorer you are, the less you pay, so what's unfair about that?     so anyone who dosent earn enough to get private healthcare just isnt working hard enough and deserves to die from cureable diseases, thats good to know, besides how can you define hard work? surely a low paid nurse works harder than a programmer but the nurse is payed much less and may like her job and be happy to stay in it, we do need nurses afterall, if everyone got promoted, no-one would do low paid jobs that are essential to any nation, also like i said you should pay in tax what you can afford to pay in tax, thats fair, and that will help thoose less fortunate then you to get healthcare and an education.   If the nurse is happy to stay at her job then she can't complain about low wages, duh!  Perhaps the nurse does work harder than a programmer, but that's not what determines a salary.  What determines a salary is how rare a skillset is, and you simply cannot argue that more people could excel at being a nurse than excel at being a programmer.  That's why a programmer makes so much money.  And there will ALWAYS be people to the entry-level, low paying jobs, simply because ANYBODY can do them.   "You should pay in tax what you can afford to pay in tax" ????????  Are you serious?  That is so backwards and against the principles of the founding of America it's unbelievable.  You're saying everything that people earn beyond "living wage" should be surrendered to the government?  Wow i live in the UK not the US for which im eternaly greatfull, anyway its often still more than a living wage. example: someone earning up to 10k a year pays 0% tax 10-20k pays 5% 20-50k pays 10% 50-100k pays 25% 100-1m pays 50% 1m+ pays 75% so if you earn 50k you pay 5k in tax (45k after tax salary), if you earn 500k you pay 150k in tax (at you earn 350k) if you earn 2m you pay 1.5m in tax (500k at salary) seems reasonable enough to me It doesn't seem reasonable to me.  What you earn should be yours to do with whatever you want (outside of whatever equal % of taxes you pay as everybody else), it's nobody else's business what you do with that money even if others believe it's more money than necessary for one person.  I just can't justify taking someone's money from them, that person that earned that money through work, and handing it to another person who didn't work for that money at all. On top of that, like I said having a progressive tax is a dis-incentive to working harder.  We'll say working harder here means contributing more to GDP.  If people don't have an incentive to working harder (increasing GDP), then eventually you get what happen in the Soviet Union.   why do you need or deserve all that extra money? when it could be used to help the less fortunate, again watch Robin Hood   Doesn't matter why I need or deserve that money, I earned it and it's mine.  But most people do have compassion for those who are less fortunate, and they VOLUNTARILY donate a lot of money to these people.  America is actually the most compassionate and gracious country in this respect.  But it's the forced taking of money that isn't right.

did you earn it though? someone payed you it, but earning it means that its 100% fair given the work you do, so its unlikely thats true, especially if you earn more than 100k a year, i really dont see what human being is worth that much money, if any. the money you voulantry give is alot less than taxation and welfare would be giving them

What numbers do you think are wrong? We live in the same high taxed state btw :p

The US is under no obligation to take in everyone that wants to live here. I think they need to pay more attention on how to make their own country a better place to live.