Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lynata wrote:

Albatross wrote:So, let's say... Money. Labour isn't given in exchange for it, goods aren't exchanged for it - it is taken from one group of people, simply because they 'can afford it', and given to another. Is that fair?

In essence, yes, because the alternative would be to see the people on the receiving end may not survive without it, or at the very least will find it a lot harder to get back on their feet. By only giving them the barest minimum, however, we create an incentive for them to become active again - provided their labour is actually wanted.

...and this is the crux of the problem. We exchange our labour for money, and the market decides how much that labour is worth. Is it the fault of wealthy people that their labour is worth more? Should they be punished for it? We have equality of opportunity in this country (or as close as is possible) in terms of education - everyone has the opportunity (if not the ability) to learn valuable skills and exchange their labour for an amount of money that would give them a comfortable life. I come from a poor background. It hasn't stopped me from going to university.

I'm also putting forth the notion that there is a percentage amongst the "affording" group whose labour is in no relation to the excessive amount of money they receive - at the cost of the majority.

I would dispute 'at the cost of the majority' - someone being wealthy does not preclude your being equally or more wealthy. Also, you feel that wealthy people don't deserve the price they get for their labour because? As I said, the market decides what something is worth. That's no reason to punish individuals.

Albatross wrote:I think 'tax the rich more because they can afford it' is class warfare, pure and simple.

Well, 'feth welfare, let them rot' is class warfare, too, just that it gets fanned by those who would be negatively affected if the version you mentioned got out of hand. Social classes exist, which isn't so nice to begin with, but we have to acknowledge that one is inevitably trying to outmaneuver or instrumentalize another.

That's true, but vilifying the rich doesn't make one less poor, and I'm certainly not advocating that we should let poor people 'rot'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:One could argue that there comes a point where accumulation of wealth is taking money from the majority in a fashion that is not "earned".

Feel free to argue that, by all means, just don't conflate 'earn' with 'deserve'. You can earn something without truly deserving it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

AustonT wrote:KK what is your personal opinion of Norway's current state?

In general very good.

They seem to have achieved a strong democratic constitutional monarchy with a liberal modern society, an excellent economic base in several different sectors, largely carbon neutral power generation, and a high degree of security and income for the whole population.

Their booze tax looks rather high, though.

I couldn't personally live there because as you rightly pointed out they have a different societal mentality, but by and large I agree with you. Norway, for Norwegians, seems to be a fantastic success story. I read an article a few years ago now that called Germany,Denmark,Norway, and Sweden the "Hansa States" and predicted that their success would eclipse the rest of Europe if something didn't significantly change.

Kilkrazy wrote:[
If the majority voted themselves rewards at the expense of the rich, the rich would not be so rich and the poor would not be so poor.

This is everything that's wrong with the idea of social welfare. It's a safety net, not a redistribution program...to be fair I might have this out of context I thread filtered KK.

Sonophos wrote:
The UK PAYE tax system has large "jumps" at certain income levels so it is possible to recieve a pay rise and have your take home pay decrease, this is a stupid state of affairs.

I don't know the UK tax code, but I don't trust anyone who says "large", or "small" when quantifiable date should exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Actually, crappy food is more expensive than healthier foods - it's just easier to acquire in a state fit for consumption. A cheeseburger at McDonalds costs what, a couple dollars? For that you could buy enough food to sustain you all day. The price per calorie of food in the US is around $.001/calorie; a 2000 calorie/day diet costs about $2/day.

Shockingly, calories are not the only important thing in terms of nutrition.

That canola oil may look mighty calorific, but if I drink nothing but canola oil my health may suffer, and it would still cost 1.4 USD per day. The cheeseburger, eaten 3 times per day, is healthier than the oil; though more expensive.

biccat wrote:
It's easy to eat crappy foods, it's more difficult to eat healthy food.

Because they cost more per calorie.

I can see the attraction of the "invisible hand" argument but it is far too simplistic and allows too much exposure to moral hazard in the form of reciprocation and monopoly.

Where remuneration is handed out in the form of bonuses there is room for argument about what is deserving. One of the main reasons that executives are getting high payments is that they sit on each others boards and remuneration commitees. There is more than a little cartel like behaviour that has led to this point BECAUSE the market has not been allowed to operate freely.

biccat wrote:
Of course, I'm not strictly speaking of "Welfare," but all public welfare benefits, including food stamps, etc. Those tend to be fixed amounts of money. Again, when you don't know what you're talking about, it's usually best not to speak.

Indeed. When you use the word welfare as a specific term that doesn't include police protection, fire protection, the military, etc.; you probably shouldn't speak.

biccat wrote:
Social philanthropy was at it's heyday during the industrial revolution - and it worked surprisingly well. Life in the US before the introduction of public welfare was actually pretty good.

So you're claiming that its now bad? That social welfare does not follow from, by evidence, improved conditions of the middle class?

It's just a misunderstanding of the way the tax bands work.

Here are the UK income tax bands for 2012-2013.

£1--8,105 = 0%
£8,106--34,370 = 20%
£34,371--150,000 = 40%
£150,001+ = 50%

You only pay the rate for the slice of your salary that falls into the tax band. In other words, someone on £160,000 a year would pay the following

£4,999 at the 50% rate
£46,251 at the 40% rate
£5,252 at the 20% rate

For a total of £56,502 at an aggregate rate of 35.3%

Actually, crappy food is more expensive than healthier foods - it's just easier to acquire in a state fit for consumption.

A McD cheeseburger is ninety-nine cents. 70/30 ground beef is about three dollars a pound whereas 95/5 ground beef is $6. If you are on a very limited budget ,and especially if you have to feed multiple people, it is difficult to double the cost for the same amount of food. The difference in calories? 70/30 is 279 calories and 25.2 grams of fat per 3 ounces whereas 95/5 is 31 calories and 1.4 grams of fat per 3 ounces.

It's easy to eat crappy foods, it's more difficult to eat healthy food.

It isn't any easier to eat 95/5 then it is 70/30, just more expensive. When you don't know what you're talking about, it's usually best not to speak.

Life in the US before the introduction of public welfare was actually pretty good.

Unless of course you were:

Italian
Irish
Black
Asian
Female
Poor
Disabled


Other than that, good times.

dogma wrote:Shockingly, calories are not the only important thing in terms of nutrition.

That canola oil may look mighty calorific, but if I drink nothing but canola oil my health may suffer, and it would still cost 1.4 USD per day. The cheeseburger, eaten 3 times per day, is healthier than the oil; though more expensive.

The cheeseburger, surprisingly, is a product that hasn't, and couldn't have, existed except for the last 100 years or so. Most people throughout the world live on far simpler meals than cheeseburgers, french fries, and coca cola.

Poor people in a number of countries eat well without access to fast food. Grains and beans are cheap.

dogma wrote:Because they cost more per calorie.

Only if you're talking about acquisition cost, not if you're talking about actual price.

Sonophos wrote:I can see the attraction of the "invisible hand" argument but it is far too simplistic

The "invisible hand" is simplistic, but having someone dictating how to distribute wealth is not?

dogma wrote:So you're claiming that its now bad? That social welfare does not follow from, by evidence, improved conditions of the middle class?

Nope, I'm saying that it could be better. That which is unseen, perhaps.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's just a misunderstanding of the way the tax bands work.

Here are the UK income tax bands for 2012-2013.

£1--8,105 = 0%
£8,106--34,370 = 20%
£34,371--150,000 = 40%
£150,001+ = 50%

You only pay the rate for the slice of your salary that falls into the tax band. In other words, someone on £160,000 a year would pay the following

£4,999 at the 50% rate
£46,251 at the 40% rate
£5,252 at the 20% rate

For a total of £56,502 at an aggregate rate of 35.3%

Thanks for that KK, I had been mislead and I've never earned in the low or higher brackets.

There is National Insurance to think about as well, of course. That has a different set of bands and rates.

FACT: Everyone has opportunity from birth to be prosperous. That's that "All men are created" you might have read in the best document ever written.
FACT: Poor people do not utilize that opportunity, that is how they choose to be poor.
FACT: Prosperity and Wealth are good for the country and cause it grow. Poverty and Destitution are bad for the country and cause it to become weaker.
FACT: Those that choose to help the country are Patriots and Heroes. Those that choose to hurt the country are Traitors and Criminals.
FACT: Because being poor is a choice, poor people are choosing to be Traitors & Enemies of the state.
CONCLUSION: Being poor is Treason. Arrest the poor people (more than we do already).

biccat wrote:
The cheeseburger, surprisingly, is a product that hasn't, and couldn't have, existed except for the last 100 years or so.

About 90, though not the McD's version.

Canola oil came about in the 70's though (long after McD's in the 40's), so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

biccat wrote:
Most people throughout the world live on far simpler meals than cheeseburgers, french fries, and coca cola.

Not for long, if we're speaking nutritionally. There is this pervasive idea in the West that Western food is somehow necessarily more complicated than that outside the West, it isn't. People ignorant of nutrition think that. Granted, the cheeseburger, Coke, and fries are not necessarily nutritious, or even unique, but that isn't the point you made. After all, we in the US we don't like our complete proteins to come from animals, and we who do aren't usually poor.

biccat wrote:
Poor people in a number of countries eat well without access to fast food. Grains and beans are cheap.

Shockingly, grains aren't all the same, and beans aren't complete proteins; nor are most grains. And that's before we get into mineral necessities.

Then we get into vitamin deficiencies, contamination issues (Why does my tuna/dolphin taste like mercury?), etc.

biccat wrote:
Only if you're talking about acquisition cost, not if you're talking about actual price.

I don't even know what you mean by actual price, or why you're bringing up acquisition cost*.


*Lies, I know exactly why.

Rice + frozen veg + stock + small amount of chicken = meal cheaper and healthier than McD burger meal.

Sonophos wrote:Rice + frozen veg + stock + small amount of chicken = meal cheaper and healthier than McD burger meal.

Sawdust + roaches + Chernobyl dirt = meal healthier AND TASTIER than McD burger meal. Wait I think I just described Taco Bell's "tacos."

Their coffee is excellent though.

Sonophos wrote:Rice + frozen veg + stock + small amount of chicken = meal cheaper and healthier than McD burger meal.

What's the portion size, and what are the nutritional qualities?

Its not as simple as McD=bad, all other things=good.

dogma wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Rice + frozen veg + stock + small amount of chicken = meal cheaper and healthier than McD burger meal.

What's the portion size, and what are the nutritional qualities?

Its not as simple as McD=bad, all other things=good.

Rice for bulk, 1-2 portions of veg and very little chicken


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:FACT: Everyone has opportunity from birth to be prosperous. That's that "All men are created" you might have read in the best document ever written.
FACT: Poor people do not utilize that opportunity, that is how they choose to be poor.
FACT: Prosperity and Wealth are good for the country and cause it grow. Poverty and Destitution are bad for the country and cause it to become weaker.
FACT: Those that choose to help the country are Patriots and Heroes. Those that choose to hurt the country are Traitors and Criminals.
FACT: Because being poor is a choice, poor people are choosing to be Traitors & Enemies of the state.
CONCLUSION: Being poor is Treason. Arrest the poor people (more than we do already).

Nope still not sure if you are being sarcastic.

dogma wrote:Canola oil came about in the 70's though (long after McD's in the 40's), so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

My point is that a cheeseburger, while delicious and nutritious, is a fairly recent addition to our diet. Before the cheeseburger there wasn't mass starvation and nutrition deficiency. No one considers the cheeseburger to be a revolution in increasing human longevity.

dogma wrote:Not for long, if we're speaking nutritionally.

We need a "WTF" orkmoticon. Seriously.

dogma wrote:After all, we in the US we don't like our complete proteins to come from animals, and we who do aren't usually poor.

See previous.

dogma wrote:Shockingly, grains aren't all the same, and beans aren't complete proteins; nor are most grains. And that's before we get into mineral necessities.

What? Seriously, what? Humans can get all of their essential amino acids from combinations of grains and beans. You don't need to eat animal protein to survive. Vegetarians do this regularly.

Where's that :wtf: orkmoticon...

Sonophos wrote:
Rice for bulk, 1-2 portions of veg and very little chicken

5 lb bag of rice = ~5 USD

5 lb frozen spinach = ~8 USD

We'll say, 2 lb chicken = ~3 USD

So, that's 16 USD; reasonable.

The problem is that its only like (generously) 5000 calories, and may not be accessible at the lowest possible prices; and that's assuming the best possible chicken.

biccat wrote:
My point is that a cheeseburger, while delicious and nutritious, is a fairly recent addition to our diet. Before the cheeseburger there wasn't mass starvation and nutrition deficiency. No one considers the cheeseburger to be a revolution in increasing human longevity.

And kudos to you, because the cheeseburger was a, at best, an analogy throughout this thread.

biccat wrote:
We need a "WTF" orkmoticon. Seriously.

First, I have no idea what you mean by "simple". Containing fewer ingredients? Containing fewer nutritional components?

But, when I hear "simple" as regards nutrition, or more broadly food, I think of what it satisfies given human needs that are contingent on "I don't want to die."

Given that, the burger, fries, and Coke are less complicated than many natural, indigenous, peasant foods.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:After all, we in the US we don't like our complete proteins to come from animals, and we who do aren't usually poor.

See previous.

Eliminate the "don't", it was a typo from a re-write.

biccat wrote:
What? Seriously, what? Humans can get all of their essential amino acids from combinations of grains and beans. You don't need to eat animal protein to survive. Vegetarians do this regularly.

If you eat the right combination of beans, and the right combination of grains.

Again, not all grains are the same, nor are all beans.

dogma wrote:
If you eat the right combination of beans, and the right combination of grains.

Again, not all grains are the same, nor are all beans.

You're right dogma, the proper grains and their proportions are in the bible.

Kilkrazy wrote:

sourclams wrote:Go pull up a chart of US GDP. In 1970, GDP was $1 trillion. Today, it is $14 trillion. Although there's a lot more that goes into this number than simple wealth creation, including inflation, there was massive, broad-based wealth creation over the last 30 years. Ergo, the most creative, adaptive, talented, and lucky individuals get more of that wealth creation, because they created it.

No, it's just that you haven't allowed for inflation. A trillion dollars now is worth a great deal less than in 1970.

Your point still falls down.

In inflation-adjusted currency, 2010 GDP is equivalent to $2.4 trillion 1970 dollars, so you've got a "real" increase of 2.4x magnitude.

Hence, my original point, wealth concentration is meaningless when wealth is generally being created. Steve Jobs inventing the iPod and making money does not somehow make my quality of living worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Poor people in a number of countries eat well without access to fast food. Grains and beans are cheap.

While knowing how to turn a raw legume into bean soup has been a survival skill necessary through most of history, America has largely forgotten how to cook. Or, more aptly, the end consumer has relied on the food processors and serivice industries to provide food for us at minimal time cost, for which we pay significantly more than its composite retail-weight value, but oftentimes for a portion sizing that is impossible to procure individually (1/4 lb cooked weight hamburger, 1 bun, 1 leaf of lettuce, 1 piece of cheese, for example).

Just like how someone on government food assistance owning an iphone boggles my mind, I also can't dredge up much sympathy for the morbidly obese poor.

AustonT wrote:

dogma wrote:
If you eat the right combination of beans, and the right combination of grains.

Again, not all grains are the same, nor are all beans.

You're right dogma, the proper grains and their proportions are in the bible.

Along with everything else a person needs to know, I might add.

Chongara wrote:

AustonT wrote:

dogma wrote:
If you eat the right combination of beans, and the right combination of grains.

Again, not all grains are the same, nor are all beans.

You're right dogma, the proper grains and their proportions are in the bible.

Along with everything else a person needs to know, I might add.

Eh...I dunno if I'd go along with that. Unless you use the Ben Kenobi "from a certain point of view" logic.

Albatross wrote:I'm not sure that's connected to the question I asked... If I have more (which I don't, generally), why should some be taken from me and given to someone who has less, just to make us equal?

The problem is your question is dependant on the assumption that your gross pay is somehow inherently 'yours'.

You walk into a company and say 'can I please have a job' and company says 'okay, we'll pay you $200 a day, and as part of being an employee in this society you'll be expected to pay 10% of that to government in taxes'.

You get your paycheque, then complain that government has taken $20 of 'your' money. But when you agreed to that job, you knew full well you'd be expected to pay taxes. You knew full well you would be taxed, and in agreeing to the job you are, in effect, agreeing to be taxed at that rate.

Now, you might claim that the job, and your income, are a private deal between you and the company, and that government is coming in and interfering with that, but it's completely wrong. The company wouldn't exist without the property laws, contract laws and all the other systems put in place by the same government that established the tax system.

The system that allows a person to create an income of $100,000 is the same system that takes 25% away in taxes.

It's an almost identical argument, because it entails looking at what someone has and saying 'yep, you've got enough - you can give up 50% of your yearly income'.

The argument 'we should take you money because you have too much' is fundamentally different to 'we need to raise money and you're the person who has lots'.

The motivation in one is punishment, the motivation in the second is to generate revenue to pay for things they think are worthwhile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Also, protecting what people think are their rights goes against that understanding of "survival of the fittest", which always leads to the question Fit for what?"

Yeah, good point. It's even more of a nonsense than I first thought.

It also assumes is entirely genetic, which it almost certainly isn't.

I was hinting at that but didn't outright say it. Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:History shows that taxation rates above ~40% tend to be followed by rebellions and civil wars. -- Sorry I can't cite examples I've just heard this from too many knowledgable sources.

The knowledge of those knowledgeable people doesn't extend to historic or present day tax rates. There are a wide number of countries with top marginal rates about 40% right now, for most of my life the effective top marginal rate in Australia was over 50%, and yet there's never been one second's talk of revolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:The UK PAYE tax system has large "jumps" at certain income levels so it is possible to recieve a pay rise and have your take home pay decrease, this is a stupid state of affairs.

It doesn't, you just don't understand the system. When you jump from one pay scale to another, it doesn't apply to every dollar you've earned up to that point, just to each dollar you earn that moment on.

Here's the UK tax rates (it's a bit simplified because there's different rates for dividends and things, but if you're just collecting a paycheque this is what you face;
£0 - £7,445 0%
£7,445 - £37,400 20%
£37,400 - £150,000 40%
Over £150,000 50%

What that means is that up to £7,445 you don't pay any tax. If you go over that you start paying 20% on each pound over £7,445, but you still don't pay any tax on that first £7,445. The same happens if you earn over £37,400, you start paying 40% on ech pound over that, but you still don't pay any tax on the first £7,445, and only 20% on the stuff between £7,445 and £37,400.

So, say I earned £100,000. I would pay no tax on £7,445 of my income. I would pay 0% on £7,445. I would pay 20% on £29,955 (£37400 - £7445) and I would pay 40% on £62,600 (£100,000 - £37,400).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Funny, I thought that's exactly what the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was intended to correct.

Uh huh, so your evidence for a thing is it being corrected. Doesn't really do much to make an argument for a pressing problem, does it?

No, the industrial revolution was...well, let me quote wikipedia:

The Industrial Revolution was a period from 1750 to 1850 where changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the times.

Or, see here.

At this point it becomes obvious you've not studied economic history in any form in your life, but you're going to pretend otherwise.

What you've done is look up the dates of the First Industrial Revolution, which is typically seen to end in 1850. Of course, not actually having studied the subject, you'd be unaware that the First Industrial Revolution was only considered to end, because of the beginning of the Second Industrial Revolution, which went from 1850 to the beginning of WWI. Now, if we were talking about the move away from collective farming practices, or Britain being the primary driver of growth and scientific development, there's good reason to look primarily at the First revolution in exclusion to the second.

Given we weren't talking about those things, then your lack of awareness of the Second Revolution basically makes you look silly.

Social philanthropy was at it's heyday during the industrial revolution - and it worked surprisingly well. Life in the US before the introduction of public welfare was actually pretty good.

There's actually times when I honest to God have to just look at the screen, and really come to terms with the fact that there's a person out there in the world that believes this stuff. That someone has gotten to adulthood without being aware of living standards for the poor before the welfare state is just an incredible thing.

In 1900 in Europe and the US around one person in four lived at subsistance level, with one in ten unable to earn enough to offset hunger. Forget worrying about food lacking nutrition, one in ten didn't have enough to full their bellies, even when all they were buying was cheap grains and the like.

Even forgetting stats like that, have you read no literature from the 19th C or early 20th C? No Dickens? No Steinbeck? Do you understand they were actually commenting on conditions as they were at the time?

You really need to understand that you know absolutely nothing about this, and it's fething ridiculous to just make up stuff that sounds nice.

dogma wrote:

Sonophos wrote:
Rice for bulk, 1-2 portions of veg and very little chicken

5 lb bag of rice = ~5 USD

5 lb frozen spinach = ~8 USD

We'll say, 2 lb chicken = ~3 USD

So, that's 16 USD; reasonable.

The problem is that its only like (generously) 5000 calories, and may not be accessible at the lowest possible prices; and that's assuming the best possible chicken.

That's enough for 5-10 meals! I tend to use a bowl for eating not a bucket.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I found this last night:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

Sorry it's a long one but these things just don't happen in europe, well maybe some homelessness.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Look up their stats, they are pretty impressive.

There are two points:

1. It's the kind of Euro socialist utopia/dystopia posited by the original poster.

2. It could probably never happen in the USA because people have a different personality.

Also, avoid Brunost cheese. It is their equivalent of marmite or natto.

Doesn't Norway have like 4MM people?
Wait Wiki says 20% of their GDP is from hydrocarbons. Thats a fair example of...nothing then.

On the positive they have killer (as is cool) trolls. I like the Mountain Trolls the best.

Troll Hunter is an awesome movie :-)

Sonophos wrote:
That's enough for 5-10 meals! I tend to use a bowl for eating not a bucket.

Assuming 2000 calories per day, we're talking 2.5 days of food. If you eat three, equivalent (~666 calories), meals per day that's 7 meals.

That's ~2 dollars per meal, which is 6 USD per day, and about 180 USD per month.

And that's still not healthy, by the standards of what "healthy" means in the modern world.

By contrast, I can fulfill the same calorific needs with 5 McDoubles for about 1 USD less, and if you're that concerned about food cost, you're probably that concerned about 1 USD less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
You're right dogma, the proper grains and their proportions are in the bible.

Its more that, if you want to assemble a complete protein from beans and grains alone, you can't just grab a bean, and grab a grain.

You could just grab quinoa, if you can afford it's price by volume, or even find it.

Lordhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Look up their stats, they are pretty impressive.

There are two points:

1. It's the kind of Euro socialist utopia/dystopia posited by the original poster.

2. It could probably never happen in the USA because people have a different personality.

Also, avoid Brunost cheese. It is their equivalent of marmite or natto.

Doesn't Norway have like 4MM people?
Wait Wiki says 20% of their GDP is from hydrocarbons. Thats a fair example of...nothing then.

On the positive they have killer (as is cool) trolls. I like the Mountain Trolls the best.

Troll Hunter is an awesome movie :-)

Yes, yes it was.

I've been eating quinoa in salads lately. I had no idea it was such a super grain.

Kilkrazy wrote:I've been eating quinoa in salads lately. I had no idea it was such a super grain.

Its pretty great, nutritionally. I find it difficult to cook though, but hat's likely a lack of experience.

My wife cooks it. I just scarf it down.

I think she boils it or steams it.