It is easier for smaller economy countries to submit more per their GDP as they do not have as MANY responsibilites as a larger economy country. We have to take care of our own people you know, or should be just donate 50% of our GDP to other countries?Bubbalo wrote:
And if we look at your chart we find that the US is still less generous relatively, based both on percentage of GDP and a per capita basis.
Shipbuilder likes to use graphs to show how miserly the U.S. is in giving to other countries as a percent of their GDP. Let's take a look at comparing how some of these other countries citizens are doing compared to us. WHERE WE STAND, by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992). 1991 statistics.
Home ownership:
Ireland 82% Japan 60
Spain 80 Portugal 59
Luxembourg 77 United States 59
Norway 73 Finland 58
Belgium 72 Sweden 55
Greece 72 France 54
Italy 68 Netherlands 46
United Kingdom 67 Germany 40
Canada 64 Switzerland 29
Denmark 60
If we tax more to increase our amount of giving, that will take more money out of citizens pockets and lower the rate of home ownership.
Two earner families:
United States 58%
Japan 33
France 33
Italy 20
Germany 18
Netherlands 16
This statistic shows that many of the other countries are able to live with only one income. I realize that some of this is due to conspicuous consumption, but some is also due to tax burden.
Average Household Debt
United States $71,500
United Kingdom 35,500
Germany 27,700
France 27,650
Netherlands 5,000
Switzerland 800
Average Household Savings
Japan $45,118
Switzerland 19,971
Denmark 18,405
France 17,649
Germany 17,042
Norway 15,196
Netherlands 14,282
Finland 12,387
Sweden 10,943
United Kingdom 7,451
United States 4,201
Government debt per person:
Belgium $16,423
Japan 14,049
United States 12,433
Sweden 9,541
Netherlands 9,368
Canada 8,597
Norway 5,498
United Kingdom 4,635
Finland 2,798
Germany 977
Trade Balance (millions):
Japan +$77,110
Germany +76,713
Netherlands +7,990
Canada +5,047
Norway +3,769
Denmark +2,426
Finland -250
United Kingdom -37,958
United States -113,240
I for one am quite satisfied that our level of giving is not too high. The money that is being given ultimately comes out of our pockets, since the government does not produce anything. The numbers above show that relative to many of the countries cited as shining examples earlier, our standard of living lags. Until and if that is corrected, I am not inclined to want to give more.
Home ownership:
Ireland 82% Japan 60
Spain 80 Portugal 59
Luxembourg 77 United States 59
Norway 73 Finland 58
Belgium 72 Sweden 55
Greece 72 France 54
Italy 68 Netherlands 46
United Kingdom 67 Germany 40
Canada 64 Switzerland 29
Denmark 60
If we tax more to increase our amount of giving, that will take more money out of citizens pockets and lower the rate of home ownership.
Two earner families:
United States 58%
Japan 33
France 33
Italy 20
Germany 18
Netherlands 16
This statistic shows that many of the other countries are able to live with only one income. I realize that some of this is due to conspicuous consumption, but some is also due to tax burden.
Average Household Debt
United States $71,500
United Kingdom 35,500
Germany 27,700
France 27,650
Netherlands 5,000
Switzerland 800
Average Household Savings
Japan $45,118
Switzerland 19,971
Denmark 18,405
France 17,649
Germany 17,042
Norway 15,196
Netherlands 14,282
Finland 12,387
Sweden 10,943
United Kingdom 7,451
United States 4,201
Government debt per person:
Belgium $16,423
Japan 14,049
United States 12,433
Sweden 9,541
Netherlands 9,368
Canada 8,597
Norway 5,498
United Kingdom 4,635
Finland 2,798
Germany 977
Trade Balance (millions):
Japan +$77,110
Germany +76,713
Netherlands +7,990
Canada +5,047
Norway +3,769
Denmark +2,426
Finland -250
United Kingdom -37,958
United States -113,240
I for one am quite satisfied that our level of giving is not too high. The money that is being given ultimately comes out of our pockets, since the government does not produce anything. The numbers above show that relative to many of the countries cited as shining examples earlier, our standard of living lags. Until and if that is corrected, I am not inclined to want to give more.
How do you figure? Countries with smaller economies still have to take care of their own, and have a lesser ability to influence markets to make them favourable.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
It is easier for smaller economy countries to submit more per their GDP as they do not have as MANY responsibilites as a larger economy country. We have to take care of our own people you know, or should be just donate 50% of our GDP to other countries?
these also do not account for the amount of private charity dollars or man hours donated, just last night I threw down one and a half day's pay at a charity drag show for a drag queen in need of an operation here, say what you will but I've never traded a cross word with "her" or any of my cross dressing friends in the 11 years that I've known them, this, as opposed to my story about hiring the homeless man to clean up my lot, was true charity, whereas I asked the homeless man to provide a service in exchange for payment
hunter's post makes a good point for the people whining about the US using underhanded tactics to prevent our dollars from going overseas, tell me, if our trade policies are so unfair, then why do we buy so much more foreign goods, after all the evil bush is making it impossible to import to the US, at least that's what you've been saying
hunter's post makes a good point for the people whining about the US using underhanded tactics to prevent our dollars from going overseas, tell me, if our trade policies are so unfair, then why do we buy so much more foreign goods, after all the evil bush is making it impossible to import to the US, at least that's what you've been saying
I don't disagree with you. I also don't think we should be taxed more for the purpose of increasing foreign aid.PHPR Hunter wrote:
If we tax more to increase our amount of giving, that will take more money out of citizens pockets and lower the rate of home ownership. I for one am quite satisfied that our level of giving is not too high. The money that is being given ultimately comes out of our pockets, since the government does not produce anything. The numbers above show that relative to many of the countries cited as shining examples earlier, our standard of living lags. Until and if that is corrected, I am not inclined to want to give more.
To date we have paid $330bn to fund the Iraq War.
During the same time period, we have given roughly a quarter of that to the world in foreign aid.
Rather than raising more money through increased taxation, we should be reallocating what we already have.
The single most intelligent thing I've ever heard you say. +1The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I don't disagree with you. I also don't think we should be taxed more for the purpose of increasing foreign aid.PHPR Hunter wrote:
If we tax more to increase our amount of giving, that will take more money out of citizens pockets and lower the rate of home ownership. I for one am quite satisfied that our level of giving is not too high. The money that is being given ultimately comes out of our pockets, since the government does not produce anything. The numbers above show that relative to many of the countries cited as shining examples earlier, our standard of living lags. Until and if that is corrected, I am not inclined to want to give more.
To date we have paid $330bn to fund the Iraq War.
During the same time period, we have given roughly a quarter of that to the world in foreign aid.
Rather than raising more money through increased taxation, we should be reallocating what we already have.
Interesting enough the US is in Arrears at the UN..lol.
As part of that revision, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25% to 20%. The U.S. is the only member that meets that ceiling, but it is in arrears with hundreds of millions of dollars (see United States and the United Nations). Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.63%), Germany (9.82%), France (6.50%), the UK (5.57%), Italy (5.09%), Canada (2.57%), Spain (2.53%), and Brazil (2.39%).[5]
Who thinks the UN would exist without the US? Would the EU just be larger? (Honest questions)
As part of that revision, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25% to 20%. The U.S. is the only member that meets that ceiling, but it is in arrears with hundreds of millions of dollars (see United States and the United Nations). Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.63%), Germany (9.82%), France (6.50%), the UK (5.57%), Italy (5.09%), Canada (2.57%), Spain (2.53%), and Brazil (2.39%).[5]
Who thinks the UN would exist without the US? Would the EU just be larger? (Honest questions)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Only 16 percent of families living together have both sexes working in the Netherlands? I find that kind of difficult to believe.PHPR Hunter wrote:
Two earner families:
United States 58%
Japan 33
France 33
Italy 20
Germany 18
Netherlands 16
This statistic shows that many of the other countries are able to live with only one income. I realize that some of this is due to conspicuous consumption, but some is also due to tax burden.
If you've been reading this forum for a while you should know.weamo8 wrote:
What does this mean sergeriver?sergeriver wrote:
Ah, responsible, the conservative word of these days, ain't it?Bubbalo wrote:
Only if that person is responsible.
BUT what those charts do not show is the charities And the Private monies that are in the billions that Private citizens donate each year from america. Id sure would like to see that chart.Bubbalo wrote:
And if we look at your chart we find that the US is still less generous relatively, based both on percentage of GDP and a per capita basis.
Hell i even donate to Foriegn charities and i dont have a pot to piss in.
Perhaps that doesn't include the gay couples.Rosse_modest wrote:
Only 16 percent of families living together have both sexes working in the Netherlands? I find that kind of difficult to believe.PHPR Hunter wrote:
Two earner families:
United States 58%
Japan 33
France 33
Italy 20
Germany 18
Netherlands 16
This statistic shows that many of the other countries are able to live with only one income. I realize that some of this is due to conspicuous consumption, but some is also due to tax burden.
Private donations hardly count, particularly when most of them go to charities run by churches.
Could you perhaps be suggesting that because the US gives these countries money then they should vote alongside the US despite their own personal preference, which they are entitled to in a purportedly democratic (LOL) UN? Surely not.Kmarion wrote:
Title was obviously sarcastic.
This information is a little old but just as relevant today.
The United States gives $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of OUR money, to primarily third-world dictators.
This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations' programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.
What most Americans do not realize is that the vast majority of the recipients of US Foreign Aid routinely vote against the wishes of the United States in the UN at an average rate of 74%. In other words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in direct Foreign Aid only about 26% or $3.5 billion went to support people who endorsed American initiatives or causes. A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people who were and are in open and direct opposition to the United States' interests and objectives.
Listed below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Anonymous verification
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp
Nope, just evidence it doesn't matter to how you vote. We still give them aid.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Is this a joke?Kmarion wrote:
Title was obviously sarcastic.
This information is a little old but just as relevant today.
The United States gives $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of OUR money, to primarily third-world dictators.
This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations' programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.
What most Americans do not realize is that the vast majority of the recipients of US Foreign Aid routinely vote against the wishes of the United States in the UN at an average rate of 74%. In other words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in direct Foreign Aid only about 26% or $3.5 billion went to support people who endorsed American initiatives or causes. A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people who were and are in open and direct opposition to the United States' interests and objectives.
Where do I begin? The US do not contribute the recommended amounts (0.7% GDP on foreign aid, they actually contribute 0.22% - more than 3 times less than they should) to the UN or on foreign aid. The only reason the US are close to meeting aid to 3rd world coutries recommendations is because they give so much money to Israel. The US are the worst rich nation at providing aid, although they have recently moved up to 2nd worst, above Portugal. Take a look here
It is totally immoral to expect nations to back you in the UN just because you give them aid.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-30 09:21:23)
Why do we even bother helping those who hate us? We already look bad why not let those bastards starve or something. ZOMG F00K YOU AEMRICA....I need some money.....
lol...too true....."Death to America and by the way, can we borrow money?..."{TL}SHARPSHOOTER wrote:
Why do we even bother helping those who hate us? We already look bad why not let those bastards starve or something. ZOMG F00K YOU AEMRICA....I need some money.....
The ceiling is self-imposed. It was enacted by the US congress (see: FY1994-95 Foreign Relations Act (Public Law 103-236)). It makes no sense to talk about a ceiling when infact the was a unilateral enterprise by the US, it's not something imposed from above by the UN.Kmarion wrote:
Interesting enough the US is in Arrears at the UN..lol.
As part of that revision, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25% to 20%. The U.S. is the only member that meets that ceiling, but it is in arrears with hundreds of millions of dollars (see United States and the United Nations). Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.63%), Germany (9.82%), France (6.50%), the UK (5.57%), Italy (5.09%), Canada (2.57%), Spain (2.53%), and Brazil (2.39%).[5]
Who thinks the UN would exist without the US? Would the EU just be larger? (Honest questions)
Even if a country votes against the US on a security council resolution or at a general assembly meeting it doesn't necessarily mean that country defies the will of the US. Syria regularly votes against the US (esp. regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict) but has cooperated on some notable occasions (Gulf War I and cooperation relating to terrorism matters).
If the UN is as ineffective as many assert, it really shouldn't matter how a nation votes on resolutions and even if resolutions are binding, there have always been other avenues (if not always public) for cooperation.