If the UK was a US State, it would be the 2nd poorest in the Union

[Scram]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-mississippi/

If the UK became a US State, giving us 51 states, the rankings would be:

49. Alabama
50. UK
51. Mississippi

TEXAS and USA all day.

[Sledfang]

Money taken in taxes and spent on social programs has reentered the economy. Taxes aren't collected and then shot into the sun. You can't "run out".

Yes, but you can "run out" of money. When everything is based on debt, you run out when you finally get to the point when credit ratings drop and no one will lend you money. Were a bit off from that, but it is coming.

[diddle]

Not even apples and oranges, this is apples and fire-breathing anus monsters.

[Wildtree]

Isn't the UK like the 4th or 5th richest country in the world?

US, China or Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy....

Remove the or, and you got it.

I don't know where he pulls Norway out of the hat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._%28nominal%29

If anything, the whole thing only shows how income inequality wouldn't need to exist in the US, and poverty could be erased like the black plague (no not the people of color, the famine).

[matt4pack]

It's always seemed to me that Europeans like to ignore their own problems and focus more on what's they see as wrong with the US. Even on this board which is probably more European you see many more stories on bad things happening in the US then in Europe. I see a lot of stories about bad things going on in Europe from European news sources but rarely ever see a thread about it here.

Kinda weird unless Europeans just get all their news from US sources.

[Zathrendar]

So will rich people wanting to pay very little in taxes by using financial trickery and hiding money offshore.

So will greedy, profligate governments trying to tax every last penny they can. The US has a much higher corporation tax than the UK, for instance.

- - - Updated - - -

Rather a silly comparison considering how differently things work.

America is great if you're really rich but if you're anything else then you're better off in Europe - it's common knowledge and has been for a hell of a long time, was never really disputed. As can be obviously seen that despite this, we have better healthcare, schools, higher standard of living and lower crime. The privileged few really is the few in the USA. Our privileged has several different levels to it.

What makes you think so? The US has higher social mobility than the UK. Maybe more recently this has changed, particularly under Bush and Obama, but the US is one of the most prosperous nations out there.

[Crissi]

So will greedy, profligate governments trying to tax every last penny they can.

Which means find a common ground, dont just say "socialism is Bad!" or "capitalism is bad!". It also means people need to be honest on their taxes so the government doesnt need to make up for the hidden money in other ways.

and I would venture to gues that us being prosperous is because we're still comeing off the afterglow of the WW2 boom in economy. 50's and 60's were great (not socially obviously), and not necessarily what we're doing today.

[Sledfang]

It's always seemed to me that Europeans like to ignore their own problems and focus more on what's wrong with the US. Even on this board which is probably more European you see many more stories on bad things happening in the US then in Europe. I see a lot of stories about bad things going on in Europe from European news sources but rarely ever see a thread about it here.

Kinda weird unless Europeans just get all their news from US sources.

Its more fashionable to focus on the US.

[Wells]

Yes, but you can "run out" of money. When everything is based on debt, you run out when you finally get to the point when credit ratings drop and no one will lend you money. Were a bit off from that, but it is coming.

There's nothing about social welfare that requires significant amounts of debt. Which blows that stupid as shit quote out of the water.

[Asera]

Psssst... hey you...

The UK isn't socialist.

Thanks for the hearty laugh.

[Sledfang]

There's nothing about social welfare that requires significant amounts of debt.

Everything about social welfare requires debt when your chronically spending a lot more than your taking in.

[Wildtree]

What makes you think so? The US has higher social mobility than the UK. Maybe more recently this has changed, particularly under Bush and Obama, but the US is one of the most prosperous nations out there.

Social mobility and prosperity are two different things...
the USA's wealth does not go much outside of the top 1%... There's another 4% after that, that has already significantly less than the first 1%..... after that, it becomes dramatic. The top 5% holding 90% of the country's wealth.

[Wells]

Everything about social welfare requires debt when your spending more than your taking in.

When. However its very clear that strong social programs require neither long term deficits or debt and are perfectly sustainable. Thatcher was just another right wing politician and her rhetoric is made no more valid by its age.

[Independent voter]

Social mobility and prosperity are two different things...
the USA's wealth does not go much outside of the top 1%... There's another 4% after that, that has already significantly less than the first 1%..... after that, it becomes dramatic. The top 5% holding 90% of the country's wealth.

There are huge sub cultures in the US who don't value education. I'm not pointing fingers you know who you are. You're not going to get ahead anywhere if you don't value education. You might be a sports star or musician but not much else.

If you remove those sub cultures, and keep in mind there are people who can get beat up for making good grades, every one in the US is highly mobile. Asians are the top money earners in the US, not whites.

[Sledfang]

When. However its very clear that strong social programs require neither long term deficits or debt and are perfectly sustainable.

Agreed, but that's not where we are at.

the USA's wealth does not go much outside of the top 1%... There's another 4% after that, that has already significantly less than the first 1%..... after that, it becomes dramatic. The top 5% holding 90% of the country's wealth.

Just because the rich have most of the money that doesn't mean there isn't significant wealth outside the 1%. Almost everyone I know is comfortably middle class.

[Tierbook]

Social mobility and prosperity are two different things...
the USA's wealth does not go much outside of the top 1%... There's another 4% after that, that has already significantly less than the first 1%..... after that, it becomes dramatic. The top 5% holding 90% of the country's wealth.

It's closer to 70% but ya it's pretty screwed up..... granted our 1% are wealthier than most countries. Just saw this

[Wildtree]

Just because the rich have most of the money that doesn't mean there isn't significant wealth outside the 1%. Almost everyone I know is comfortably middle class.

there isn't enough money outside the top 1%. Not even outside the top 10%.
Else we would not have food insecurity of nearly 25% of all children, wouldn't have the middle class shrinking, and barely to be distinct from the lower class. We wouldn't have poverty at all.

[Nekosom]

Almost everyone I know

Come on now. Do I really need to go over what's wrong with this argument?

[Deleted]

Money taken in taxes and spent on social programs has reentered the economy. Taxes aren't collected and then shot into the sun. You can't "run out".

But you did run out, see: fiscal cliff, government shutdown.

Eventually the US will be paying out so much in pension contributions it will be faced with three choices. Stop all government spending, raises taxes by 70ish percent, or let old people starve on the streets. It is a mathematical certainty.

[Tierbook]

there isn't enough money outside the top 1%. Not even outside the top 10%.
Else we would not have food insecurity of nearly 25% of all children, wouldn't have the middle class shrinking, and barely to be distinct from the lower class. We wouldn't have poverty at all.

That's a rather naive outlook.... a good chunk of the reason why people go hungry is because in order to make enough food so that they don't and thus bring food prices down farmers would have to be working almost in the red. As it stands we send quite a bit of food around as charity to other countries just so that this doesn't happen.