Poor America - BBC Panorama Documentary

[NeilC]

Preferable to having people living in poverty...but yeah, capitalism is broken - no doubt. Time for a planned economy. Reset the debt.

I'm not sure it is preferable and I'm not convinced that is the only choice. I didn't say capitalism is "broken". I don't really know what that means. I've always accepted it's not perfect and has downsides. The current state of affairs is one of them. The relatively high standard of living of most people in the West for decades is one of the upsides.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Rising numbers of older people may be a factor. Almost two-thirds of the [UK] welfare budget is paid to people of state pension age. Benefits such as winter fuel payments will cost £2.8bn this year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/02/social-trends

It's the elderly that're the problem

There's always Logan's Run...

 

[luchog]

How much money you have isn't what you're taxed on. All of this talk of "millionaires" is a bunch of crap. We charge based on INCOME. You can be a billionaire and easily not pay tax because you don't have income.

Demonstrably untrue. There are a lot of different taxes that the wealthy pay, that the lower income classes never encounter. The most obvious being the Capital Gains Tax, which taxes investment returns, and is included in the Income tax figures. According to US Treasury's statistics, the top 25% economic bracket pay roughly 85% of the total income tax revenue. The bottom 50% economic bracket only pays 3% of the total income tax revenue. Remember, income tax revenue is not just the commonly understood tax on employment earned income and tips; it's also tax on dividend and interest income, investment liquidation, and other capital gains. Types of revenue that middle-class income brackets and below typically don't have.

 

[luchog]

FThe homeless in the UK appear to be comprised almost solely of runaways, drunks, the mentally ill and others who could be classed as outside of society (rightly or wrongly). And most of these would get some form of shelter if they wanted it. I've never heard of a family in the UK living on the streets due to money or employment issues.

Families are not thrown out on the streets, they can get housing assistance. The people you see living on the streets are primarily drug/alcohol addicts or the mentally ill. Then you have the odd tent city under a bridge somewhere occupied mostly by registered sex offenders who can't live anywhere else.

The problem with referring to an amorphous "homeless" population, is that it doesn't differentiate between the causes of homelessness, nor between the transient and persistent homeless populations.

The transient homeless population are predominantly those who have dropped off the unemployment ladder. There are a number of programs available to assist them; and they are typically homeless for 1-3 years, before working their way back into productive employment.

The persistent homeless population is dominated by one group: the mentally ill. They form an overwhelming majority of the persistent homeless population; and are the most difficult to assist. Programs exist, but are often under-utilized for what should be obvious reasons. Keep in mind that Federal law prohibits forcibly committing people to mental hospitals or treatment programs unless they are a clear and present danger to themselves or others. It's estimated that a sizable majority of drug and alcohols abusers among the homeless are undiagnosed mentally ill who are self-medicating.

The next largest percentage of persistent homeless are those who have chosen to be homeless. Many of them are drug and alcohol abusers, petty criminals, slackers, and others who have no interest in being employed. Not all of the voluntary homeless are of this sort; a large number are minors escaping from abusive homes, who have fallen through the cracks of Federal and State programs, or who have chosen to leave those programs due to a lack of trust in the system (usually due to experiencing abuses of the system).

The majority of the rest are convicted felons, not only registered sex offenders, but those convicted of violent crimes as well, who are unable to find employment.

Only a very small percentage of homeless are able bodied adults who are unable to achieve employment, or the physically disabled who have fallen through the cracks of federal and state programs.

 

[luchog]

No they are self identifed members of a specific ethnic group.

that would be the type of "ethnic" which doesn't necessarily include a genetic component or have anything to do with place of birth or upbringing then. A purely cultural ethnic...isn't really ethnic at all IMO. It's just racism. The word ethnic belongs in the dustbin IMO.

"Gypsies" is a blanket term for a number of different peoples. The majority of those referred to by that name are ethnic groups with origins in the pre-Aryan nomadic peoples of India and Pakistan. The largest and best known of these ethnic groups is the Romani, or Rom; who have populations throughout Europe, North Africa, Southern Asia, and the US. They were termed "gypsies" during the 16th century, due to the mistaken impression they originated in Egypt, which has one of the largest distinct populations of non- and semi-nomadic Rom.

The term is also used to refer to the Travellers,-- known in their own languages as Mincier or Pavee -- a nomadic people residing primarily in Ireland, the UK, and the US; who are also referred to as Tinkers, and in a more derogatory fashion, Pikeys or Gippos. Genetic testing indicates that their origins are in indigenous Irish peoples, displaced by invading Scandanavian raiders and colonists.

 

[joolz]

So This documentary aired on the 12th Feb and I just heard about it and watched it on iPlayer.

I caught up with the documentary at last. I know Panorama have cheated in some of of their documentaries before, but this one seems to quote reputable sources for their statistics, so presumably that side of of is correct? I've seen other documentaries with similar queues for doctors and sick people who can't afford care, even one where a charity sent Brit docs over to help.

Hilary Andersson's reporting credentials are impressive[http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/the_team/newsid_7750000/7750817.stm] and I assume she cares about her topic, but, like Tsukasa Buddha, I'd like to have seen it in more depth, to see people trying to get jobs, to see a week's food, so the officials who were interviewed can't just deny anything is wrong.

I was saddened by the criticism of Obama in it, as the Democrats seem to the the only party to acknowledge there's a problem. From what I've read in the press here, he has been hampered from doing as much as he wanted by the republicans. Is that the case? Couldn't there be a compromise like unemployment money, but for working to help communities/society? That would give people some dignity and something for their cv.

The CNN debate was horrifying. You have to assume the people who shouted are representatives of a viewpoint held by others too, and when they commented that none of the politicians came forward with a different view it said a lot about the state of things there, assuming it's true.

It was odd when they said that a family 'didn't qualify for unemployment pay' when they were shown with kids? Aren't there provisions to at least provide something for children? We have homeless here, but they are generally as Baron described here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8035835#post8035835. There are a lot of families who are in temporary homes paid by welfare, but you don't see families living on the streets.

The doc said that 'America is deeply divided'. I truly hope that both sides can come together and do something positive about this. Even if the problem is not as widespread as was implied it is inhumane for people to be left like that. A man who works for low pay needs $20,000 for an operation or risks dying - and he went home? That is so upsetting.

I think the programme leaves me with more questions than answers .

No, Canada is in North America.

I agree, that's what I learned at school, but the wiki link I posted shows several definitions of the continents, incl one that shows N & S America just as 'America'. That map seems to be used in some parts of N & S America.

You have some odd Canadian friends then. This Canadian finds nothing wrong with the term "Americans" or "America" since, ..

It seems I do, I was just trying to be respectful, and considering I spent several weeks with her over there in your amazing country.... <shrug>. If you reckon most Canadians feel the same way then I'm happy to accept the word of a Canadian and assume my pal was being oversensitive.

 

[joolz]

Demonstrably untrue. There are a lot of different taxes that the wealthy pay, that the lower income classes never encounter. <snip>

If they pay them! An item on Radio 4 re the LibDem's 'mansion' tax recently explained that you can own a mansion that increases in value by a few million and when sell it you pay no capital gains tax if you have non dom status.

There are also hidden benefits that the poor pay for, eg a director of my firm was given £20,000 to pay for accountancy advice to help him with his £1m+ bonus. (a) that is more than some of his full time workers were paid and (b) if I was given £1m I reckon I'd be very happy to pay for my own accountancy advice.

My heart certainly doesn't bleed for the rich, and I'm sure the same thing happens in America as the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

 

[luchog]

If they pay them! An item on Radio 4 re the LibDem's 'mansion' tax recently explained that you can own a mansion that increases in value by a few million and when sell it you pay no capital gains tax if you have non dom status.

The US is just the opposite. If you sell a non-primary-domicile property, you pay more taxes than if you sell your primary domicile. Getting financing for a non-primary-domicile property is also harder, taxes are higher, and foreclosure protections are much lower than for primary domiciles. Sounds like you Brits are doing it wrong.

My heart certainly doesn't bleed for the rich, and I'm sure the same thing happens in America as the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

The rich getting richer means they pay more taxes. Nearly all of the major federal loopholes that people rant about were closed in the late 1980s and 1990s. As noted, the "rich" 25% in the US pay 85% of the total income tax revenue; and the lower 50% only pay 3% of income tax revenue. If that's not the case in the UK, it sounds like your tax system is in far greater need of reform than ours.

The biggest problem in the US isn't lack of taxation on the rich, it's corporate personhood -- giving corporations a weird hybrid status somewhere between "business" and "private citizen", limiting liability and accountability, and providing tax loopholes that neither non-incorporated businesses nor private citizens get. Ending corporate personhood would go an enormous way toward fixing the US economy and creating something more closely resembling a viable free market.

 

[luchog]

There aren't any shanti towns springing up in the UK AFAIK. And when did you stop beating your wife?

There aren't?

 

[crimresearch]

They said 'shanti'...

 

[joolz]

The US is just the opposite. If you sell a non-primary-domicile property, you pay more taxes than if you sell your primary domicile. Getting financing for a non-primary-domicile property is also harder, taxes are higher, and foreclosure protections are much lower than for primary domiciles. Sounds like you Brits are doing it wrong.


The rich getting richer means they pay more taxes. Nearly all of the major federal loopholes that people rant about were closed in the late 1980s and 1990s. As noted, the "rich" 25% in the US pay 85% of the total income tax revenue; and the lower 50% only pay 3% of income tax revenue. If that's not the case in the UK, it sounds like your tax system is in far greater need of reform than ours.

The biggest problem in the US isn't lack of taxation on the rich, it's corporate personhood -- giving corporations a weird hybrid status somewhere between "business" and "private citizen", limiting liability and accountability, and providing tax loopholes that neither non-incorporated businesses nor private citizens get. Ending corporate personhood would go an enormous way toward fixing the US economy and creating something more closely resembling a viable free market.

Sorry, 'across the pond' confusion. 'Non dom' here describes a person, someone who lives abroad and doesn't pay tax here, it's short for 'non domicile'. They can sell property without paying tax on the profits, so they have a way of making money tax free, so the rich get richer.

We generally pay higher mortgage rates for secondary residences, but I don't know about capital gains, someone with two places will need to tell you that.

There has also been talk about excluding non doms from free treatment on the NHS, they are allowed to 'visit' the UK for a certain number of days per annum and can get free treatment, even though they don't pay tax here. I hesitate about that as it's a slippery slope.

We have a lot of companies who keep finding loopholes to avoid paying their share of tax and there have been public protests about it but it sounds like it might be different here with people. Our rich folk can hide their money legally and generally pay less % of their income in tax compared to poorer people. I agree that we have that wrong

 

[NewtonTrino]

Demonstrably untrue. There are a lot of different taxes that the wealthy pay, that the lower income classes never encounter. The most obvious being the Capital Gains Tax, which taxes investment returns, and is included in the Income tax figures. According to US Treasury's statistics, the top 25% economic bracket pay roughly 85% of the total income tax revenue. The bottom 50% economic bracket only pays 3% of the total income tax revenue. Remember, income tax revenue is not just the commonly understood tax on employment earned income and tips; it's also tax on dividend and interest income, investment liquidation, and other capital gains. Types of revenue that middle-class income brackets and below typically don't have.

I'm well aware of how the tax systems works. If you don't have a realized gain you aren't going to be paying capital gains. There is no wealth tax that I'm aware of.

My point is that we are conflating income with wealth. They aren't the same thing and we don't tax them the same.

 

[NewtonTrino]

If they pay them! An item on Radio 4 re the LibDem's 'mansion' tax recently explained that you can own a mansion that increases in value by a few million and when sell it you pay no capital gains tax if you have non dom status.

There are also hidden benefits that the poor pay for, eg a director of my firm was given £20,000 to pay for accountancy advice to help him with his £1m+ bonus. (a) that is more than some of his full time workers were paid and (b) if I was given £1m I reckon I'd be very happy to pay for my own accountancy advice.

My heart certainly doesn't bleed for the rich, and I'm sure the same thing happens in America as the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

The poor are getting poorer relative to the wealthy, but are they poorer compared to their parents? Some would say yes, some would say no. I'm not sure how to make it conclusive either way. I would tend more towards "different".

 

[Darth Rotor]

Haha, very pfunny, yes

It is a bit jingoistic to take the name of your whole continent as an alternative name for your country when you share that continent with others. Think I'll propose that Scotland renames itself 'Europe' after independence

Nothing jingoistic to it, unless you don't know wtf you are talking about.

Suggest you ask a resident of the United States of Mexico (look it up, officially the United Mexican States Estados Unidos Mexicanos what their nationality is. Mexican.

Logically enough, residents of the United States of America would lead to Americans being what we are called: Americans.

This is in contrast to those those downtrodden lackeys of Imperialist European Kings and Queens who shared our continent at time of our formation, to whit all of those boot lickers of royalty in
Canada
Mexico (oh, wait, it was in New Spain)
Colombia
Argentina
etcetera.

As we were the first to shake off the crowned scum of Europe, we named our country what it was, which was quite unique at the time, and so it remains, in terms of being a leader on this side of the pond and elsewhere. (The Mexicans, the Argentines, and others seem to have this horrid habit of slavishly trying to copy what's going on in Europe. How's did that Franco model work out in Central America, I wonder? )

Happily, our example provided some hope to any number of bootlickers, who eventually tossed out their European Crowned overlords, the first nation to follow in our example being Haiti. (Too bad they lost their momentum).
And even more happily, the boot licking masses of Europe who couldn't get on the first ship over here to the United States of America manned up and ushered in a farewell to kings a century or so later. Good for them, which may even include you.

If you don't care for how your ancestors were characterized, you are kindly invited to suck a fart. We began a great experiment in governmental forms which continues, and which also may blow up the lab. This was an experiment which could not be begun in Europe for the simple problem of all of those kings and queens getting in the way, even when revolutions in 1789 and 1848 tried to toss them out on their bums.

Your are welcome for what your societies have had the chance to learn from our grand experiment.

DR

Hmm, was there any jingoism in that, I wonder?

 

[crimresearch]

Hmm, was there any jingoism in that, I wonder?

(Pssst... You forgot the bit about the Queen being a big ole drug dealer...)

 

[Darth Rotor]

(Pssst... You forgot the bit about the Queen being a big ole drug dealer...)

At the time, it was a king who was apparently becoming a nutter ...

 

[joolz]

Nothing jingoistic to it, unless you don't know wtf you are talking about.

Perhaps if you had read the posts you would have understood.

Suggest you ask a resident of the United States of Mexico (look it up, officially the United Mexican States Estados Unidos Mexicanos what their nationality is. Mexican.

I am fully aware of the countries over there and have visited several, you completely missed the point. As someone else pointed out above, people from some countries in the continents of N/S America claim they live in a continent called 'America', as evidenced by posts above and the map I've already referenced twice. I suggest you look it up, search wiki for 'continent'. That is why, I think, my Canadian friend asked me to differentiate between the continent of 'America' and the USA.

A Canadian poster, Corsair 115, kindly pointed out that my friend seems to be in a minority in Canada and he thinks most people there accept the usage of 'America' as being the USA, and I was happy to accept his statement, so I don't know why you are continuing to dredge this up, especially after a mod warning.

Logically enough, residents of the United States of America would lead to Americans being what we are called: Americans.

Logic could have generated several names, but feel free to pick what you want. I was only pointing out that 'Americans' can also mean people in the continent of 'America' as defined by some countries. Not that I call your continent America, but others have posted that some countries call it that.

This is in contrast to those those downtrodden lackeys of Imperialist European Kings and Queens who shared our continent at time of our formation, to whit all of those boot lickers of royalty in...........

Feel free to insult Europe as much as you like. I've obviously hit a nerve there. I applaud your free speech even though you criticise mine.

This was an experiment which could not be begun in Europe for the simple problem of all of those kings and queens getting in the way, even when revolutions in 1789 and 1848 tried to toss them out on their bums.

Your are welcome for what your societies have had the chance to learn from our grand experiment.

Well, this brings us back on topic at last. I look at that documentary and. sadly, doubt there is much we can learn from your 'grand experiment'. I was upset at Travis's recent treatment and the ordinary working man in the documentary who needs an op, but can't afford it and risks gangrene, breaks my heart.

I couldn't care less about the royals, but I'm prepared to have 'those kings and queens getting in the way', as you put it, if it means we have a society that cares about the health of our citizens and doesn't have people cheering to 'let them die' or political parties abusing your rights or fundamentalists claiming that atheists should be raped and murdered.

My country is certainly not perfect, but I look at that documentary and thank goodness I live here. I'm heartened that a lot of people on JREF see the injustice of your health 'care' system as per this documentary, and are taking actions to fight that injustice.

Most Americans, yes Americans, here do your country proud by speaking up for others, and I hope that the 'grand experiment' may yet work out well for you, and that is a genuine wish.

 

[crimresearch]

I couldn't care less about the royals, but I'm prepared to have 'those kings and queens getting in the way', as you put it, if it means we have a society that cares about the health of our citizens and doesn't have people cheering to 'let them die' or political parties abusing your rights or fundamentalists claiming that atheists should be raped and murdered.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Even if we pretend that Europengland doesn't have all those things and more, there is no causal mechanism to Kings and Queens.

Any open society is going to have a similar distribution of mental illness and a similar disparity between haves and have nots.

How they choose to package it is probably of little comfort to those on the bottom.

 

[joolz]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Even if we pretend that Europengland doesn't have all those things and more, there is no causal mechanism to Kings and Queens.

Any open society is going to have a similar distribution of mental illness and a similar disparity between haves and have nots.

How they choose to package it is probably of little comfort to those on the bottom.

Totally agree with you on the highlighted bit. I didn't see the relevance when the poster raised it either, but just replied along the same lines.

Don't agree on the 'similar disparity between haves and have nots' though. Some countries have wider gaps than others:

In some countries the gap is even more pronounced. The income of the bottom 10 percent of earners has actually declined while the income of the top 10 percent has increased. In Israel, Turkey and the United States, the average income of the top 10 percent is 14 to one compared to the bottom 10 percent. In Mexico and Chile, it is an astounding 27-to-one.

From: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...-the-widest-gap-between-the-rich-and-the-poor

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Don't agree on the 'similar disparity between haves and have nots' though. Some countries have wider gaps than others:

Indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality