quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So you take the GDP, divide it by population, adjust for cost of living, and it turns out Britain is a poorer place than either every US state except Mississippi, or poorer than every one of them, depending on who is doing the math.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/why-britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/

Forbes also ran the numbers. They figure Britain is actually poorer than Mississippi, too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/25/britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-yes-even-mississippi/

According to a chart at the first link, the only people in Britain who are marginally better off than comparable wage earners (benefits receivers might be the more accurate term) are the bottom 5% of the population.

No wonder we get so many Brits in here, lashing out bitterly at America. They have plenty to be bitter about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So you take the GDP, divide it by population, adjust for cost of living, and it turns out Britain is a poorer place than either every US state except Mississippi, or poorer than every one of them, depending on who is doing the math.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/why-britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/

Forbes also ran the numbers. They figure Britain is actually poorer than Mississippi, too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/25/britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-yes-even-mississippi/

According to a chart at the first link, the only people in Britain who are marginally better off than comparable wage earners (benefits receivers might be the more accurate term) are the bottom 5% of the population.

No wonder we get so many Brits in here, lashing out bitterly at America. They have plenty to be bitter about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

But their free health care and all their other welfare programs are SO fantastic that they make up for their government destroying their economy in order to pay for it all. Right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So you take the GDP, divide it by population, adjust for cost of living, and it turns out Britain is a poorer place than either every US state except Mississippi, or poorer than every one of them, depending on who is doing the math.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/why-britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/

Forbes also ran the numbers. They figure Britain is actually poorer than Mississippi, too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/25/britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-yes-even-mississippi/

According to a chart at the first link, the only people in Britain who are marginally better off than comparable wage earners (benefits receivers might be the more accurate term) are the bottom 5% of the population.

No wonder we get so many Brits in here, lashing out bitterly at America. They have plenty to be bitter about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Right, the more money government removes from an economy the better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Right, the more money government removes from an economy the better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Hope you are ready for the firestorm. You will be "politely" informed that this whole study is "bullocks"

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Right, the more money government removes from an economy the better.

Depends on for whom govt. removes that money. The MIC wants $1 trillion a year removed for the pentagon. Big Agri wants billions more removed for subsidies.,,say for corn ethanol one the single most enriching welfare programs ever. Then there is milk and...and...

Shall I go on ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So you take the GDP, divide it by population, adjust for cost of living, and it turns out Britain is a poorer place than either every US state except Mississippi, or poorer than every one of them, depending on who is doing the math.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/why-britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/

Forbes also ran the numbers. They figure Britain is actually poorer than Mississippi, too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/25/britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-yes-even-mississippi/

According to a chart at the first link, the only people in Britain who are marginally better off than comparable wage earners (benefits receivers might be the more accurate term) are the bottom 5% of the population.

No wonder we get so many Brits in here, lashing out bitterly at America. They have plenty to be bitter about.

Hope you are ready for the firestorm. You will be "politely" informed that this whole study is "bullocks"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Taxes aren't the only way they rob Peter to pay Paul, Rich.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So you take the GDP, divide it by population, adjust for cost of living, and it turns out Britain is a poorer place than either every US state except Mississippi, or poorer than every one of them, depending on who is doing the math.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/why-britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/

Forbes also ran the numbers. They figure Britain is actually poorer than Mississippi, too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/25/britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-yes-even-mississippi/

According to a chart at the first link, the only people in Britain who are marginally better off than comparable wage earners (benefits receivers might be the more accurate term) are the bottom 5% of the population.

No wonder we get so many Brits in here, lashing out bitterly at America. They have plenty to be bitter about.

Hope you are ready for the firestorm. You will be "politely" informed that this whole study is "bullocks"

Actually, I think they say "bollocks" over there. Bullocks was a department store.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Taxes aren't the only way they rob Peter to pay Paul, Rich.

No, but let's keep in mind that the US of A does have a navy to pay for.

I don't think free health care is Orwellian at all. In principle, I like the idea a whole lot. We would need to have a real national conversation, and there are all the inherent perils of bureaucracy to overcome, but it might very well be a good path for the US to take.

Personally, I think a nationalized system would be the way to go (single payer has always struck me as nothing but a massive invitation to fraud). Of course, there are a few catches, but I'm just not staying up for that conversation tonight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

First of all, to measure wealth by GDP is ridiculous. I am sure the GDP of the southern US when cotton was king was very high but it didn't do the slaves any fucking good. (the Chinese aren't poor if they make more than $1/day according to the Chinese govt.)

Plus this info is a bit dated and I am sure the Brits have a gained a few pence back since then (4 years) although...maybe not. Hey, as long as London is doing well...fuck the rest. I mean would somebody please tell me when it really mattered how many poor people a country has and just how poor they are.

I am sure the Brits will have to be content that they live longer than Mississippians and are a tad smarter I am sure. The Mississippians seem to be content to be dumb enough to have the most corrupt state in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kkaliforniaa

I talked with someone from the United Kingdom, in order to see a specialist, it could take more than a year for an available appointment! This is what happens with "free" healthcare. Although it still isn't really free, on one hand it comes out of your pocket along with everything else that goes with taxes, on the other hand, it's insurance and you know full well the cost of it. I think the way the system is right now is probably better, at least for those who don't want to wait a year to see a specialist [whether it be a cardiologist, orthopedic surgeon, etc]