Burning, lynching and general fucking monstrosities.

[Romp]

Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain would be other countries that are as multicultural as the US.

The conflict in America IMO is related in a large part to social and economic policies.  No health care, little social security etc, more regressive tax system, very 'tough on crime' etc

This has economic benefits and its nice for the rich people but it has social consequences.   Whereas the European model redistributes wealth to the poor and provides them with services such as free health care and tertiary education, social security etc

Anyway you cant blame America's social problems on race.

[eldaec]

This has economic benefits and its nice for the rich people but it has social consequences.   Whereas the European model redistributes wealth to the poor and provides them with services such as free health care and tertiary education, social security etc

Debatable.

Contrary to popular belief, most european models really aren't all that redistributive at all.

Mostly they follow the Frank Ramsey priciple of simply putting the most tax on the things that are least price sensitive.

So,

European, and espeicially Scandanavian fiscal regimes tend to have low taxes on capital and high taxes on labour (since capital is deterred from being invested more easily than workers are deterred from working). Similarly, they typically have high taxes on habit forming or addictive products (alcohol, tobacco, petrol) and low taxes on luxuries, which puts more of the burden on the working poor rather than the rich.

In most European countries, the effective marginal tax rate (the amount of extra tax you would end up paying if you earnt one dollar/pound/euro more) is actually higher for the working poor than any other group.

It's true to say that European economies simply choose to spend more money through monopoly state provision, and it's true to say europeans redistribute more heavily in favour of those who do not work at all, but the general redistribution thing is a myth. The group who get reamed in a european fiscal environment are the working poor.

My point was, our house is not in order, yet we have no problem telling others how to get their own house in order.

The thing is, I find it hard to see how this is different from saying....

"Only when my family is absolutely perfect would I be willing to help out the battered wife who lives down the road".

Sure, I can understand a viewpoint that says 'unfortunately we don't have enough resources/military/money/political-will to solve this problem now because we are dealing with this other thing on our own shores first'. And I can understand why people would or wouldn't choose to invade on that basis.

But thats a whole world away from saying that it was actually the right thing to do to let a bunch of criminals continue to claim sovreignty over people with the misfortune to be born in iraq, and so it was somehow wrong or immoral to go in.

BUT, and this is the important part, "the trains were on time."

Only if you happened to be part of the Sunni middle classes.

Which naturally is what most of the pre-war western media output was covering (because going to iraq was dangerous enough, and so visiting the dodgy parts with no dramatic statues of saddam would just be insane!), and hence is what the current arrangements are being judged against.

[koboshi]

If you think fake violence is the only one that desensitizes you should see a theatrical showing of faces of death once and see how many people in 'civilized' countries cheer and laugh in the theater as people are dying for real on the screen. I went to one showing of this and was frankly more disturbed by the audience than the images, as disturbing as those were...

On this hapless earth
There's small sincerity of mirth,
And laughter oft is but an art
To drown the outcry of the heart.
-Hartley Coleridge

Be more afraid of those who don't react.

Just look at the people in Iraq. There was a fucking 10 year old boy who collapsed the skull of one of the corpses by standing on its head while his father watched.

1. That kid would do whatever he thought his dad wanted.
2. The boy and his dad were part of the mob and as much as we don't want to absolve them of guilt we have to.

We see, then, that the disappearance of the conscious personality, the predominance of the unconscious personality, the turning by means of suggestion and contagion of feelings and ideas in an identical direction, the tendency to immediately transform the suggested ideas into acts; these, we see, are the principal characteristics of the individual forming part of a crowd. He is no longer himself, but has become an automaton who has ceased to be guided by his will.
Gustave Le Bon, the Crowd.

Careful with those absolutes. By your definition then we unjustly attacked Germany, and should have let them roll over England because they never attacked the US

Actually they were sinking our civilian ships left and right for almost 2 years prior to our declaration of war.

There clearly are actions short of direct attacks that deserve military intervention (like genocide),

I should clarify.  If the world is harmed, as such an act does, we should defend ourselves.  That is we the people of a civilized world.  Yes, I think that the war on terror, however botched, is a noble war. And if I had my way there would have been more done to help the people who have been oppressed.  But that's not what Bush is doing.  He is engaged in a war for oil.  (And sadly he's doing just as bad a job at liberating the oil as he is in liberating the people)  He has paid no attention to the civil rights violations in Africa, the Philippines, south America, or China, there simply isn't enough Incentive (read: MONEY) for him. If you have doubts that motives matter in such a case notice what happened when Bush "won"; massive contracts intended to "get the oil flowing again"; People who used to have running water and electricity now don't; brainwashed civilians are still brainwashed, only now half of them have been brainwashed by our propaganda.

[eldaec]

But that's not what Bush is doing.  He is engaged in a war for oil.  

Seriously.

If someone was after oil. There are FAR easier and simpler ways to get oil.

Iraq is about two things.

1) Finishing his father's business.

2) The conservative theory that if you could get one successful democratic arab country the others would fall like dominoes, which would in turn earn someone a place in history by solving the israel/palestine issue (not to mention saving assloads of tax dollars).

The first might be ignoble, and the second is probably overreaching, but either way, it puts Bush in the position of having goals aligned with the interest of the people of Iraq and the rest of the region.

This is as good as you are likely to get.

[koboshi]

1) Finishing his father's business.

2) The conservative theory that if you could get one successful democratic arab country the others would fall like dominoes, which would in turn earn someone a place in history by solving the israel/palestine issue (not to mention saving assloads of tax dollars).

The first might be ignoble, and the second is probably overreaching, but either way, it puts Bush in the position of having goals aligned with the interest of the people of Iraq and the rest of the region.

First of all point 1 is a result of point 2 and second of all point 2 is a result of oil. You must understand THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST!  All they want is a guaranteed supply of oil and they think the best way to do that is through a "friendly government" that's why they don't say boo when the Saudis do the same shit we yell at the other countries for.  They went to war thinking, "oil controls our economy and we need to control oil", and as valid as you may think that point is, it's like saying I want money so it's ok to steal.  The truth is the conservative doctrine is not aligned with the people of the Middle East, it's just that we plan to kill any people that aren't.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Oil is a motive, yes. Let's take a bit of a realist view on this area please. If the oil stops flowing, we (the civilized and prosperous liberal democracies of the west and asia) are seriously fucked. Oil is hugely important to our economies, and even just cutting it off to the USA would seriously depress the whole world.

It's not a good idea to have this kind of power in the hands of some pea brained despots, they could really hose us bad. That's why rescuing Iraq and turning it into a prosperous democratic state is important, because it's estimated to be sitting on reserves that are as big as the Saudi's.

Maybe that's not very politically correct or humane, but it's necessary to solve the dilemma of us being extremely vulnerable to a 1970s style oil crisis.

[Anonymous]

We haven't turned Iraq into a democracy, nor are the odds good that we will.  In all likelihood, all we've done is caused a huge problem that we'll be back to solve in about 10 years or so, after the factions have finished genociding each other, and we are forced to go back in and pick up the pieces.

We don't have an oil problem, we have an energy problem.  Oil is but one way to get energy, there do exist other ways.  We're focusing on oil simply because there are oilmen in the white house, and a good deal of support for the political parties comes from oil companies.

Any sensible person would look at the situation and try to figure a different solution.  A pity we aren't being given any real choice this time around.  Or are likely to ever have a real choice again.  Ah well, apathy wins for them in the end!

[ClumsyOaf]

low taxes on luxuries

BWAHAHAHA!
Ok, there might be a few luxury items that aren't taxed as hard - but most of them are taxed for what they're worth.

And the model is redistributive, but not in the sense you think. Money is getting redistributed all over the place - just not between social layers ;)

[eldaec]

And the model is redistributive, but not in the sense you think. Money is getting redistributed all over the place - just not between social layers ;)

I would certainly accept that the model redistributes wealth from the working poor to the idle poor and the idle rich.

I'm not sure that's a recipe for social harmony for ever after though.

[ClumsyOaf]

I would certainly accept that the model redistributes wealth from the working poor to the idle poor and the idle rich.

I'm not sure that's a recipe for social harmony for ever after though.

No, it isn't. It's a system that works "ok". It works well with some issues, and horribly with others - just like every other system there is.

It has worked pretty well this far, but that's because most people have been too (stupidly) honest to take advantage of the system. That's no longer the case. Once people start abusing it, the system breaks down.

What happens then is that too many people are taking money out of the system, this in return results in increased taxes, which in turn result in either a) more poor people, b) higher wages, or c) both. Not a very nice cycle.

(Un)fortunately, we have no foreign debt, and a reasonably large cash reserve, so the politicians can just push the problem in front of them until another issue will make this situation intolerable. When 1/5 (or what it is) of our total workforce retire (as in: are not replaced by new workers) over a 10-year period about 20 years from now. I can only imagine what will happen - and I plan to be long gone by then.

Just to point out how insanely expensive everything here is:
When I was in the US we drove through a neighborhood (I can't remember what it was called), and I was told that it was one of the most expensive places in Florida to buy a house. So I asked what a house there would cost - around $ 200k I think it was. I started laughing - where I lived then that would've gotten me a medium sized apartment.


And just in a halfhearted attempt not to hijack:

There are enough people on this board who have claimed to prefer anarchy-like government systems. This is what happens in an anarchy-state if a sizable number of people don't like you.
While it is macabre and inhuman - it's neither shocking nor surprising. At least they killed them first...

Back in the day we didn't do that, we tied them to a stake, lit a bonfire, and shook hands while we watched them burn - knowing we had done the world a favor and that we were one step closer to be admitted to heaven.

Some things change, some stay the same. Human nature has not changed overly much.

[Speedy Cerviche]

We don't have an oil problem, we have an energy problem.  Oil is but one way to get energy, there do exist other ways.  We're focusing on oil simply because there are oilmen in the white house, and a good deal of support for the political parties comes from oil companies.

Any sensible person would look at the situation and try to figure a different solution.  A pity we aren't being given any real choice this time around.  Or are likely to ever have a real choice again.  Ah well, apathy wins for them in the end!

It's not like we can just flick a switch and no longer be dependant on oil. First off, it would cost a hell of a lot to suddenly replace every vehicle's current engines with electric ones. Second, electrical engine and battery technology is way behind gas combustion engine technology which means initially a huge loss in efficiency. Now, a society that has gone from kitty hawk to mach 7 scramjets in 100 years could probably get them up to par relatively quickly, but since we're a capitalist society ruled by the invisible hand, why would anyone do this until the oil business became unprofitable?

I'm not defending it, I'm just saying switching to alternative energy sources is just incredibly unrealistic until the cost of producing oil goes way up. We still should be researching them though, cuz we know the day will come, but then you run into the brickwall of politics when a president is presented with the choice of putting x billions into energy research or education/healthcare (I wonder which buys more votes?).

[koboshi]

you run into the brickwall of politics when a president is presented with the choice of putting x billions into energy research or education/healthcare.

How about we divert 'oil procurement' funds. You know some of the 399.1 Billion spent on our military.

[Romp]

I would certainly accept that the model redistributes wealth from the working poor to the idle poor and the idle rich.

I'm not sure that's a recipe for social harmony for ever after though.

No, it isn't. It's a system that works "ok". It works well with some issues, and horribly with others - just like every other system there is.

It has worked pretty well this far, but that's because most people have been too (stupidly) honest to take advantage of the system. That's no longer the case. Once people start abusing it, the system breaks down.

What happens then is that too many people are taking money out of the system, this in return results in increased taxes, which in turn result in either a) more poor people, b) higher wages, or c) both. Not a very nice cycle.

generally the redstributive effect is from the rich to the poor.  Its not just a question of handouts in the form of unemployment benefits, family welfare benefits, pensions, superannuation etc  Its also things like free health care, free education, legal aid and any number of services provided by the government.

There are always people who abuse the system, there are always dishonest people and it doesnt expect people to be honest to work.

What it does do is lead to a more stable society, less poverty, less crime etc.  Has its downsides too but it does do what it aims to do.

[ClumsyOaf]

I would certainly accept that the model redistributes wealth from the working poor to the idle poor and the idle rich.

I'm not sure that's a recipe for social harmony for ever after though.

No, it isn't. It's a system that works "ok". It works well with some issues, and horribly with others - just like every other system there is.

It has worked pretty well this far, but that's because most people have been too (stupidly) honest to take advantage of the system. That's no longer the case. Once people start abusing it, the system breaks down.

What happens then is that too many people are taking money out of the system, this in return results in increased taxes, which in turn result in either a) more poor people, b) higher wages, or c) both. Not a very nice cycle.

generally the redstributive effect is from the rich to the poor.  Its not just a question of handouts in the form of unemployment benefits, family welfare benefits, pensions, superannuation etc  Its also things like free health care, free education, legal aid and any number of services provided by the government.

There are always people who abuse the system, there are always dishonest people and it doesnt expect people to be honest to work.

What it does do is lead to a more stable society, less poverty, less crime etc.  Has its downsides too but it does do what it aims to do.

No, the effort is from the rich to the poor - the effect is from the "regular joe" to the poor. The rich can always get off; we're a small country so it's very visible here. Once people make a certain amount of money they start jumping the hoops to reduce their tax (basically the equivalent of setting up a dummy company, doing this the right way they slash their income tax in half - the tax reduction from this is supposed to be removed this year though). The extremely rich just move their assets elsewhere and pay no tax at all. But this is the same all over the world. Just take Hollywood - not one movie with profit in what, 30 years now? Maybe one of the largest organized (non-criminalized) tax evasion stunts in history.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that bad really - atm (hell, when looking around it seems like one of the best systems to me). The free health care, education, legal aid, and whatever else other people have to pay for directly that I just take for granted, and never have to worry about - I think that's worth a lot.

But the system is far from perfect, no point in pretending otherwise. And when we get the same influx of pensioners that everybody else are getting a few years from now - the system, as it is today, is probably not going to be able to handle it. The worker/non-worker ratio is going to be too low, not enough money from income tax compared to what is needed for the benefits the pensioners have earned through a long life of paying tax. There is currently no solution to this problem.

Note: I'm pooling a few other payments in with tax here, as the difference is only technical (the money is gone when you get your paycheck, and it's not differentiated on in any budgets - only difference is the name).

[Tebonas]

Yes, rich folks are usually assholes. If they weren't most of them wouldn't be rich to begin with.

I for one would revoke the citizenship of everyone that moves to one of those tax paradises like Monaco. Don't pay here, you are not one of us. Easy as that.

[Rodent]

Yes, rich folks are usually assholes. If they weren't most of them wouldn't be rich to begin with.

I for one would revoke the citizenship of everyone that moves to one of those tax paradises like Monaco. Don't pay here, you are not one of us. Easy as that.

But that would mean alot less gold medals in sports!

[Tebonas]

You know how many gold medals I could press from all those taxes? I'd actually DROWN in them.

[HaemishM]

My point was, our house is not in order, yet we have no problem telling others how to get their own house in order.

The thing is, I find it hard to see how this is different from saying....

"Only when my family is absolutely perfect would I be willing to help out the battered wife who lives down the road".

Saving the battered wife down the street does not result in thousands killed, homes bombed to shit and back, families without basic running water and electricity for weeks at a time, etc. The effects of said altruistic individual action are not nearly so wide-reaching as "altruistic" government action.

The war was not about oil. Oil is a side venture, just something that happens to be there, and happens to make Iraq strategically viable. Iraq would never ever have been an issue in modern times if there had never been oil there.

The war was, as someone else said, 1) finishing Daddy's business, and 2) the neocon view that just 1 stable democracy in the region will have a sort of reverse domino effect.

Of course, the "reverse Domino effect" makes about as much fucking sense as the ridiculous "Domino effect" theory on Communism that got us into some of these fucking messes in the first place. The idea that one country in a region that fell to a Communist revolution would cause other countries in the region to follow suit was stupid in the extreme, and got us involved overtly in Vietnam, and covertly in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I think neocons are under the misapprehension that the "oppressed majorities" of countries like Saudi Arabia and other Arab Islamic countries with oil will see a stable, free democracy in Iraq and suddenly rise up against their oppressors. It totally ignores the fact that most of the oppressed minority are oppressed not just by restrictive governments, but their religion as well. Most of the Arabic countries use Islam as a fulcrum for the justification of their government's existence. You can't overcome that just by having one free democracy.

[Snowspinner]

Yes, rich folks are usually assholes.

And people who make broad generalizations are usually idiots.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Our prosperity was built by people ("rich assholes") who's entrepreneurial investments were encouraged by low taxes. Tampering with that by looting and discouraging the most productive citizens with socialist policies that redistribute wealth to deadbeats will lead to our downfall. Governments should be focusing on ensuring equality of oppurtunity for everyone to compete in the free market. That means providing good & cheap education to all, eliminating glass ceilings, and preventing "market failures" from spoiling competiton (aka monopolies/cartels). Too many democratic goverments are forgetting this, and adding more and more social programs to buy votes at the expense of our future quality of life.

[Tebonas]

Well, the rich assholes was tongue-in-check. But if you really want to discuss this topic Snowspinner, evidence and human nature are your enemy. You usually don't become rich by being nice, non-confrontational, and always playing by the rules. Because if those are your character traits, you get screwed by the competition, by your own employees, by your manager, whoever in your vicinty has the ruthlessness you lack.

Sure there are exceptions, but those are not exceptions that break the rule.
But let me rephrase for you: " Yes, rich people usually evade a good part of their taxes by using loopholes or by paying people to use loopholes for them. These people are assholes"

And Speedy Cerviche, you have a very simplicistic view of economy. Just one point. How exactly do you propose to provide good and cheap education to all if not by paying for that education with tax income?

[Snowspinner]

By that logic, poor people are just assholes who are too stupid to get ahead.

[Tebonas]

Where do the poor people come from all of a sudden?

Did I talk about poor people anywhere? I was talking about taxes mainly and management of existing money secondary. Poor people usually pay less to none of the first and don't have an abundance of the second.

[Snowspinner]

You're making an argument from human nature - because rich people do X, they are assholes.

The problem is that 90% of the population would do X if they knew how. 90% of the population would be cut-throat, avoid paying taxes, etc. I mean, shit, you think rich people are the only people who fudge their taxes?

[Tebonas]

Exactly, rich people have more abilities to do so. And, of course, more reason. to because the stakes are higher.

Therefore a tax system must take that into account, it should go specifically after loopholes primarily used by rich people. Thats where the money for the government is in.

So, when I say rich people usually are assholes I am called an idiot for generalization, and then you yourself call being an asshole basic human nature. Still know where your point in this discussion is? If you find it, please let me know.

[Snowspinner]

The "Poor people are assholes who are too stupid to succeed" claim was one of those things where I try to show that your position has completely unacceptable consequences.

You've somewhat foiled this debate tactic by walking right into this unacceptable position without blinking, but that was pretty much my point.

[Tebonas]

Next time try to debate points and not tactics and you might fare better, Snowspinner.

Expecting something else than general contempt for people from a MMORPG player is a wee bit optimistic, even for you!

[Snowspinner]

Truth be told, I think I faired just fine.

I mean, how are you defining rich anyway? Millionaires? Multi-millionaires? Shit, plenty of millionaires are just people who grew up in the Depression and never actually spent anything.

Plenty of them pay their taxes. And even with all of these alleged tax breaks, the rich take up a whole lot of tax burden. The top 20% pays over 65% of the tax burden. The top 5% pay more than the bottom 80% combined. The top 1% pay more than the bottom 60% combined.

They're doing their fair share. They're just an easy scapegoat, because they have something you want. But they're not evil bastards. Your generalization was idiotic.

[Speedy Cerviche]

It's not that complicated Tebonas, just cut back on more useless programs.

[Tebonas]

Trying to construct a personal agenda that I carry out? Trying to paint me as jealous of rich people? Wow, are we getting desperate already?

They have nothing I want. If I wanted to earn more money I would just have to suck up to some superiors and kick some coworkers in the crotch to proof my "leadership ability". But then I am rather a slacker reading message boards. It beats actually working in my job.

And Its more fun that way.

If you actually want to discuss those perchentages, please provide me with a link that does not only show the absolute perchentages, but the relative perchentages as well. I'm not really motivated enough to look up US taxes, but from the taxes and practices around here I would take your numbers with a grain of salt. You know, company houses and company cars as part of your payment which are taxed better than getting paid in money alone. Part of your wages hidden by some neat little tricks, and, last but not least, an actual top tax rate that makes wages over a certain amount practically tax-free.

[Snowspinner]

The statistics took me ten minutes to find. In five minutes, I found another set of numbers for a different year that were pretty close to what I found the first time.

If you're invested in this issue, you can find the numbers with no trouble. Consider it a sniff test to tell if you're actually interested in the issue on any level beyond grandstanding.

[Tebonas]

You ARE a bit dense, aren't you? Those numbers are pretty worthless without context. Five minutes to get them were five minutes too many. You want to use these numbers, bring the context.

I'm not here to prove your points for you. If you can bring me perchentages that take income into consideration as well as taxes, whereas nonmonetary income is treated as if the benefits were bought with money after taxes, then I accept your numbers. Until then they are not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I think that taxes hit the middle class the most. If you want to challenge that view, then do so. But not by showing that the top 20% pay 65% of the tax burden. Because if their income is 70% of the total income they actually pay less than they should. Whereas if their income is 50% of the total income they are poor sods.

See - context!

[Snowspinner]

So basically you have an idea how to refute me, but want me to go do the research on it?

[Tebonas]

Basically, I could provide you with some Austrian numbers, though. By virtue of that being my native language and being more google-friendly to me. Please excuse that I don't learn economic english just for the pleasure of refuting an attack on me.