Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Actual progressive taxation, re-instating of death taxes for those over a certain thresh hold, removing corporate donations to political parties, make corporations no longer legal individuals, reduce severity of non-violent crimes while increasing the measures done against white collar crime, pass laws to do away with predatory lending such as payday loan companies, universal health care, lower cost of secondary schooling, increasing min wage while decreasing the number of hours in a work week.

In other words a lot more control over corporations to make sure that they help the country as a whole and not just a few individuals, and to provide safety nets and opportunities for people to live at a reasonable level of quality of life and potential advancement based upon their merits.

Really, we need to restructure the economy from growth to one of stability, because the cult of continual growth is a dead one, and trickle down economics have never worked.

 

[Mr Master]

Nihil's got it. The mixing of corporations and politics has to stop, and once you eliminate that, take away the favoritism and preferential legal and taxation treatment, you'll be able to handle great swaths of opportunity for actual flesh-and-blood citizens.

 

[Alvis Alendran]

I don't disagree with what Nihil is saying, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to pick at it anyway.

How do you mean progressive taxation? A sit is now, according to my admittedly limited research, taxation is still done on the basis of an ever increasing amount of money taken, depending on how much a person is making. That seems like a fair system, the more you make, the more you give.

Death taxes, yeah, I can't find a fault with that.

The donations to political parties, yeah, that can get kind of dicey. I'm not well versed on the inner working of the politcal system, and where the donation money goes, but I do agree that on the surface it looks like a horribly corrupt practice.

The recognition of corporations as a legal individual has it's ups and down. With them in the current state, it makes it easier to hold the corporation accountable for internal failing, such as worker mistreatment. Otherwise, there would be a cluster-fuck every time such a concern came up. Who would be held responsible for such? The worker? The supervisor? The plant manager? The plant owner? The CEO, who may or may not have any idea what was going on? With the corporation being a vlid target, the complaints can be lodged, filed, adn processed with a certain degree of expediancy. Now, whne upper management hides behind the corporate status to avoid punishment for wrong doing, yes, it is very much deserving of holding these men and women directly accountable for their actions. So, my thought is not to remove it, but it does require some amendment.

I do wonder how reducing the penalty of non-violent crimes will help the equality issues we've been discussing, but certainly look forward to you thoughts on that.

Increasing the penalties against white collar crimes, I can absolutely agree with.

Passing laws against predatory lending, I can't argue with at all. It's legalized loan-sharking, pure and simple.

Universal health care has been proposed multiple times by several politicians, and each time, the general population of the US seems to declare that they're not interested in it really. It is a shame really, but it has been proposed.

For the lower cost of secondary education, I am not sure if this is in reference to college/university, or high school, since secondary education is what we call hihg school in Canada, might be differetn where you are. If you did mean high school, I would ask what it does cost, since it was not terribly crippling on this side of the border. (In the market of maybe $120 per year)
If you were meaning college, (Post-secondary education in Canada) then I do agree it is becoming a steadily mounting problem in Canada as well. But as operation costrs continue to mount, establishments raise their tuitions to match. While this is at times ridiculous in terms of how high they are, and for what reasons. Many colleges charging outragous fees to be able to maintain football teams that only a select few actually participate in...well, 'nuff said.

Increasing minimum wage in face of the changing global economy is something that is becoming increasingly obvious a move, but whether it gets accepted by the government is another matter entirely. As it is, the Canadian dollar is worth nearly the same as American, and yet the Canadian minimum wage is at $10.50, while the US lags, on average, of nearly $3 behind at $7.25. So, yeah, can't really even try to argue with that.

As to the work week, I don't see it as either needed, or required, as I fail to see how exactly it would contribute to a more equal society. The average work week in the US is 40 hours a week. While this may seem high, it equates to five 8 hour shifts, adn that makes for a fairly good weeks worth. I am not up to date on my american labour law, so I am not sure what the maximum amount of time that one can work in a day is. I know in Canada, the absolute maximum is 13 hours, and a comapny cannot call you back to work for 11 consecutive hours. Even so, this is so rare as to almost unheard of. An employee can volunteer for more hours, I've done it myself, working as many as 80 hours in a week. (double shifts, not so much fun) Studiesdone in the US have shown that the majority of workers do not really want less hours in a week.

Okay, so that's my prodding at the above made points. Once again, not saying your wrong, not even disagreeing with most of what your saying, just looking to get some clarification on some points, and weigh in on some of the flaws in the suggestions from my point of view.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

I don't disagree with what Nihil is saying, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to pick at it anyway.

And I'll pick right back. Let's get cracking.

How do you mean progressive taxation? A sit is now, according to my admittedly limited research, taxation is still done on the basis of an ever increasing amount of money taken, depending on how much a person is making. That seems like a fair system, the more you make, the more you give.

By progressive taxation I mean a progressive tax that would tax those with more income at a higher rate. During the 1950s the top tax bracket paid upwards of 75%, I'm not sure on the exact number at the moment but it was up there, of their income on taxes and you still had advancement, society did not fall apart.

The reasoning behind this is that even a flat tax which would tax everyone the same percentage is actually a regressive tax and puts extra stress on the lower class and shifts the tax burden from the small population of super wealthy who can actually shoulder the burden to the much larger middle class which sees more potential hardships as those towards the bottom can't maintain their life style and quality of life slip into the bottom rung.

It is especially bad for the working poor that live paycheck to paycheck as they have little incentive to save money and often can't even do that.

Death taxes, yeah, I can't find a fault with that.

Right, but there needs to be limitations on it. I remember when I was younger and of a more conservative bent and I railed against this without even knowing what the hell was meant by it. Many people will assume, wrongly, that this would be targeting farmers and smaller incomes instead of the trust fund babies and the super rich who just suckle off the teat of some past generations success.

The donations to political parties, yeah, that can get kind of dicey. I'm not well versed on the inner working of the politcal system, and where the donation money goes, but I do agree that on the surface it looks like a horribly corrupt practice.

At the moment the people of the US do not control their own government, instead an army of corporate lobbiest do. This is why you don't have harsher measures being done against BP or those responsible for the fall of the financial sector of the economy. Corporations hold way too much power for any sole entity and need to be brought to heal. First step to this would be donation reform and banning of certain types of lobbiest.

The recognition of corporations as a legal individual has it's ups and down. With them in the current state, it makes it easier to hold the corporation accountable for internal failing, such as worker mistreatment. Otherwise, there would be a cluster-fuck every time such a concern came up. Who would be held responsible for such? The worker? The supervisor? The plant manager? The plant owner? The CEO, who may or may not have any idea what was going on? With the corporation being a vlid target, the complaints can be lodged, filed, adn processed with a certain degree of expediancy. Now, whne upper management hides behind the corporate status to avoid punishment for wrong doing, yes, it is very much deserving of holding these men and women directly accountable for their actions. So, my thought is not to remove it, but it does require some amendment.

No doubt there is some truth to what you say; but I think you can agree with me that a corporation should not have the same rights as any person to say whatever they want. A corporation should be held accountable for lies and falsehoods; but that's not the case because Fox, the network, successfully sued and won the right to outright lie on their news broadcasting. I don't think anyone would agree that a news station should have the right to fabricate a lie and utilise its resources to spread it in such a manner.

It happens though and we're left with a rapid segment of society that believes that the already lowest tax rate in the first world is just too high.

I do wonder how reducing the penalty of non-violent crimes will help the equality issues we've been discussing, but certainly look forward to you thoughts on that.

Right now we have an issue with overcrowding of jails. Most of this stems from a propaganda need to been seen as tough on crime, which really doesn't do anything but make criminals out of ordinary citizens. Weed is not the terrible drug people make it out to be and could be a large source of income for the government and reduce crime with legalisation as it takes the industry out of the underground and into a regulated practise.

In addition to this the general practise of three strikes, or increasing penalties for repeat offences only works in the case of violent crime or crimes where the potential of violence are increased in my opinion. I think laws against DUI should be stiffer and enforced to the fullest extent of the law. Smoking pot in your basement and staying there is not comparable to getting shit faced and killing a family by accident.

Increasing the penalties against white collar crimes, I can absolutely agree with.

These people often get away with doing things that harm a vast segment of society with nothing more then a fine, which does not cover damages done, or a slap on the wrist in some country club jail.

Passing laws against predatory lending, I can't argue with at all. It's legalized loan-sharking, pure and simple.

Indeed.

Universal health care has been proposed multiple times by several politicians, and each time, the general population of the US seems to declare that they're not interested in it really. It is a shame really, but it has been proposed.

Because americans are too stupid to recognise a good thing and have been scarred shitless over anything with the hint of socialism. America's leftwing party was killed off by Woodrow Wilson who is the worst president we have ever had. Ever since then a liberal party has never even been able to make it. Even the golden child Obama is a centrist in a right leaning and further right political make up.

For the lower cost of secondary education, I am not sure if this is in reference to college/university, or high school, since secondary education is what we call hihg school in Canada, might be differetn where you are. If you did mean high school, I would ask what it does cost, since it was not terribly crippling on this side of the border. (In the market of maybe $120 per year)
If you were meaning college, (Post-secondary education in Canada) then I do agree it is becoming a steadily mounting problem in Canada as well. But as operation costrs continue to mount, establishments raise their tuitions to match. While this is at times ridiculous in terms of how high they are, and for what reasons. Many colleges charging outragous fees to be able to maintain football teams that only a select few actually participate in...well, 'nuff said.

College and tech shooling is what I mean, the cost in general has become prohibitive and puts an increasing strain on those trying to better themselves with massive loads of debt which in most cases won't be paid off tell middle age. I know I would like to pursue further education; but at the moment it is just too expensive to consider so I have to put it off tell I have more money. I have done this for roughly three years now and the idea is still just as far away.

Increasing minimum wage in face of the changing global economy is something that is becoming increasingly obvious a move, but whether it gets accepted by the government is another matter entirely. As it is, the Canadian dollar is worth nearly the same as American, and yet the Canadian minimum wage is at $10.50, while the US lags, on average, of nearly $3 behind at $7.25. So, yeah, can't really even try to argue with that.

It's slowly changing, it was only 6.15 when I started working; but the general mean income needs to increase. Cost of living has far outpaced the average workers income. Which is a horrible thing and is due to the rise of double income families. It's nice that women can work and find jobs; but still in the event of raising a family or because of any whim it'd be nice if income had increased at the same pace as the cost of living. This has also been the culprit behind the increasing use of credit and debt spending by the average household.

As to the work week, I don't see it as either needed, or required, as I fail to see how exactly it would contribute to a more equal society. The average work week in the US is 40 hours a week. While this may seem high, it equates to five 8 hour shifts, adn that makes for a fairly good weeks worth. I am not up to date on my american labour law, so I am not sure what the maximum amount of time that one can work in a day is. I know in Canada, the absolute maximum is 13 hours, and a comapny cannot call you back to work for 11 consecutive hours. Even so, this is so rare as to almost unheard of. An employee can volunteer for more hours, I've done it myself, working as many as 80 hours in a week. (double shifts, not so much fun) Studiesdone in the US have shown that the majority of workers do not really want less hours in a week.

This is more an idea to reduce unemployment and to refocus the economy from one of progress to one of stability. If we increase wages to the point where people can manage, and reduce workers hours while still allowing a quality of living it would require more workers. This would increase employment and allow people to pursue hobbies or further education when combined with other ideas I have expressed.

American's also work themselves to death, if they got the amount of vacation time as seen in other European countries they would go slack jaw and enjoy themselves.

Okay, so that's my prodding at the above made points. Once again, not saying your wrong, not even disagreeing with most of what your saying, just looking to get some clarification on some points, and weigh in on some of the flaws in the suggestions from my point of view.

And you have them.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

This should also get thrown up in here.

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

Source.

 

[Vekseid]

In my sociology class last year, we talked about inequality and why it is important to keep society together and constitute progress. Utopian ideals can never work because there have to be people that have more power, more money, more something than everyone else. Without inequality, there wouldn't be programs that we have today such as charity, fundraisers, things of that nature. There wouldn't be different fashion trends and things of that like because everyone would be "equal." Inequality keeps the social structures intact but allows room for expansion into a higher semblance of equality. But without inequality, there wouldn't be progress like there is and was.​

1) We've never had a perfectly equal society. You are basically constructing a straw man and attacking that, rather than the suggestion, as the video describes, that halving America's inequality would be very good for society.

2) Fashion trends? Those are driven by creativity (since clothing can't be copyrighted) and as the video demonstrates, more equal societies are more creative.

3) If you take disposable income as a measure of progress, compare the top tax rate with the rise and fall of individual real disposable income over the past sixty years.

People often joke about sociology and this is one of the reasons why, FFS. Here is an example where there is a multitude of data available, and here an entire profession tries to pretend it doesn't exist so it can keep professing that the sky is fuchsia at noon.

 

[Alvis Alendran]

By progressive taxation I mean a progressive tax that would tax those with more income at a higher rate. During the 1950s the top tax bracket paid upwards of 75%, I'm not sure on the exact number at the moment but it was up there, of their income on taxes and you still had advancement, society did not fall apart.

This is largely what the current system does do. Their are currently six brackets int he US. 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and lastly, 35%. Now, where I could see room to imporove on the tax rates would be to add afew brackets above this, since the top bracket is for $373,651+. That leaves a huge area for the upper range of earners, and for someone who brings in $10,000,000 a year, I think they can afford to take a bigger hit.

The potential downside to this would be, from where I sit, making corporate heads, and other retardedly wealthy people essentially pull up stakes, and settle elsewhere to avoid the taxation. When you get to the point of taking more than half of a persons income, it gets to a point of why bother doing the job? At 75%, I'd traather settle for a lesser paying job if I can at least take home most of what I earn. In Canada, we have both Federal and Provincial level income taxes, and at their worst they take 46.5% of a persons income. (Nova Scotia). My own province, Alberta is rather odd about it, and simply takes a flat 10% extra, leaving our top earners at 39% taken. Granted, our tax brackets are much smaller, and much lower than those in the us, our top tier starting at $127,021.

The reasoning behind this is that even a flat tax which would tax everyone the same percentage is actually a regressive tax and puts extra stress on the lower class and shifts the tax burden from the small population of super wealthy who can actually shoulder the burden to the much larger middle class which sees more potential hardships as those towards the bottom can't maintain their life style and quality of life slip into the bottom rung.

It is especially bad for the working poor that live paycheck to paycheck as they have little incentive to save money and often can't even do that.

Agreed on all fronts of this.

Right, but there needs to be limitations on it. I remember when I was younger and of a more conservative bent and I railed against this without even knowing what the hell was meant by it. Many people will assume, wrongly, that this would be targeting farmers and smaller incomes instead of the trust fund babies and the super rich who just suckle off the teat of some past generations success.

Again, agreed on all fronts of this.

At the moment the people of the US do not control their own government, instead an army of corporate lobbiest do. This is why you don't have harsher measures being done against BP or those responsible for the fall of the financial sector of the economy. Corporations hold way too much power for any sole entity and need to be brought to heal. First step to this would be donation reform and banning of certain types of lobbiest.

I mean no offense by this, but Odin's Eye, how has your country not completely fallen to pieces yet? Agreed on this, but there do have to limits to how far this goes. Banning the lobyists, the first act to fight it I can see is these people arguing free speech, or some other Constitutonal rights BS, and hell, they might even be right, but I'm not well versed in the US Constitution at all.

No doubt there is some truth to what you say; but I think you can agree with me that a corporation should not have the same rights as any person to say whatever they want. A corporation should be held accountable for lies and falsehoods; but that's not the case because Fox, the network, successfully sued and won the right to outright lie on their news broadcasting. I don't think anyone would agree that a news station should have the right to fabricate a lie and utilise its resources to spread it in such a manner.

I can absolutely agree. Now, me personally, I think it should be a prosecuteable offense for any politician or corporation in a position of public service or news gathering to knowingly lie t the public. Cal it Breach of Trust, and line bastards up right to the wall. I admit I'm somewhat hardline on the subject of honesty.

Right now we have an issue with overcrowding of jails. Most of this stems from a propaganda need to been seen as tough on crime, which really doesn't do anything but make criminals out of ordinary citizens. Weed is not the terrible drug people make it out to be and could be a large source of income for the government and reduce crime with legalisation as it takes the industry out of the underground and into a regulated practise.

The only objection I'll realy raise to the legalization of weed is that it sets a precedent within the US legal system, and the moment you get a precedent going, it opens a lot of doors. So by legalizing weed, how long before some drug kingpin hires himself an army of lawyers to try and justifying, say, Speed? And say they can win that one, let them aim at another slightly worse one? Where does it end? The US (and Canadian) legal systems are horribly vulnerable to a snowball effect if you have a good enough lawyer. Frankly, a legalized drug system is only something I would support in the current privitized healthcare system the US has, so when the dumb fuck who ODs on whatever he's got, he and he alone has to pay the medical costs for the screwup. In Canada, with the public healthcare? No way. I am not going to be on the hook for some prick's OD from his Coke habit.

In addition to this the general practise of three strikes, or increasing penalties for repeat offences only works in the case of violent crime or crimes where the potential of violence are increased in my opinion. I think laws against DUI should be stiffer and enforced to the fullest extent of the law. Smoking pot in your basement and staying there is not comparable to getting shit faced and killing a family by accident.

No arguments on this point. I had a friend in Michigan who was attending school, and she was killed byu a drunk driver who wouldn't wait for his girlfriend to get out of the shower, so hopped in her car, and left. Killed her in a head on collision. The state tried and convicted him for 2nd degree murder, in what I felt was a victory for the justice system.

I also think the entire three strikes system is complete bullshit. Yes, it can help stop some career criminals early, but it also can end a lot of decent people who just screwed up in prison for life.

Because americans are too stupid to recognise a good thing and have been scarred shitless over anything with the hint of socialism. America's leftwing party was killed off by Woodrow Wilson who is the worst president we have ever had. Ever since then a liberal party has never even been able to make it. Even the golden child Obama is a centrist in a right leaning and further right political make up.

Agreed completely, but at the same time, in the democratic society we live in, what can you really do about it? As devastating as the current private healthcare system is, the current state of it is no ones fault bu tthe public at large, and no government can force them to adopt a different system.

College and tech shooling is what I mean, the cost in general has become prohibitive and puts an increasing strain on those trying to better themselves with massive loads of debt which in most cases won't be paid off tell middle age. I know I would like to pursue further education; but at the moment it is just too expensive to consider so I have to put it off tell I have more money. I have done this for roughly three years now and the idea is still just as far away.

For my own clarification, what kinds of government assisstance programs exist for the above institutions? Do any exist? And are they all essentially 'you now owe us money for the next fifteen years' type of deals?

It's slowly changing, it was only 6.15 when I started working; but the general mean income needs to increase. Cost of living has far outpaced the average workers income. Which is a horrible thing and is due to the rise of double income families. It's nice that women can work and find jobs; but still in the event of raising a family or because of any whim it'd be nice if income had increased at the same pace as the cost of living. This has also been the culprit behind the increasing use of credit and debt spending by the average household.

Very true! I know that one of the reasons that the wage was supposed to increase, was that Canada was trying to get it's minimum wage earners above the poverty line. I'm not sure if they actually suceeded or not. But one way or another, the American government needs to up it's game. But at the same time, by increasing the amount of money that an employer has to pay out makes it harder for small buisnesses to maintain a workforce. And it also encourages corporations to take their buisness to more third world contries, with wages as you pointed out in your second post.

This is more an idea to reduce unemployment and to refocus the economy from one of progress to one of stability. If we increase wages to the point where people can manage, and reduce workers hours while still allowing a quality of living it would require more workers. This would increase employment and allow people to pursue hobbies or further education when combined with other ideas I have expressed.

American's also work themselves to death, if they got the amount of vacation time as seen in other European countries they would go slack jaw and enjoy themselves.

Unfortunately, I don't see this being a viable idea. When amployer needs to hire on more people and train them, and all of the other expenses that come with a new hire, it becomes mountingly more un-viable to maintain buisness in the US. Coupled with the fact that in order to make another emplloyee even needed, you would either need to make the company itself extend it's operation hours, which in many cases is not a workable thing, or reduce the work week to levels that are at this point called part time.

Increasing vacation times would be a welcome addition to many Americans. Canadians as well. At the same time, the limited vacation times may be one of the reasons a company set up in the US in the first place. Longer vacation times mean longer times that the company must pay people for not doing work. The idea isn't bad but would need a massive retooling, or more detailed explanation as to how you believe it would work.

And you have them.

And I am glad of them. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

On the first point of corporations just uprooting and moving to a third world, well they've already moved as much of their work force there as they reasonably can.

The owners though aren't going to uproot themselves. If you actually look up who the most wealthy individuals are in the world a good chunk of them actually live in Scandinavian countries which tend to have a much higher rate of taxation.

On the point of legalisation and decriminalisation of drugs, well I would say it'd be based upon medical knowledge and compared to current things commonly available in terms of harm. Like the rate of death between pot heads and cigarette smokers. For other drugs you could legalise small amounts and dispense them in a regulated fashion but still keep large quantities illegal for private possession.

I'm not seeing the issue with helping to pay for someone's medical if they OD in a universal health care system. You already do that for people that destroy their lungs smoking or livers drinking.

On the point of financial aid in education, there is some federal and state programs that can help you; but they only go so far and you have to be of low enough income to take part in them. I know currently I can't get much in the way of aid due to my parents income, this is in spite of not living with them for a few years now; but being too young to use my own income.

Moving along to the point of increase wage and other business things, refer to original comment; but in the case of small businesses they can be given tax breaks because helping the local economy out is more important then a large multinational company. One has much deeper pockets then the other.

Decreasing work week and increasing vacation time is just one way I think the economy needs to change. Sure it would require a massive shift in public opinion; but I think it would help to stabilise the economy and put us at a steady level of sustainability. Additional time off will also allow for people to be creative and pursue outside hobbies, so creativity and advancement would not fall to the side either.

 

[Mr Master]

Nihil already rendered so many of my comments unnecessary, but I want to play too, so I'll say in 40 words what he says in 4.

The potential downside to this would be, from where I sit, making corporate heads, and other retardedly wealthy people essentially pull up stakes, and settle elsewhere to avoid the taxation. When you get to the point of taking more than half of a persons income, it gets to a point of why bother doing the job? At 75%, I'd traather settle for a lesser paying job if I can at least take home most of what I earn.

Thing is, where would they pull up stakes TO? Of all the so-called First World nations, we've got the most rich-friendly tax system (except apparently for parts of Canada, as you go on to say, but I bet there's other limitations on the rich). And part of the issue is generations of lobbyists and rich politicians voting in exceptions and loopholes and dodges so they don't even have to pay the lowest burden in the developed countries. This is what money uber alles does.

I mean no offense by this, but Odin's Eye, how has your country not completely fallen to pieces yet? Agreed on this, but there do have to limits to how far this goes. Banning the lobyists, the first act to fight it I can see is these people arguing free speech, or some other Constitutonal rights BS, and hell, they might even be right, but I'm not well versed in the US Constitution at all.

Trying to restrict lobbyists was one of the first things Obama did. For all the good it did. How have we not fallen to pieces? We are. We started doing it about ten years ago, and the pace has accelerated so that I don't know if it can be stopped. And the people who are trying are demonized in the media and demonstrated against and called communists. Or Marxist Nazis. Which is like calling someone a Fiery Snowman or saying Dry Water. But that's the nation for you.

I can absolutely agree. Now, me personally, I think it should be a prosecuteable offense for any politician or corporation in a position of public service or news gathering to knowingly lie t the public. Cal it Breach of Trust, and line bastards up right to the wall. I admit I'm somewhat hardline on the subject of honesty.

See, now you're falling into the liberal trap of thinking facts are facts, and not elements in creating a "truth" that suits you. It's almost like you were a believer in business to seve the public trust instead of corporations for shareholder profit only. How Marxist Nazi of you!

The only objection I'll realy raise to the legalization of weed is that it sets a precedent within the US legal system, and the moment you get a precedent going, it opens a lot of doors. So by legalizing weed, how long before some drug kingpin hires himself an army of lawyers to try and justifying, say, Speed? And say they can win that one, let them aim at another slightly worse one? Where does it end? The US (and Canadian) legal systems are horribly vulnerable to a snowball effect if you have a good enough lawyer. Frankly, a legalized drug system is only something I would support in the current privitized healthcare system the US has, so when the dumb fuck who ODs on whatever he's got, he and he alone has to pay the medical costs for the screwup. In Canada, with the public healthcare? No way. I am not going to be on the hook for some prick's OD from his Coke habit.

Coke used to be legal. Morphine, heroin. Hell, where do you think the "Coca" in Coca-Cola came from? It was criminalized because of harmful effects. Drugs developed today are criminalized or restricted or legislated because of harmful effects. The strongest health arguments you can make with weed are generally the "gateway drug" sort of thing, and tobacco and alcohol are as gateway as any to addictive personalities.

Legal permissions are one element, but they rely on medical analysis, and to that effect, medical analysis of speed or coke or horse or ecstasy is unlikely to lead to legalization anytime soon.

For my own clarification, what kinds of government assistance programs exist for the above institutions? Do any exist? And are they all essentially 'you now owe us money for the next fifteen years' type of deals?

There's some scholarships: like one or two for a given program, maybe a dozen program, so you get I don't know, a single-digit percentage of full-ride scholarships. Everybody else has to pay or take loans. When I looked, a few years ago, four years at a Canadian university cost about as much as one semester at an Illinois state school, in straight-up tuition. That's major inflation, right there.

Increasing vacation times would be a welcome addition to many Americans. Canadians as well. At the same time, the limited vacation times may be one of the reasons a company set up in the US in the first place. Longer vacation times mean longer times that the company must pay people for not doing work. The idea isn't bad but would need a massive retooling, or more detailed explanation as to how you believe it would work.

Experts have been saying for decades that Americans work too hard. I just this year have been at my job long enough to qualify for extra vacation time, and you know what? Nobody's going to miss me if I take it. The work will get done, I'll have my time, and everybody will be happy. Why can't we do that as a culture? We could, we just don't want to, because the business precepts are always on about "getting the most out of your employees," and "constant growth." We saw how constant growth ended up toppling over and crippling us. Maybe "maintaining your successful position" would be a better idea, but good luck trying to sell that to business leaders who started working in the 60s and still hold the reins in their wrinkled, palsied hands. Worse, the corporate climbers who started in the 80s, God forbid.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

MM, I think we need to determine which of us is Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

 

[Mr Master]

By today's standards, you're probably right.

Well, I'm older...

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

I can't remember if you have a beard or not.

That will obviously play a role, espeically the type of facial hair.

 

[Mr Master]

I generally wear a goatee.

But really, I think you'll leave a better-looking corpse, and I believe that has to be a factor, as well...

 

[☢☢Zombies Galore☢☢]

The only objection I'll realy raise to the legalization of weed is that it sets a precedent within the US legal system, and the moment you get a precedent going, it opens a lot of doors. So by legalizing weed, how long before some drug kingpin hires himself an army of lawyers to try and justifying, say, Speed? And say they can win that one, let them aim at another slightly worse one? Where does it end? The US (and Canadian) legal systems are horribly vulnerable to a snowball effect if you have a good enough lawyer. Frankly, a legalized drug system is only something I would support in the current privitized healthcare system the US has, so when the dumb fuck who ODs on whatever he's got, he and he alone has to pay the medical costs for the screwup. In Canada, with the public healthcare? No way. I am not going to be on the hook for some prick's OD from his Coke habit.

Whoa whoa whoa, dude. Back up for a moment here. The text I bolded is a logical fallacy. It's called slippery slope. On another note I find it patently ludicrous that anyone even passingly familiar with speed (i.e. has seen an long term addict's mouth) would consider its legalization. Ever. Also, here's something you should know about privatized health care system; when a patient can't pay the hospitals writes off the expense. That means they deduct the amount from their taxes. That means the US foots the bill as a whole anyways due to reduced tax income, which in turns goes to support infrastructure, vital services, schools, ect., ect. Either way, everyone pays for junkies ODing.

However, as ludicrous as this is to me, there is a country that even went so far as to decriminalize and legalize methamphetamines, as well as every other drug, in 2001. What is this country? Portugal! Land of my forebears.

So, 2001 was when they decriminalized everything. That is of 2006. Here's a [urlhttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html]Time article[/url] on the subject that's pretty recent--April '09. Coincidentally enough, less than a week after 4/20. Funny, that. If the Time isn't reputable enough as a source then I can dig up something scholarly, no problem. I would like to point out that ketamine, GHB and methadone have become more recently popular, as well as a slew of research drugs that graph does not represent. However, I'm not sure about how popular research drugs are in Portugal. The reason they're popular in the States right now is because they're quasi legal so it's easy to get a hold of if you know what you're doing.

 

[Ilovegoatse]

.... So my two daddies are Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin?

 

[2AM_Club]

Lenin's tomb is scary as fuck.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

About the only part of the government interested in speed and other go-go pills are the different branches of the armed forces.

I believe the air force was especially bad about the use of such things during the cold war to keep pilots awake while up in the air for the long flights they did. I don't have a source for this though, just an off hand comment I heard once.

Also,

 

[Mr Master]

Lenin's tomb is scary as fuck.

See, Lenin has a tomb, Nihil has a sunken crypt in R'lyeth, I think it's a lock.

 

[☢☢Zombies Galore☢☢]

Lenin's tomb is scary as fuck.

See, Lenin has a tomb, Nihil has a sunken crypt in R'lyeth, I think it's a lock.

Fuck, at least we know Lenin's not comin' back. Nihil is, and he's going to turn all the acute angles obtuse and then we're fucked.

 

[Mr Master]

Yeah, there's enough obtuseness in the world already! :shock:

 

[Alvis Alendran]

Well, all of the points that I've brought up have been answered rather creditbly, so I'm goig to stop trying to poke at things, A.) because I'm really out of things to poke at, and B.) because I didn't really disagree in the first place.

I've really enjoyed this conversation, and look forward tomatching wits with you folks again at a later date, on another subject. This is Alvis ALendran, offering the tip of the hat to you fine folks.

 

[vampire seduction]

Well, all of the points that I've brought up have been answered rather creditbly, so I'm goig to stop trying to poke at things, A.) because I'm really out of things to poke at, and B.) because I didn't really disagree in the first place.

I've really enjoyed this conversation, and look forward tomatching wits with you folks again at a later date, on another subject. This is Alvis ALendran, offering the tip of the hat to you fine folks.

This.

This right here is what BMA is all about. Mutual respect in debate.


Also, those statistics you posted are disheartening, Nihil. Intellectually I knew it all (it's obvious if you pay attention in the US), but I usually keep myself happy by not thinking about it. There is little I can do, save for trying to get my politicians to go down the right path, so I simply strive to do the best I can in today's world.

fake edit: I loled hard at the Lenin pic

 

[phtlc]

I beleive that societies should strive for equal opportunities but that does not neccessarily mean equal outcomes. For example, financial hardship should not be a barrier to a quality post secondary education. On the other hand, those that do better with the opportunities given to them should get more out of life. That inspires people to greater things. A good living should not be guaranteed.


I do beleive that some safetly nets should be in place, but there should be safegaurds and constraints there too. For example, people on welfare should have to be participating in some sort of job training program or adult education (subsidized) rather than being allowed to sit around.


I beleive in public health care, but at the same time there should be user fees so people don't abuse it. We have subsidized health care here in Canada, but the problem is that people treat it as a free and unlimitted resource. I've seen people going to the doctor because of blisters, hangnails, sore muscles from workout, a headache, common cold...etc, and I agonized over what this was costing our health care system. I suggested that a 25 dollar user fee should be implemented (waived for minors or those on social asistance) so people would ask themselves whether a trip to the doctor was neccessary and people accused me of being a fascist. THis is the problem with unrestrained soialism; people develop a culture of entitlement and don't use the services responsibly.


Anyway, I hope those who disagree with me can at least do so in a civil manner without any name calling.

 

[Kawamura]

I beleive that societies should strive for equal opportunities but that does not neccessarily mean equal outcomes. For example, financial hardship should not be a barrier to a quality post secondary education. On the other hand, those that do better with the opportunities given to them should get more out of life. That inspires people to greater things. A good living should not be guaranteed.


I do beleive that some safetly nets should be in place, but there should be safegaurds and constraints there too. For example, people on welfare should have to be participating in some sort of job training program or adult education (subsidized) rather than being allowed to sit around.


I beleive in public health care, but at the same time there should be user fees so people don't abuse it. We have subsidized health care here in Canada, but the problem is that people treat it as a free and unlimitted resource. I've seen people going to the doctor because of blisters, hangnails, sore muscles from workout, a headache, common cold...etc, and I agonized over what this was costing our health care system. I suggested that a 25 dollar user fee should be implemented (waived for minors or those on social asistance) so people would ask themselves whether a trip to the doctor was neccessary and people accused me of being a fascist. THis is the problem with unrestrained soialism; people develop a culture of entitlement and don't use the services responsibly.


Anyway, I hope those who disagree with me can at least do so in a civil manner without any name calling.

Twenty-five dollars can be quite a lot of money. Enough that preventative care could be written off, even if you're not quite doing poorly enough for gov't assistance.

In the USA, we struggle with health care costs because people wait so long to go in. If one does not have access to insurance, then medical costs are too high to pay until there is an emergency. At that point, what might have been treated inexpensively becomes very, very expensive. And often, that bill goes unpaid: the person didn't have the money to afford preventative care, why will they suddenly have enough money to pay for something that's significantly higher?

The best part then, is that these bills end up being passed onto insurance holders in the form of rate increases or higher costs for medical care. Which makes preventative care expensive. Which means they won't go to the doctor for little things. Which means they'll go when it-- you see the problem.

So it makes me wonder: which is more expensive in the long term? No fee and people going in for little things? Or a fee that might be enough to make people reconsider their trip to the doctor, even for preventative care?

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.