What fascinates me is that I run into an awful lot of people who bring up falling into this mixed bucket of socially liberal/economically conservative, and basically no one who talks about being socially conservative but economically liberal.
I like the political compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/ (https://www.politicalcompass.org/)). Right and left came out of legislative bodies. Canada's left and right don't match the U.S.'s left and right, and I am sure this is true comparing any 2 countries.
If you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.
You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a shit. And not giving a shit is not progressive.
Same here, but somehow the Greens aren’t the right party for me, even though I should vote for them.I like the political compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/ (https://www.politicalcompass.org/)). Right and left came out of legislative bodies. Canada's left and right don't match the U.S.'s left and right, and I am sure this is true comparing any 2 countries.
I got left/libertarian which suggests I should vote for the Australian greens party according to the last election
https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2016 (https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2016)
"You can’t be socially progressive and economically conservative"
https://qz.com/936052/you-cant-be-socially-progressive-and-economically-conservative/QuoteIf you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.
You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a shit. And not giving a shit is not progressive.
"You can’t be socially progressive and economically conservative"
https://qz.com/936052/you-cant-be-socially-progressive-and-economically-conservative/QuoteIf you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.
You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a shit. And not giving a shit is not progressive.
I'm not sure that I buy that. One of the initial assumptions made in the statement (that fiscal conservatism equates to small government) is flat out wrong. Many socially liberal programs (public health care, food programs, re-education / reintegration of prisoners into society) are much more fiscally conservative than the alternative when viewed from a whole society point of view. They have more apparent initial costs, but have knock-on effects that end up in net savings (earlier diagnosis/cheaper care, reduced crime, less recurrence of crime/better productivity).
It's possible to be socially liberal because you don't want to waste tax dollars.
"You can’t be socially progressive and economically conservative"
https://qz.com/936052/you-cant-be-socially-progressive-and-economically-conservative/QuoteIf you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.
You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a shit. And not giving a shit is not progressive.
I'm not sure that I buy that. One of the initial assumptions made in the statement (that fiscal conservatism equates to small government) is flat out wrong. Many socially liberal programs (public health care, food programs, re-education / reintegration of prisoners into society) are much more fiscally conservative than the alternative when viewed from a whole society point of view. They have more apparent initial costs, but have knock-on effects that end up in net savings (earlier diagnosis/cheaper care, reduced crime, less recurrence of crime/better productivity).
It's possible to be socially liberal because you don't want to waste tax dollars.
Definitely. Advantages of state run health care systems are that people see the doctor when they are sick, not waiting until they are critically ill in ER, which drives total costs up. People don't stay in bad jobs because of workplace health insurance. People don't go bankrupt because of no/poor health insurance. In the long run a country has an overall healthier population at lower cost. The same argument can be made for higher education. It's part of the tax system, people know some of their taxes are going to the general well-being of their society.
Funny, I guess I'm the person who considers himself more socially conservative and economically progressive.
However, socially:
-I believe gay marriage should be legal federally.
-I believe abortion should be legal for anyone who wants it.
...snip..
-I believe in strong separation of all churches and the state.
-I believe in free speech, as long as it is not hate speech.
...snip...
-I believe your rights end the second they infringe on someone else's. No business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any personal characteristic, only for misbehavior while in the business.
Where I come from, just a few of the basic positions I've highlighted below would be enough to make you left of center on social issuesQuoteHowever, socially:
-I believe gay marriage should be legal federally.
-I believe abortion should be legal for anyone who wants it.
...snip..
-I believe in strong separation of all churches and the state.
-I believe in free speech, as long as it is not hate speech.
...snip...
-I believe your rights end the second they infringe on someone else's. No business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any personal characteristic, only for misbehavior while in the business.
Pleasure to meet you.
While not in any way arguing with the way you self identify, after reading your list of political positions, perhaps part of difference is that different parts of the country have different lines for how socially liberal you have to be to be more liberal than conservative?
Where I come from, just a few of the basic positions I've highlighted below would be enough to make you left of center on social issuesQuoteHowever, socially:
-I believe gay marriage should be legal federally.
-I believe abortion should be legal for anyone who wants it.
...snip..
-I believe in strong separation of all churches and the state.
-I believe in free speech, as long as it is not hate speech.
...snip...
-I believe your rights end the second they infringe on someone else's. No business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any personal characteristic, only for misbehavior while in the business.
and people should not be allowed to have kids who have no way of taking care of them.
and people should not be allowed to have kids who have no way of taking care of them.
But they have childless people like me paying higher taxes to subsidize the costs of raising their children so that they can pay lower taxes, get more benefits, and use more public resources.
and people should not be allowed to have kids who have no way of taking care of them.
But they have childless people like me paying higher taxes to subsidize the costs of raising their children so that they can pay lower taxes, get more benefits, and use more public resources.
Dude, I don't have children either. Right there with you.
and people should not be allowed to have kids who have no way of taking care of them.
But they have childless people like me paying higher taxes to subsidize the costs of raising their children so that they can pay lower taxes, get more benefits, and use more public resources.
Dude, I don't have children either. Right there with you.
I have one (ZPG and all that), but I support the support of children whether they are onlies or one of 10. I want all those kids to grow up to be healthy (physically and mentally) contributing citizens, which means they need support, whether from their families, their local community, or government programs, or a mix of all 3.
For a household income of $70K/yr, a single woman pays over 30X as much federal income tax per household member as a family of four, just as one example of the unfairness of it all.Your example is still dumb (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/social-security-will-not-be-bankrupt/msg2060150/#msg2060150).
"You can’t be socially progressive and economically conservative"
https://qz.com/936052/you-cant-be-socially-progressive-and-economically-conservative/QuoteIf you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.
You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a shit. And not giving a shit is not progressive.
I like the political compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/ (https://www.politicalcompass.org/)). Right and left came out of legislative bodies. Canada's left and right don't match the U.S.'s left and right, and I am sure this is true comparing any 2 countries.
I am guessing that another part of the discussion is that most people discussing politics here are Americans and they have a strong 2 party system. The rhetoric you mention is more their rhetoric, and it is spilling over into Canada (or since the Koch brothers fund Canadian think tanks, which totally sucks, it is being intentionally exported to Canada).
In Canada you can prefer the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP or the Greens, or if you are in Quebec the BQ. So you can be conservative (and if so, fiscally or socially, the Conservatives have gone for socially conservative and fiscally I have no idea what, the old PCs were fiscally conservative and socially middle of the road). You can be middle of the road (the Liberals tend to stake out this territory) or definitely left-wing (NDP). Or you can be on another tangent altogether (Green, BQ).
I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so when I look at actual party platforms I end up Green. And over my voting history I have voted PC, Liberal, NDP and Green (never BQ). Everybody's rhetoric drives me crazy.
"You can’t be socially progressive and economically conservative"
https://qz.com/936052/you-cant-be-socially-progressive-and-economically-conservative/QuoteIf you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.
You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a shit. And not giving a shit is not progressive.
What fascinates me is that I run into an awful lot of people who bring up falling into this mixed bucket of socially liberal/economically conservative, and basically no one who talks about being socially conservative but economically liberal.
Makes sense no?
socially liberal/economically conservative can loosely translate into: no body touches my money and I am going to do w/e the eff I want to do.
lol
For a household income of $70K/yr, a single woman pays over 30X as much federal income tax per household member as a family of four, just as one example of the unfairness of it all.Your example is still dumb.
"You can’t be socially progressive and economically conservative"
https://qz.com/936052/you-cant-be-socially-progressive-and-economically-conservative/QuoteIf you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.
You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a shit. And not giving a shit is not progressive.
I think that when most people describe themselves this way, they are kind of left/ libertarian. Meaning, they really want that gays should be allowed to marry, they want women's equality, they want to protect natural resources (and are willing to pay for that) BUT they also think that people should work for what they have.
The fiscal conservatism applies only to certain areas.
I just want to say that I'm sorry that you don't understand it.I fully understand what you've said. It's bunk. And I've not been the only person to say so.
I just want to say that I'm sorry that you don't understand it.I fully understand what you've said. It's bunk.
You're being "intentionally obtuse" (as another poster put it) and exaggeratory, I suppose b/c you want to feel that you're discriminated against (w.r.t. taxes) as a single person.
I attempted to point out how ridiculous your argument is via my examples, such as the family of 4 being disenfranchised b/c they have only 0.5 votes per person ... but I fear that my approach may've been too subtle.
You're starting to feel like those "taxes are theft!!" people.
- Borders are stupid and the faster we move away from nation-state the faster we will progress to the next level of political enlightenment
Hmm, it seems my approach *was* too subtle, as I had feared.I attempted to point out how ridiculous your argument is via my examples, such as the family of 4 being disenfranchised b/c they have only 0.5 votes per person ... but I fear that my approach may've been too subtle.I wasn't talking about voting, I was talking about taxes. If you think kids should have a right to vote, then perhaps you should start a thread on that topic.
Again, feel free to double-check the math if you feel my figures are inaccurate as stated.The point is not that your math was bad, but that your method was bad. You added in a zero-earning spouse, and treated the children as zero-earning-adult-equivalents. That's not an honest methodology. (And I say that as guy with no kids, too.)
- Borders are stupid and the faster we move away from nation-state the faster we will progress to the next level of political enlightenment
Wow. That is pretty far left. I've known one person in real life that actually stated this, but I don't think it's something he really believes at heart and that he was just trying to contrast with my view on the issue, which I had already stated. That's one of the reasons I said I don't consider myself "left" in the grand scheme of things. I'm a strong believer in enforcement of the law against illegal immigration as well as border security.
Pleasure to meet you.
While not in any way arguing with the way you self identify, after reading your list of political positions, perhaps part of difference is that different parts of the country have different lines for how socially liberal you have to be to be more liberal than conservative?
Where I come from, just a few of the basic positions I've highlighted below would be enough to make you left of center on social issuesQuoteHowever, socially:
-I believe gay marriage should be legal federally.
-I believe abortion should be legal for anyone who wants it.
...snip..
-I believe in strong separation of all churches and the state.
-I believe in free speech, as long as it is not hate speech.
...snip...
-I believe your rights end the second they infringe on someone else's. No business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any personal characteristic, only for misbehavior while in the business.
Of course, those may seem "liberal" by today's standards. But to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with all of them, I'm saying that in a strict interpretation of constitutional freedoms, it is not my right nor the government's right, to take those rights away from anyone else. There is nothing in the Bible about "banning" sin, after all. You can allow gay marriage without personally agreeing with every aspect of it. It's not my place to tell someone who to love, and if they want to, FINE. But I also believe in family values, I don't believe being gay is a "choice" - I believe it's inherent in a human's nature, that people can be completely heterosexual, completely homosexual, and bisexual to degrees along a spectrum. However, I strongly believe that the world should remain generally heteronormative and promoting of family values while allowing homosexuals and bisexuals the freedom to do what they please, so long as they do so within the context of the laws, which would be expanded to allow them to marry if they please. I do not believe that homosexual relationships need to be depicted on every show on television (the current crusade) to "normalize" this behavior, nor do I believe that the homosexual lifestyle should be placed in front of children so publicly and promoted as a choice. It's something people should just discover on their own, not something that you actively attempt to place on a podium opposite a heteronormative lifestyle to a confused, bisexual teenager who may be closer to one end of the bisexual spectrum than the other, and attempt to persuade him/her to embrace that life. But I have friends who are 100% gay, and they know it. I support their right to get married, if they want.
Part of believing in freedoms is recognizes that you do not have the freedom to strip freedoms from others, whether you agree with them or not. I think of that actually, at its core, as a VERY conservative position in the classical sense, not the neoconservative crap that is spouted today. Hell as far as I'm concerned, 2 of the best presidents in US history were Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower.
I also don't believe in the welfare state, and people should not be allowed to have kids who have no way of taking care of them. Having kids is not a freedom, your rights to be a parent end at that child's right to have a suitable upbringing. Pro birth is not the same thing as pro life (which I actually am, even if it means less births). Additionally, welfare is supposed to support you until you can find work again, not be a permanent crutch. While the majority of welfare users are honest, plenty of both races, aren't. Kick those people off it. Then they can stop being used as the strawman against a program designed to get people working again.
- Borders are stupid and the faster we move away from nation-state the faster we will progress to the next level of political enlightenment
Wow. That is pretty far left. I've known one person in real life that actually stated this, but I don't think it's something he really believes at heart and that he was just trying to contrast with my view on the issue, which I had already stated. That's one of the reasons I said I don't consider myself "left" in the grand scheme of things. I'm a strong believer in enforcement of the law against illegal immigration as well as border security.
Hmm, it seems my approach *was* too subtle, as I had feared.I attempted to point out how ridiculous your argument is via my examples, such as the family of 4 being disenfranchised b/c they have only 0.5 votes per person ... but I fear that my approach may've been too subtle.I wasn't talking about voting, I was talking about taxes. If you think kids should have a right to vote, then perhaps you should start a thread on that topic.
My voting-math is an analogy, intended to point out the absurdity of your tax-math. Both the voting-math and the tax-math are correct, as far as math goes, but in both cases it's ridiculous to treat the children as full fledged adults. Thus my facetious claim of 0.5 votes-per-person is as preposterous as your claim of 30x taxes-per-person in your scenario.
You make the choice to treat the family as a single unit when assigning income ($70k to both your single-earner and the family), but then switch to treating them as individuals in order to exaggerate your point of tax-dollars-per-person. You're trying to have it both ways.
If you want to convince people that single-people's tax-dollars are subsidizing married people with children, then there are many more honest ways you could go about it. Here are a few suggestions that would be more honest, and therefore probably more convincing:
* Compare two single/independent tax-payers making $70k each to a household of 4 (2 adults, 2 children) making $140k, and calculate the tax burden paid by each adult. This would directly show the subsidy/savings when two formerly-single people decide to get together and have kids.
* Or if you want to focus only on the subsidy given for marriage, do the above comparison without the children.
* Or if you want to focus only on the subsidy given for children, then compare one $70k-earning single person to one $70k-earning single person with a single child (or more children if you prefer).Again, feel free to double-check the math if you feel my figures are inaccurate as stated.The point is not that your math was bad, but that your method was bad. You added in a zero-earning spouse, and treated the children as zero-earning-adult-equivalents. That's not an honest methodology. (And I say that as guy with no kids, too.)
Anyhow, I'm trying to read the forum less these days, weekends-only. So I'll probably not respond again, as I'll likely have lost interest by next weekend. Maybe you'll provoke me again the next time you bring it up. ;^)
Culture existed well before nations and will always exist, to imply it relies on borders is bizarre, it never has and never will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Norway
Culture existed well before nations and will always exist, to imply it relies on borders is bizarre, it never has and never will.
I say you're wrong.
Look at Norway.Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Norway
China's interesting. It's an amalgam of cultures which are gradually being absorbed into one capitalist-totalitarian culture.
Compare Canada and the US. We're both a mix of many different cultures due to our long history of immigration, yet the countries are very different in terms of social program and military adventures.
Maybe you mean something different than I do when you write 'culture'. I view culture to be a mix of the law, social norms and behaviours found in a region. I can only think of things that would be lost if we were to consolidate everyone into one big mixing pot of people. Would we have rule of law? Or rule by and for the ruling class? Would we have European social programs or no social programs? Would we relax by watching TV shows or by playing sports? What would be the basis for forming public policy?
I also don't believe in the welfare state, and people should not be allowed to have kids who have no way of taking care of them. Having kids is not a freedom, your rights to be a parent end at that child's right to have a suitable upbringing. Pro birth is not the same thing as pro life (which I actually am, even if it means less births). Additionally, welfare is supposed to support you until you can find work again, not be a permanent crutch. While the majority of welfare users are honest, plenty of both races, aren't. Kick those people off it. Then they can stop being used as the strawman against a program designed to get people working again.
Culture existed well before nations and will always exist, to imply it relies on borders is bizarre, it never has and never will.
I say you're wrong.
Look at Norway.Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Norway
China's interesting. It's an amalgam of cultures which are gradually being absorbed into one capitalist-totalitarian culture.
Compare Canada and the US. We're both a mix of many different cultures due to our long history of immigration, yet the countries are very different in terms of social program and military adventures.
Maybe you mean something different than I do when you write 'culture'. I view culture to be a mix of the law, social norms and behaviours found in a region. I can only think of things that would be lost if we were to consolidate everyone into one big mixing pot of people. Would we have rule of law? Or rule by and for the ruling class? Would we have European social programs or no social programs? Would we relax by watching TV shows or by playing sports? What would be the basis for forming public policy?
Speaking of subsidizing, I would gladly pay double the payroll tax to help shore up Social Security and Medicare so that seniors don't have to take a hit to their benefits.
Yeah, doubling the percentage would be rough. However, moving up the contribution limit wouldn't be the worst idea. With the two inflection points built in already, any additional dollar beyond inflation on the contribution side would help the program. I'd peg the number so it matches with the high end of the single filing 24% bracket (the middle bracket), which in 2018 is 157.5k.Speaking of subsidizing, I would gladly pay double the payroll tax to help shore up Social Security and Medicare so that seniors don't have to take a hit to their benefits.
Are you including only your contribution, or the hidden half payed by your employer?
15.3% total payroll tax (it's quite obvious when you have self employment income), so doubling that would mean 30.6% before we even start adding in federal or state income tax. I'm afraid that personally that's too rich for my blood.
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the right has gone off the fucking deep end. We no longer have a "center right." We currently have a left, a center left, and a radical right. Among other things, this means there is nowhere for the money interests to go because the radical right is too unstable. It's bad for business. I suspect we will see the money interests land with the center left (read: the Democratic Party), making it more of a broad centrist center, flanked by an economic left and a radical xenophobic religious right.I hate getting into political threads...i really do..
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the right has gone off the fucking deep end. We no longer have a "center right." We currently have a left, a center left, and a radical right. Among other things, this means there is nowhere for the money interests to go because the radical right is too unstable. It's bad for business. I suspect we will see the money interests land with the center left (read: the Democratic Party), making it more of a broad centrist center, flanked by an economic left and a radical xenophobic religious right.
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the right has gone off the fucking deep end. We no longer have a "center right." We currently have a left, a center left, and a radical right. Among other things, this means there is nowhere for the money interests to go because the radical right is too unstable. It's bad for business. I suspect we will see the money interests land with the center left (read: the Democratic Party), making it more of a broad centrist center, flanked by an economic left and a radical xenophobic religious right.
From where I sit here in Canada, I'm not sure that there's any real voice in the US for the left. There's a centrist/slightly right wing party - the Democrats, a very right wing party - the Republicans. You have a few EXTREME right wing groups - Libertarians, Tea Partiers, etc.
:P
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the right has gone off the fucking deep end. We no longer have a "center right." We currently have a left, a center left, and a radical right. Among other things, this means there is nowhere for the money interests to go because the radical right is too unstable. It's bad for business. I suspect we will see the money interests land with the center left (read: the Democratic Party), making it more of a broad centrist center, flanked by an economic left and a radical xenophobic religious right.I hate getting into political threads...i really do..
but it is statements like this that really piss me off and disenfranchise a massive swath of right-of-center individuals such as myself. I took the test and I am 2 boxes to the right of center and about half way down the libertarian axis, which is pretty much where i thought i would land and I know without question that i am in the minority by being right of center on these boards. But it is statements like yours that are echoed by a lot of people here and really make me not want to remain on this board...although i should probably just do what i usually do and not open political threads.
But how can anyone logically and legitimately throw blanket statements out there about a group of people? There is only a far right!? I mean, c'mon. Sure, only the far right garners media attention, much like the the far left gets attention on right leaning news outlets. There is nothing newsworthy about people near the center of the spectrum. I would guess that there is a massive group of people (if not the majority) who fall somewhere between just left of center and just right of center. To think otherwise is just silly. I would say the vast majority of my friends are right of center and approximately 0% of us are "far right". I'm pretty socially liberal when it comes to gay marriage, drugs, war, abortion, things of that nature....but when it comes to fiscal and monetary policy i fall on the right side of things. I am a small government kind of guy, and most of the time, candidates on the left just don't do it for me.
I don't really have much else to say other than blanket statements about the right (or left, or any group of people) do not sit well with me.
I consider myself a right of center libertarian.
If you put a gun to my head i would call myself a republican.
I did not vote for Trump.
I voted for Hillary.
ETA: don't take this as a personal attack please. I just get tired of seeing these types of statements so casually thrown around. I honestly meant nothing personal by my post.
Culture existed well before nations and will always exist, to imply it relies on borders is bizarre, it never has and never will.
I say you're wrong.
Look at Norway.Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Norway
China's interesting. It's an amalgam of cultures which are gradually being absorbed into one capitalist-totalitarian culture.
Compare Canada and the US. We're both a mix of many different cultures due to our long history of immigration, yet the countries are very different in terms of social program and military adventures.
Maybe you mean something different than I do when you write 'culture'. I view culture to be a mix of the law, social norms and behaviours found in a region. I can only think of things that would be lost if we were to consolidate everyone into one big mixing pot of people. Would we have rule of law? Or rule by and for the ruling class? Would we have European social programs or no social programs? Would we relax by watching TV shows or by playing sports? What would be the basis for forming public policy?
I think that your definition of culture is inaccurate, just a quick dictionary.com search gives us:
"culture
ˈkʌltʃə/Submit
noun
1.
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
"20th century popular culture"
synonyms: the arts, the humanities; More
2.
the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.
"Afro-Caribbean culture"
synonyms: civilization, society, way of life, lifestyle"
Culture is a broad word, and I suppose if you were specifically talking about the culture of a nation state then, sure, that might be specific to that conception of space and people. However, there have been arts, intellectual achievement, customs, ideas, social behaviours, etc, for as long as there have been societies. Those things don't stop existing.
In terms of your more specific questions, obviously I don't know. I'm one guy sitting in a room in Australia - even small countries are ruled by more than one person, so it'd be quite arrogant to assume I have the answers to all questions because I believe in a directional shift.
The United States is unique in it's strong support of business and capitalism, as well as some other aspects of the US constitution.I'm not the only one who disagrees with this - look at Germany, Switzerland...
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the right has gone off the fucking deep end. We no longer have a "center right." We currently have a left, a center left, and a radical right. Among other things, this means there is nowhere for the money interests to go because the radical right is too unstable. It's bad for business. I suspect we will see the money interests land with the center left (read: the Democratic Party), making it more of a broad centrist center, flanked by an economic left and a radical xenophobic religious right.I hate getting into political threads...i really do..
but it is statements like this that really piss me off and disenfranchise a massive swath of right-of-center individuals such as myself. I took the test and I am 2 boxes to the right of center and about half way down the libertarian axis, which is pretty much where i thought i would land and I know without question that i am in the minority by being right of center on these boards. But it is statements like yours that are echoed by a lot of people here and really make me not want to remain on this board...although i should probably just do what i usually do and not open political threads.
But how can anyone logically and legitimately throw blanket statements out there about a group of people? There is only a far right!? I mean, c'mon. Sure, only the far right garners media attention, much like the the far left gets attention on right leaning news outlets. There is nothing newsworthy about people near the center of the spectrum. I would guess that there is a massive group of people (if not the majority) who fall somewhere between just left of center and just right of center. To think otherwise is just silly. I would say the vast majority of my friends are right of center and approximately 0% of us are "far right". I'm pretty socially liberal when it comes to gay marriage, drugs, war, abortion, things of that nature....but when it comes to fiscal and monetary policy i fall on the right side of things. I am a small government kind of guy, and most of the time, candidates on the left just don't do it for me.
I don't really have much else to say other than blanket statements about the right (or left, or any group of people) do not sit well with me.
I consider myself a right of center libertarian.
If you put a gun to my head i would call myself a republican.
I did not vote for Trump.
I voted for Hillary.
ETA: don't take this as a personal attack please. I just get tired of seeing these types of statements so casually thrown around. I honestly meant nothing personal by my post.
The United States is unique in it's strong support of business and capitalism, as well as some other aspects of the US constitution.I'm not the only one who disagrees with this - look at Germany, Switzerland...
When I looked it up, I came up with https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/the-5-most-economically-free-countries-in-the-world.aspx
From where I sit here in Canada, I'm not sure that there's any real voice in the US for the left. There's a centrist/slightly right wing party - the Democrats, a very right wing party - the Republicans. You have a few EXTREME right wing groups - Libertarians, Tea Partiers, etc.I scored around (-0.25, -2.5) and view our Democratic party as covering a large swath of center-left (both above and below the x-axis). On the other hand, I view our Republican party as covering mostly just authoritarianism right (top half of the top right quadrant). Libertarians are down in the bottom right corner and Tea Partiers hang out on the right edge (many above the x-axis, but some below it). Smaller parties on the left side include the Green party (in the top left quadrant, but with very different ideas of what the government should make you do than the republicans) and the Peace-and-Freedom Party (Libertarians who don't mind social program spending hanging out the bottom left quadrant)
:P
This quiz, with all its flaws, shows that significant parts of each country’s electorate simply don’t have anyone to vote for. And that is a problem, no matter where you sit on the spectrum. If you can’t get reasonable representation you feel disenfranchised, and start to believe that the democratic process is a sham. It’s no wonder that democracy is having problems worldwide.This rings true to me.
Yeah, we do seem to have different definitions of culture.
My opinion though is that the different nation states have fairly different aspects to them. This diversity gives people choice in where they aspire to live and what type of society they wish to live in. If we amalgamated all the nation states into one, I think much would be lost. Perhaps it would benefit people in the developing world, perhaps not.
For example, Norway is unique in that it's in a sub-arctic to arctic climate, the country is wealthy because of it's resource base and effective governance and it has strong social programs and a high level of happiness.
The United States is unique in it's strong support of business and capitalism, as well as some other aspects of the US constitution.
Speaking of subsidizing, I would gladly pay double the payroll tax to help shore up Social Security and Medicare so that seniors don't have to take a hit to their benefits.
Are you including only your contribution, or the hidden half payed by your employer?
15.3% total payroll tax (it's quite obvious when you have self employment income), so doubling that would mean 30.6% before we even start adding in federal or state income tax. I'm afraid that personally that's too rich for my blood.
The United States is unique in it's strong support of business and capitalism, as well as some other aspects of the US constitution.I'm not the only one who disagrees with this - look at Germany, Switzerland...
When I looked it up, I came up with https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/the-5-most-economically-free-countries-in-the-world.aspx
The United States is unique in it's strong support of business and capitalism, as well as some other aspects of the US constitution.I'm not the only one who disagrees with this - look at Germany, Switzerland...
When I looked it up, I came up with https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/the-5-most-economically-free-countries-in-the-world.aspx
2018 is here:
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking (https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) Oops, different organization but similar methodology.
New Zealand #3, Australia #5, UK #8, Canada #9
US #18, behind a bunch of countries that have socialized medicine and strong social networks. The numerical differences are not huge, but if the social networks and socialized medicine are such economic drags, why is the US not in the top 5? Maybe they are not economic drags?
The United States is unique in it's strong support of business and capitalism, as well as some other aspects of the US constitution.I'm not the only one who disagrees with this - look at Germany, Switzerland...
When I looked it up, I came up with https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/the-5-most-economically-free-countries-in-the-world.aspx
2018 is here:
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking (https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) Oops, different organization but similar methodology.
New Zealand #3, Australia #5, UK #8, Canada #9
US #18, behind a bunch of countries that have socialized medicine and strong social networks. The numerical differences are not huge, but if the social networks and socialized medicine are such economic drags, why is the US not in the top 5? Maybe they are not economic drags?
No. I guarantee you it was skewed by the govt size.
Q.3. How do you measure economic freedom?
We measure economic freedom based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four broad categories, or pillars, of economic freedom:
1.Rule of Law (property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness)
2.Government Size (government spending, tax burden, fiscal health)
3.Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom)
4.Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom)
Notice how all top 6 countries are tiny. When you add up the govt spending from all top 17 countries, does it even come close to America's?
Australia's total government spending is about 35% of GDP. For the US it is about 41%.When you think about this, it's pretty impressive. We are the same land area as the continental US with 10% of the population. So each person needs to provide a lot more of the infrastructure - roads, railway, power lines... We also have government provided health care and government subsidized medicine. So you would expect us to either have a lower standard of living or to have much higher per capita government costs - and that isn't the case.
We are the same land area as the continental US with 10% of the population. So each person needs to provide a lot more of the infrastructure - roads, railway, power lines... We also have government provided health care and government subsidized medicine. So you would expect us to either have a lower standard of living or to have much higher per capita government costs - and that isn't the case.
Canada has a similar population density to us (one and a half times the population and area), with similar outcomes.
Payroll tax, IMO, is one of the dumbest taxes and way too high.
I'd thought Australia's population was actually relatively more concentrated in a set of big cities (where infrastructure per capita is relatively cheap), with big parts of the country with essentially no people or infrastructure at all. But this is a gut feeling backed up by nothing more quantitative than pictures of each country at night, so I could be completely off base.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Australia_night.jpg/1280px-Australia_night.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4414778-3x2-940x627.jpg)
(FWIW that big bright area in western North Dakota isn't a giant new city, but natural gas being burned off from new oil wells.)
(Also who knows if these images are even based on anything like the same exposure settings. Almost certainly not.)
Anyway, in no way intended as a knock against Australia, one way or another you folks clearly do have your act together.
I'd thought Australia's population was actually relatively more concentrated in a set of big cities (where infrastructure per capita is relatively cheap), with big parts of the country with essentially no people or infrastructure at all. But this is a gut feeling backed up by nothing more quantitative than pictures of each country at night, so I could be completely off base.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Australia_night.jpg/1280px-Australia_night.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4414778-3x2-940x627.jpg)
(FWIW that big bright area in western North Dakota isn't a giant new city, but natural gas being burned off from new oil wells.)
(Also who knows if these images are even based on anything like the same exposure settings. Almost certainly not.)
Anyway, in no way intended as a knock against Australia, one way or another you folks clearly do have your act together.
We are the same land area as the continental US with 10% of the population. So each person needs to provide a lot more of the infrastructure - roads, railway, power lines... We also have government provided health care and government subsidized medicine. So you would expect us to either have a lower standard of living or to have much higher per capita government costs - and that isn't the case.
Canada has a similar population density to us (one and a half times the population and area), with similar outcomes.
Well... there's this thing that Americans have..... the word starts with M
I am not saying its not needed or even wasteful, at the same time I am also not saying it's not enough. The majority of the western countries (traditional allies) do benefit from an oversized American military global presence, it was simply a feature when the system was designed and agreed upon post ww2, not the case how some folks claim "omg they taking advantage of Americans". Anyway, this has nothing to do with the original post lol.
Actually, Australia is one of the few countries that the POTUS says is pulling its weight in terms of military. See https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/us-envoy-says-australia-is-poster-child-for-pulling-its-weight-20180805-p4zvl9.html
Of course, that hasn’t stopped the POTUS from denying us an ambassador since he’s been in office.
Actually, Australia is one of the few countries that the POTUS says is pulling its weight in terms of military. See https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/us-envoy-says-australia-is-poster-child-for-pulling-its-weight-20180805-p4zvl9.htmlIndeed, as of 2017, Australia is pretty close to the worldwide average for military spending as % of GDP (2.042% vs 2.166%). The US spent 3.145% of GDP on military in 2017, so extra military spending doesn't answer all of the US total government spending over Australia; though I suspect that it answers a bigger portion than these values indicate due to cost of debt incurred to pay for past military spending.
Of course, that hasn’t stopped the POTUS from denying us an ambassador since he’s been in office.
Okay really, dumb/basic question about Australia: Do you folks have an equivalent of the United States's Social Security program (government taxes current workers and employers and distributes that revenue to retirees*), or is that need fulfilled by the superannuation funds (government mandates private retirement savings by workers and employers)?
If not, it seems like that could explain a big chunk of the gap, since the US taxes and then spends a good trillion dollars for social security retiree benefits each year (call it 5% of GDP?), while in Australia the government's legal requirement for private savings wouldn't show up as government spending, despite fulfilling the same need (avoiding old people going cold or hungry or living in the streets).
*Quick googling revealed that the term "social security" in Australia seems to refer to what we'd call welfare payments in the USA (support based on poverty/need rather than old age), so it seems like there is a lot of potential confusion tied to the same words having different meanings.
To add to middo's answer:
- Yes, there is an exact equivalent of SS here
- Superannuation was introduced specifically (I believe) to reduce the amount of total money being spend on retirees
I think @LonerMatt is referring to Superannuation rather than the aged pension, as it is money taken out of people's pay, and they get it when they retire.To add to middo's answer:
- Yes, there is an exact equivalent of SS here
- Superannuation was introduced specifically (I believe) to reduce the amount of total money being spend on retirees
I wouldn't say exact, as it is means-tested whereas SS is not.
@maizeman we got rid of protectionism and trade barriers, so our agriculture and manufacturing sectors are less subsidised than just about anywhere (I think - I might be wrong).
@maizeman we got rid of protectionism and trade barriers, so our agriculture and manufacturing sectors are less subsidised than just about anywhere (I think - I might be wrong). Our health care is a lot cheaper than US health care - I can't remember whether it has better outcomes as well - so the government is paying less than you would think. The government doesn't need to subsidise low wages to the same extent as in the US (we have a minimum wage of $18 per hour), but just about anyone who is looking for a job and is unemployed is given money each week.I think @LonerMatt is referring to Superannuation rather than the aged pension, as it is money taken out of people's pay, and they get it when they retire.To add to middo's answer:
- Yes, there is an exact equivalent of SS here
- Superannuation was introduced specifically (I believe) to reduce the amount of total money being spend on retirees
I wouldn't say exact, as it is means-tested whereas SS is not.
For the record, US Social Security is not means tested but is means adjusted. If you make over the designated threshold, your OADSI becomes taxable income. The "rich" get a smaller net benefit as a result.
The United States is unique in it's strong support of business and capitalism, as well as some other aspects of the US constitution.I'm not the only one who disagrees with this - look at Germany, Switzerland...
When I looked it up, I came up with https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/the-5-most-economically-free-countries-in-the-world.aspx
Sure, but Germany and Switzerland have other attributes that aren't so common in the US.
Switzerland has it's near universal militia. Both Germany and the Swiss have a reputation for meticulousness that the US does not have.
Anyway the US is just a strawman. My point remains that the different nation states offer a lot of diversity around the world.
Stopping change might cause conflict and war, but randomly drawing lines on a map and calling the result a country has caused an awful lot more in recent memory. :P
Most of Africa was more of a mistake.Stopping change might cause conflict and war, but randomly drawing lines on a map and calling the result a country has caused an awful lot more in recent memory. :P
The big problem is that most areas have people with vastly different opinions about where the lines should be placed. Even relatively peaceful neighbours such as Greenland/Denmark and Canada. So no matter where they end up, someone will disagree. But yes, you are right: Belgium was a mistake.
:P
The United States is unique in it's strong support of business and capitalism, as well as some other aspects of the US constitution.I'm not the only one who disagrees with this - look at Germany, Switzerland...
When I looked it up, I came up with https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/the-5-most-economically-free-countries-in-the-world.aspx
Sure, but Germany and Switzerland have other attributes that aren't so common in the US.
Switzerland has it's near universal militia. Both Germany and the Swiss have a reputation for meticulousness that the US does not have.
Anyway the US is just a strawman. My point remains that the different nation states offer a lot of diversity around the world.
I might be misunderstanding what you are arguing here, but the borders of nation states are continuously changing. Norway didn't gain independence until 1905, and only left with parts of the pre-union territory (lost Iceland, Faroes, Greenland, Jämtland, Härjedalen and Bohuslän). Earlier in history we lost Shetland, Orkneys, Hebridies, and Isle of Man. But the "new" borders split the Sami territories into four different countries. The different German states were only united into one country in 1871, while Switzerland still has four distinctive language/cultural regions and a lot of different (relatively independent) cantons.
In my view, the great variety in world has to do with the changes in the world; people moving, borders shifting, technology changing. The only thing we know for sure about borders, is that they will change. Trying to stop the change causes conflicts and wars.
Most of Africa was more of a mistake.Stopping change might cause conflict and war, but randomly drawing lines on a map and calling the result a country has caused an awful lot more in recent memory. :P
The big problem is that most areas have people with vastly different opinions about where the lines should be placed. Even relatively peaceful neighbours such as Greenland/Denmark and Canada. So no matter where they end up, someone will disagree. But yes, you are right: Belgium was a mistake.
:P