ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th March 2018, 08:55 AM   #81
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
The problem is that billionaires pay much too little tax.

Bill Gates says he has paid $10 billion but it should have been a lot more. He says wealthier people get substantially more benefits than the middle class and poor.
Gates says billionaires should pay 'significantly' more taxes
Why is Bill Gates' opinion important?

Quote:
That is interesting. It also seems to contradict the claim that capitalism necessarily infinite growth.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:57 AM   #82
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,997
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That is interesting. It also seems to contradict the claim that capitalism necessarily infinite growth.

That's concerning - people's lives wouldn't get better...

(Yeah, I'm still working on articulating it )
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:57 AM   #83
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Monarchies and the economy.
Monarchies have presided over more than one different economic system. Do you mean feudalism?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:01 AM   #84
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Monarchies have presided over more than one different economic system. Do you mean feudalism?
Post 45
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:02 AM   #85
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,356
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But a lot of people feel a deep sense of debt to their fellow man... that they want to pay off with other people's money.
And Bill Gates isn't a good example of that considering what he and his wife's foundation does.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 7th March 2018 at 09:11 AM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:09 AM   #86
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,494
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Everybody has exactly the same tax burden and that burden is "The exact amount of taxes I am legally required to pay and not a cent more."

People do realize... you can voluntarily give the US government more money? There's literally a PO Box in Maryland specifically for sending extra money to the US government. I'm not making this up. It exists. It's been around since the 1840s.

Since 1984 this PO Box has attracted a grand total of..... 9.8 million. That's statistically nothing on the scale of numbers we're talking. That's enough to run the Federal Government for about 90 seconds.

If Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or any other liberal Tom, Dick, or Harry who thinks they aren't paying their fair share... what's stopping them?

There's countless ways you can "give" more back to the government if you want. Don't cash your refund checks. Don't take any deductions. Just... give it to them as noted.

But amazingly all the people who whine about others or even themselves "not paying their fair share" don't seem to be in any big hurry to actaully voluntarily give more. Funny that.

Because again, just like with the "They make too much money" argument "They don't pay enough taxes" is always a problem other people have.
Trying to completely dodge the issue of appropriate tax burdens by arguing some sort of ad-hom hypocrisy is trying to dodge the issue.

I can make pointless tautologies too.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:43 AM   #87
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,997
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again of course not. Nobody's ever going to do that. That's the point.


Hey Joe, I still want to know at what tax point people are allowed to start discussing tax rises without you disputing their right to do so?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:45 AM   #88
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Of course it is. "Your" life is always hard enough.

Everbody else's isn't.

That's how these "fair share" arguments always work.
The thread is about billionaires, not everybody else. How many billionaire's have a hard life?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 7th March 2018 at 09:51 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:47 AM   #89
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why is Bill Gates' opinion important?
Do you think he is wrong?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:49 AM   #90
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again of course not. Nobody's ever going to do that. That's the point.

Again the global tax rate across all civilizations across this and all possible universe is pretty much always going to be "What I am forced to pay."

But a lot of people feel a deep sense of debt to their fellow man... that they want to pay off with other people's money.

All arguments about taxes by definition are "What I think 'other' people need to pay, no me."
Then I'm sorry but I don't understand your larger point.

Quote:
Again there is literally a PO Box you can mail a check to.
That's not my point. It's an influx of money not on the budget. I'm not even sure they could legally use the surplus.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:49 AM   #91
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I really, really want to know at what point those touting the 'just send the government money, I'm keeping mine' argument, those who wish to deny advocates of tax increases a voice by dint of ad hominem fallacy, would allow the rest of us to even begin discussing tax increases.
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally? Come up with a tax increase discussion that doesn't depend on "some people have too much money", and I'm good to go.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:50 AM   #92
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Monarchies have presided over more than one different economic system. Do you mean feudalism?
No, I meant monarchy. Perhaps that wasn't a great example. Let's go with feudalism, then.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 09:54 AM   #93
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Do you think he is wrong?
I'm agnostic. Your turn to answer my question.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 10:06 AM   #94
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm agnostic. Your turn to answer my question.
He is a billionaire so I assumed he would have some knowledge of being one.
If you are agnostic, what was the point of your question?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 7th March 2018 at 10:26 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 10:09 AM   #95
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,997
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally? Come up with a tax increase discussion that doesn't depend on "some people have too much money", and I'm good to go.

Oh, that's simple. All you and I need to do is agree on exactly the function of government and what it's fiscal responsibilities are and those areas over which the government should have no oversight, work out how much should be invested by the government in each of those areas and we're good to go. Shouldn't take long...


More realistically, in my country, the NHS is underfunded, social security nets are failing, the prison system is at breaking point and the Navy can't put to sea enough ships to be sure it's spanky new aircraft carrier won't get sunk.
__________________
Up the River!

Last edited by 3point14; 7th March 2018 at 10:31 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 10:28 AM   #96
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
He is a billionaire so I assumed he would have some knowledge of being one.
I assume the same. However, there are other billionaires, some of whom disagree with Gates on this point. Do you find their opinions equally important?

Quote:
If you are agnostic, what was the point of your post?
If I haven't reached a conclusion, and you have, then asking you about the basis of your conclusion seems like a reasonable thing for me to do.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 10:32 AM   #97
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally? Come up with a tax increase discussion that doesn't depend on "some people have too much money", and I'm good to go.
How about one based on "many people have too little money"?
In order to determine what "too little" is, fair and equitable distribution of available resources must be discussed.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 11:44 AM   #98
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If I haven't reached a conclusion, and you have, then asking you about the basis of your conclusion seems like a reasonable thing for me to do.
Economics (and politics) are close to the bottom of my list of stuff I find interesting so I have no real depth of knowledge and my opinion is not very well informed.

I do read quite widely though and sometimes things on the web catches my eye, like this:

Why thousands of millionaires don’t pay federal income taxes
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 7th March 2018 at 11:52 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 12:07 PM   #99
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,330
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Economics (and politics) are close to the bottom of my list of stuff I find interesting so I have no real depth of knowledge and my opinion is not very well informed.

I do read quite widely though and sometimes things on the web catches my eye, like this:

Why thousands of millionaires donít pay federal income taxes
Which is why the most important tax reform is simplification. Get rid of any deduction that effects fewer that, IDK, 10k individuals or businesses.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 04:25 PM   #100
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
How about one based on "many people have too little money"?
In order to determine what "too little" is, fair and equitable distribution of available resources must be discussed.
Seems like you're just depending on the flip side of the same coin. Obverse or reverse, your money is no good here.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 07:24 PM   #101
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Seems like you're just depending on the flip side of the same coin. Obverse or reverse, your money is no good here.
Not necessarily. There is an absolute limit to the low end- 0.

Further, determining an acceptable low end does not preclude being more prosperous than that baseline. Negating your assertion that it is based on a "some people have too much money" premise.

One does not give blood because one feels they have "too much blood". At least, I don't.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 7th March 2018 at 07:27 PM.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 07:31 PM   #102
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,242
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Not necessarily. There is an absolute limit to the low end- 0.

Further, determining an acceptable low end does not preclude being more prosperous than that baseline. Negating your assertion that it is based on a "some people have too much money" premise.

One does not give blood because one feels they have "too much blood". At least, I don't.
Never heard of Hemachromatosis?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 07:35 PM   #103
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,242
Getting away from income tax sounds good. It would take taxes out of coasts, lower costs of our products on the world market. Same would go for universal healtyh car because health care is usually part of the cost of labor.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 07:48 PM   #104
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Never heard of Hemachromatosis?
Was he one of the dudes arguing with Socrates in "The Republic"?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 07:51 PM   #105
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Was he one of the dudes arguing with Socrates in "The Republic"?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 02:34 AM   #106
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,997
I'm just going to put this here...

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:04 AM   #107
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,494
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I'm just going to put this here...

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
Observing correlations, what fun. Someone publishing a book and starting an organization and giving a TED talk, but it turns out they aren't accurately representing a consensus scientific viewpoint? Unheard of.

Quote:
Today, despite renewed public interest for the increasing income inequality trend in our societies, and the collective view that high income inequality is undesirable from a moral or societal point of view, there still exists no strong evidence-base to argue that tackling income inequality would be an effective strategy to improve population health.

Why do we observe, then, a correlation between income inequality and health at the aggregate level? This may be a hint to the fact that income inequality is correlated, but not causally associated, with other determinants of health that may well be of interest to public health. For example, it is likely that countries with low levels of income inequality, such as the Scandinavian nations, also happen to have in place a wide range of social policies that may bring benefits to health. These countries have an extensive history of generous maternity leave benefits, unemployment insurance, income maintenance programmes and national health care insurance, among other programmes. While these policies bear undoubtedly some relationship to the fact that these countries have high taxes, this needs not implying that income inequality per se affects population health. Whether and how specific social policies bring population health benefits would need to be addressed by formally evaluating the causal impact of these policies on health. Only then will we be able to identify more concrete ways through which we can use social and economic policy to improve population health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760345/

Quote:
Once the country fixed effects were added, all associations between income inequality and mortality indicators became insignificant, except for mortality from external causes and homicide among men, and cancers among women. The significant results for homicide and cancers disappeared after further adjustment for indicators of democracy, education, transition to national independence, armed conflicts, and economic freedom. Cross-sectional associations between income inequality and mortality seem to reflect the confounding effects of other country characteristics. In a European context, national levels of income inequality do not have an independent effect on mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26177800/

Quote:
We find no support for the hypothesis that increasing income inequality explains increasing health inequalities. Possible explanations are that other factors are more important mediators of the effect of education on health, or more simply that income is not an important determinant of mortality in this European context of high-income countries. This study contributes to the discussion on income inequality as entry point to tackle health inequalities. More research is needed to test the common and plausible assumption that increasing income inequality leads to more health inequality, and that one needs to act against the former to avoid the latter.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27390929

Quote:
Findings suggest that in the short-run, changes in income inequality are not associated with changes in infant mortality. A possible interpretation of the discrepancy between cross-country correlations and fixed effects models is that social policies that reduce infant mortality cluster in countries with low income inequality, but their effects do not operate via income. Findings highlight the need to examine the impact of more specific social policies on infant mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22651898/

Quote:
This article reviews 98 aggregate and multilevel studies examining the associations between income inequality and health. Overall, there seems to be little support for the idea that income inequality is a major, generalizable determinant of population health differences within or between rich countries. Income inequality may, however, directly influence some health outcomes, such as homicide in some contexts. The strongest evidence for direct health effects is among states in the United States, but even that is somewhat mixed. Despite little support for a direct effect of income inequality on health per se, reducing income inequality by raising the incomes of the most disadvantaged will improve their health, help reduce health inequalities, and generally improve population health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15016244

Quote:
The publication of The Spirit Level (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009) marked a paramount moment in the analysis of health and inequality, quickly attracting a remarkable degree of attention, both positive and negative, both in academic and in public discourse. Following at least 20 years of research, the book proposes a simple and powerful argument: inequality per se, more specifically income inequality, is harmful to every aspect of social life. In order to confirm this idea, the authors present a series of bivariate, cross-sectional associations showing comparisons across countries and within the United States. Despite the methodological limitations of this approach, the authors advance causal claims concerning the detrimental effects of income inequality. They also rule out poverty as a plausible alternative explanation, without directly measuring it. Meanwhile, over the last decade stratification scholars have demonstrated the nonlinear effect of economic factors, especially income, on health. The results suggest that a relative approach is best for analyzing dynamics at the top of the income distribution, whereas an absolute approach seems most appropriate for studying the bottom of the distribution. Consistent with this perspective, here I reanalyze data from The Spirit Level, adding a measure of poverty, in order to control the effect of inequality and explore its interaction with poverty. The findings show that inequality and poverty-which I contend are two interdependent but nonetheless distinct phenomena-interact across countries, such that the detrimental effects of inequality are present or stronger in countries with high poverty, and absent or weaker in countries with low poverty; poverty replaces inequality as the favored explanation of health and social ills across states. The new evidence suggests that income distributions are characterized by a complex interplay between inequality and poverty, whose interaction deserves further analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25726520

Quote:
It has been suggested that, especially in countries with high per capita income, there is an independent effect of income distribution on the health of individuals. One source of evidence in support of this relative income hypothesis is the analysis of aggregate cross-section data on population health, per capita income and income inequality. We examine the empirical robustness of cross-section analyses by using a new data set to replicate and extend the methodology in a frequently cited paper. The estimated relationship between income inequality and population health is not significant in any of our estimated models. We also argue there are serious conceptual difficulties in using aggregate cross-sections as a means of testing hypotheses about the effect of income, and its distribution, on the health of individuals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11848275

Quote:
In this report, Wilkinson and Pickett’s empirical claims are critically
re-examined using (a) their own data on 23 countries,(b) more
up-to-date statistics on a larger sample of 44 countries, and (c) data
on the US states. Very few of their empirical claims survive intact.
Of 20 statistical claims examined, 14 are shown to be spurious
or invalid, and in only one case (the association internationally
between infant mortality and income inequality) does the evidence
unambiguously support Wilkinson and Pickett’s hypothesis.
Contrary to their claims, income inequality does not explain international
homicide rates, childhood conflict, women’s status,
foreign aid donations, life expectancy, adult obesity, childhood
obesity, literacy and numeracy, patents, or social mobility rates. Nor
does it explain variations among US states in homicide, infant
mortality or imprisonment rates.

...

The authors of The Spirit Level are very selective in their choice of
evidence, and the book ignores an array of social indicators which are
worse in more equal countries. Suicide rates, HIV infection rates,
alcohol consumption and divorce rates are all higher in more equal
countries, and fertility is lower, but these trends go unanalysed. The
book also ignores trends over time which show, contrary to their
hypothesis, that the countries where income inequality grew fastest
over the last 30 years are those where infant mortality rates and average
life expectancy actually improved the most.
https://www.policyexchange.org.uk/wp...ets-jul-10.pdf

Quote:
We maintain that The Spirit Level is flawed, but we are not the only ones saying so. Although the authors repeatedly claim an academic consensus supports their book, they have been criticised by leading economists and social scientists, many of them on the left (Christopher Jencks, Andrew Leigh, Angus Deaton, John Kay, John Goldthorpe).

In their book, Wilkinson and Pickett are selective in their choice of countries, excluding unequal countries such as South Korea with strong social profiles that would have undermined their argument. They switch sources, dates and measures of inequality across different graphs to maximise the trends they want to find.

Furthermore, they are selective in their choice of indicators. Imprisonment gets in, but not crime (except homicides). Drugs are in, alcoholism is out. Murder is included, suicide excluded. Government aid is analysed, but charitable donations by individuals are not. Infant mortality is included, HIV infection rates are not. Teenage births are analysed, divorce rates are left out. Using different indicators, we could show (just as misleadingly) that social problems appear worse in more egalitarian countries.

Their graphs, too, are deceptive. They fit straight trend lines to plots heavily skewed by single outliers, producing hopelessly distorted results. They claim, for example, that UK murders would fall by 75% if income inequality were at Swedish levels, but our murder rate is actually lower than Sweden's!

Nor do they check whether their correlations hold across all the countries they look at. Scandinavia does better than us on things like women's rights and teenage births, but is this because of its more equal income distribution, or its different culture and history? When we check whether the same differences occur between other countries with varying levels of income inequality, we find in almost every case that the apparent effect of inequality disappears.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...social-science

Quote:
But a larger source of irritation is the authors’ apparent belief that the application of regression methods to economic and social statistics is as novel to social science as it apparently is to medicine. The evidence presented in the book is mostly a series of scatter diagrams, with a regression line drawn through them. No data is provided on the estimated equations, or on relevant statistical tests. If you remove the bold lines from the diagram, the pattern of points mostly looks random, and the data dominated by a few outliers.

The United States, the most unequal of the countries considered, scores poorly on virtually all the social indicators used. Japan, rated one of the most equal, has long life expectancy, a small prison population and low levels of violence. Within Europe the Scandinavian countries are generally distinguished by high levels of both equality and social performance. These observations probably account for most of Wilkinson and Pickett’s findings.

This is not to downplay the significance of the issue. The argument is a powerful counter to any simple equation of social progress and the advance of GDP. But the causal relationships involved are complex. Many factors differentiate the US, Sweden and Japan. The ongoing World Values Study by Ronald Inglehart and associates is probably the most careful attempt – though there are others – to classify the different cultures of advanced societies. These differences feed into both observed inequality and social indicators.

An obvious conclusion is that there are many societies which perform well in terms of their own criteria. America, Sweden and Japan are just different from each other – their achievements are not really commensurable. But Wilkinson and Pickett are not content with this relativist position. The subtitle – “more equal societies almost always do better” – makes a universalist claim. The political right has often argued that inequality makes everyone better off, even if more of the benefit goes to the rich. Wilkinson and Picket want to assert instead that equality makes everyone better off, even if more of the benefit goes to the poor.

The authors provide some arguments and figures to support this proposition. If more equality means less violence, for example, the potential victims of violence benefit even more than the potential exponents of violence. Death rates among working-age men are lower in egalitarian Sweden than in less equal England and Wales. Such death rates are lower not just in the lowest social class but in all social classes, although the difference in mortality in the higher social classes is less marked. Wilkinson and Pickett offer a biological explanation for this observation – greater social equality implies less social stress, not just for the poor, but for all.

But they do not have data to support a more general claim that equality benefits the rich as well as the poor. They would have to show, for example, not just that average levels of educational attainment are higher in more equal societies, but that the educational attainments of the children of rich families are higher in more equal societies. In the paradoxical modern world in which obesity is a problem of the poor rather than the rich, they would have to show that not just the poor but the rich are fatter when resources are distributed more evenly. But they don’t.
https://www.ft.com/content/77b1bd26-...1-0000779fd2ac

Quote:
In response to my claim that the correlation between trust and inequality depends entirely on the Scandinavian countries, Pickett presented a graph which showed the same data (from The Spirit Level) but with the Scandinavian countries excluded. A correlation remained, albeit weaker.

This is true, but the two critical problems with their graph on trust remain: (1) As with all Spirit Level graphs, it excludes several wealthy countries; (2) it relies on data from the 1990s which has been superseded by the 2000s data (which is used in The Spirit Level Delusion). When the most recent data is used there is clearly no correlation between trust and inequality.
https://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot...el-debate.html

Quote:
Wilkinson and Pickett totally misrepresent the literature on inequality and health in The Spirit Level. They build the illusion of consensus around the one criterion that has generated substantial academic study (health) without ever acknowledging that the inequality-health hypothesis remains highly controversial and that Wilkinson's attempts to 'prove' it have attracted much criticism in the peer-reviewed literature spanning two decades.

Having given a distorted and one-sided account of the research into health and inequality, they then lead the reader to believe that there is also a "vast literature" supporting their claims about other criteria. In fact, the amount of published research into these other criteria range from scant (eg. infant mortality, obesity, teen births) to none at all (eg. foreign aid, recycling, innovation).
https://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot...consensus.html
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:11 AM   #108
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Not necessarily. There is an absolute limit to the low end- 0.

Further, determining an acceptable low end does not preclude being more prosperous than that baseline. Negating your assertion that it is based on a "some people have too much money" premise.

One does not give blood because one feels they have "too much blood". At least, I don't.
In that case, you don't need to talk about "fair and equitable distribution". You could make a humanitarian argument. Or a utilitarian argument.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 07:01 AM   #109
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,997
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Observing correlations, what fun.
There are an awful lot of them.

(Seriously, why the snark? You present evidence I haven't seen and I thank you for that, but why the disparagement? Was it really necessary? (and, in case you're wondering, no, it wasn't necessary. I'd be interested in why you added it though))



Quote:

Now, that's an awful lot of reading, I don't know if I have quite that much time.

A quick scan seems to indicate that, at least the ones you've quoted, state more analysis is required. I'd agree with that.

I think it's very unlikely I'm going to read all you have presented. Have you read them? Is there one you'd recommend over the others?
__________________
Up the River!

Last edited by 3point14; 8th March 2018 at 07:11 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 07:40 AM   #110
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In that case, you don't need to talk about "fair and equitable distribution". You could make a humanitarian argument. Or a utilitarian argument.
Wouldn't any argument for a tax scheme include utilitarian and humanitarian themes?
What other types of arguments for tax schemes are there?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:11 AM   #111
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Wouldn't any argument for a tax scheme include utilitarian and humanitarian themes?
What other types of arguments for tax schemes are there?
"Some people have too much money." We just covered this.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:14 AM   #112
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,592
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
There are an awful lot of them.

(Seriously, why the snark? You present evidence I haven't seen and I thank you for that, but why the disparagement? Was it really necessary? (and, in case you're wondering, no, it wasn't necessary. I'd be interested in why you added it though))






Now, that's an awful lot of reading, I don't know if I have quite that much time.

A quick scan seems to indicate that, at least the ones you've quoted, state more analysis is required. I'd agree with that.

I think it's very unlikely I'm going to read all you have presented. Have you read them? Is there one you'd recommend over the others?
I wouldn't bother if I were you at this point. The last two are from "spiritleveldelusion.blogspot" and we're supposed to take all of it seriously?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:15 AM   #113
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,592
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Some people have too much money." We just covered this.
Besides your summary dismissal, why precisely must we say that "some people have too much money" is not a legitimate reason in and of itself?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:16 AM   #114
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,997
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I wouldn't bother if I were you at this point. The last two are from "spiritleveldelusion.blogspot" and we're supposed to take all of it seriously?
I noted that. Most of them seem to be either from proper educational institutions or respected mainstream publications, so I'm minded to take a look even if they undo my preconceived notions.

I just have a problem with the way they were presented, it makes me less want to read them, which is my problem to get over.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:18 AM   #115
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,592
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I noted that. Most of them seem to be either from proper educational institutions or respected mainstream publications, so I'm minded to take a look even if they undo my preconceived notions.

I just have a problem with the way they were presented, it makes me less want to read them, which is my problem to get over.
*shrug* Alright. It strikes me as a number of people who dislike the results of the work who'd find anything to try and discount it. Happens with many different kinds of books even ones with solid research behind them.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:19 AM   #116
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,997
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Besides your summary dismissal, why precisely must we say that "some people have too much money" is not a legitimate reason in and of itself?

I much prefer the 'some people have too little' money argument. It makes more sense.

I really don't object to lavish lifestyles within societies that take care of their least fortunate. The current situation, however, is lavish lifestyles for the very rich and abject poverty for the very poor.

Once everyone has a home, food, clean water and healthcare and access to a decent standard of education, then a five million pound supercar isn't really an issue. If you're driving your five million pound supercar past people living in the streets for lack of social provision, then you're not being taxed enough.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:21 AM   #117
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,997
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
*shrug* Alright. It strikes me as a number of people who dislike the results of the work who'd find anything to try and discount it. Happens with many different kinds of books even ones with solid research behind them.

A quick skim of the first two would lead me to believe, at least initially, that the authors are sincere and honest.

Further reading may reveal that to be bollocks, which is why I wanted the guy who presented the evidence to recommend which to read.


(I find one of the trickiest things about this whole critical thinking thing is being open to stuff that is in opposition to one's beliefs. It's really, really hard. I'm trying to be better at it.)
__________________
Up the River!

Last edited by 3point14; 8th March 2018 at 08:22 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:28 AM   #118
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,140
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Besides your summary dismissal, why precisely must we say that "some people have too much money" is not a legitimate reason in and of itself?
3point14(?) asked a question about getting people to engage in a tax policy discussion. Nothing in my answer to that question says you shouldn't say that some people have too much money, if that's what you believe. Or even if that's the basis for the tax policy you want to discuss. You might not get the kind of bipartisan engagement you're looking for, is all.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:26 AM   #119
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,494
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I wouldn't bother if I were you at this point. The last two are from "spiritleveldelusion.blogspot" and we're supposed to take all of it seriously?
Right, because I quoted a blog post from a critic of the book, decades of peer reviewed research don't matter. Checks out. Not at all confirmation bias looking to dismiss information here.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 8th March 2018 at 10:03 AM.
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:59 AM   #120
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,494
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
There are an awful lot of them.

(Seriously, why the snark? You present evidence I haven't seen and I thank you for that, but why the disparagement? Was it really necessary? (and, in case you're wondering, no, it wasn't necessary. I'd be interested in why you added it though))



Now, that's an awful lot of reading, I don't know if I have quite that much time.

A quick scan seems to indicate that, at least the ones you've quoted, state more analysis is required. I'd agree with that.

I think it's very unlikely I'm going to read all you have presented. Have you read them? Is there one you'd recommend over the others?
It is amusing that you are so offended and lecture me about my "snark" about the methodology in the video you linked, without summary, but go on to write at length about how you haven't read anything I cited, won't read it, accuse me of not reading it (indirectly, I might add, which is worse in my book), and then ask me for a summary! No.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.