Don't miss this one----it's priceless.
Revolutionary Politics::Revolutionary Politics : Judge Judy - Here's Who You Support With Taxes
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Your Tax Dollars at Work
I've seen bits of judge judy and have never been sure whether she is a real judge or that it is some peculiar reality programme. Does she get paid anything by the TV company? Never actually watched it for more than a couple of minutes.
A few playing the system does not make some kind of welfare system a bad idea. It would suggest better monitoring is needed perhaps. Can critics of welfare not imagine themselves in a position where they find themselves destitute through no fault of their own you'd have to be an idiot not to be in favour of some kind of safety net. But then I'm speaking as someone with a state funded university education that has been paying taxes for the last thirty years or so after two years on unemployment benefit in thatchers Britain and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used the NHS which I also pay for. I want to hit people that go on about the feckless poor or how the NHS should be privatised to make it more efficient.
A few playing the system does not make some kind of welfare system a bad idea. It would suggest better monitoring is needed perhaps. Can critics of welfare not imagine themselves in a position where they find themselves destitute through no fault of their own you'd have to be an idiot not to be in favour of some kind of safety net. But then I'm speaking as someone with a state funded university education that has been paying taxes for the last thirty years or so after two years on unemployment benefit in thatchers Britain and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used the NHS which I also pay for. I want to hit people that go on about the feckless poor or how the NHS should be privatised to make it more efficient.
Your Tax Dollars at Work
gmc;1373450 wrote: I've seen bits of judge judy and have never been sure whether she is a real judge or that it is some peculiar reality programme. Does she get paid anything by the TV company? Never actually watched it for more than a couple of minutes.
A few playing the system does not make some kind of welfare system a bad idea. It would suggest better monitoring is needed perhaps. Can critics of welfare not imagine themselves in a position where they find themselves destitute through no fault of their own you'd have to be an idiot not to be in favour of some kind of safety net. But then I'm speaking as someone with a state funded university education that has been paying taxes for the last thirty years or so after two years on unemployment benefit in thatchers Britain and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used the NHS which I also pay for. I want to hit people that go on about the feckless poor or how the NHS should be privatised to make it more efficient.
She is a real Judge and practiced in NYC for many years as a Family Court Judge. She makes a ton of money from this TV program which is legal in every sense.
It is not just a few playing the system GMC it's epidemic and though there is nothing wrong with a welfare system the abuses are wide spread and it's costing the U.S. billions. There needs to be better checks and controls. Even our Federal Medicare Program (of which I benefit) is clobbered in the billions by fraud. Hey, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about some real $$$$$ (who said that?).
A few playing the system does not make some kind of welfare system a bad idea. It would suggest better monitoring is needed perhaps. Can critics of welfare not imagine themselves in a position where they find themselves destitute through no fault of their own you'd have to be an idiot not to be in favour of some kind of safety net. But then I'm speaking as someone with a state funded university education that has been paying taxes for the last thirty years or so after two years on unemployment benefit in thatchers Britain and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used the NHS which I also pay for. I want to hit people that go on about the feckless poor or how the NHS should be privatised to make it more efficient.
She is a real Judge and practiced in NYC for many years as a Family Court Judge. She makes a ton of money from this TV program which is legal in every sense.
It is not just a few playing the system GMC it's epidemic and though there is nothing wrong with a welfare system the abuses are wide spread and it's costing the U.S. billions. There needs to be better checks and controls. Even our Federal Medicare Program (of which I benefit) is clobbered in the billions by fraud. Hey, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about some real $$$$$ (who said that?).
Your Tax Dollars at Work
gmc;1373450 wrote: I've seen bits of judge judy and have never been sure whether she is a real judge or that it is some peculiar reality programme. Does she get paid anything by the TV company? Never actually watched it for more than a couple of minutes.
A few playing the system does not make some kind of welfare system a bad idea. It would suggest better monitoring is needed perhaps. Can critics of welfare not imagine themselves in a position where they find themselves destitute through no fault of their own you'd have to be an idiot not to be in favour of some kind of safety net. But then I'm speaking as someone with a state funded university education that has been paying taxes for the last thirty years or so after two years on unemployment benefit in thatchers Britain and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used the NHS which I also pay for. I want to hit people that go on about the feckless poor or how the NHS should be privatised to make it more efficient.
The efficiency of a healthcare system can only be measured by the level of health provided to the patients per "pound" spent.
How can you change the measure of success to the amount of profit paid to the shareholders and expect to make the care provided to the patients better?
As for the basic welfare system, unless you can guarantee that the actions of the government or the corporate's drive for profit will not arbitrarily stop a citizen from supporting a family then some form of welfare system is essential.
And, returning to topic, my father watches Judge Judy so I have to tolerate it when I visit and it is voyeurism at its worst - making a profit out of those too stupid to live their own lives.
A few playing the system does not make some kind of welfare system a bad idea. It would suggest better monitoring is needed perhaps. Can critics of welfare not imagine themselves in a position where they find themselves destitute through no fault of their own you'd have to be an idiot not to be in favour of some kind of safety net. But then I'm speaking as someone with a state funded university education that has been paying taxes for the last thirty years or so after two years on unemployment benefit in thatchers Britain and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used the NHS which I also pay for. I want to hit people that go on about the feckless poor or how the NHS should be privatised to make it more efficient.
The efficiency of a healthcare system can only be measured by the level of health provided to the patients per "pound" spent.
How can you change the measure of success to the amount of profit paid to the shareholders and expect to make the care provided to the patients better?
As for the basic welfare system, unless you can guarantee that the actions of the government or the corporate's drive for profit will not arbitrarily stop a citizen from supporting a family then some form of welfare system is essential.
And, returning to topic, my father watches Judge Judy so I have to tolerate it when I visit and it is voyeurism at its worst - making a profit out of those too stupid to live their own lives.
Your Tax Dollars at Work
I don't want to sound antagonistic, and I'm sure people will think I'm a psycho for saying it, but I'm of the particular position that a welfare system should be in place regardless. What's left is equal the proportion of argument from individuals that pay for that welfare.
From my experience people generally are equally upset about having to pay the welfare system as the percentage they pay in to it compared to their income. When income is considered then it's easy to see just how easily the amount of argument we'd get would be only prevalent in the top 5% of any country as opposed to any number even remotely close to 50%.
Even speaking hypothetically how many people would be upset about "the abuses are wide spread" when in fact they wouldn't actually be losing that money? How many would expect that if the top 5% were the sole contributors to the welfare system that there would actually be anything other than "better monitoring" and "There needs to be better checks and controls"?
From my experience people generally are equally upset about having to pay the welfare system as the percentage they pay in to it compared to their income. When income is considered then it's easy to see just how easily the amount of argument we'd get would be only prevalent in the top 5% of any country as opposed to any number even remotely close to 50%.
Even speaking hypothetically how many people would be upset about "the abuses are wide spread" when in fact they wouldn't actually be losing that money? How many would expect that if the top 5% were the sole contributors to the welfare system that there would actually be anything other than "better monitoring" and "There needs to be better checks and controls"?
Your Tax Dollars at Work
K.Snyder;1373489 wrote: I don't want to sound antagonistic, and I'm sure people will think I'm a psycho for saying it, but I'm of the particular position that a welfare system should be in place regardless. What's left is equal the proportion of argument from individuals that pay for that welfare.
From my experience people generally are equally upset about having to pay the welfare system as the percentage they pay in to it compared to their income. When income is considered then it's easy to see just how easily the amount of argument we'd get would be only prevalent in the top 5% of any country as opposed to any number even remotely close to 50%.
Even speaking hypothetically how many people would be upset about "the abuses are wide spread" when in fact they wouldn't actually be losing that money? How many would expect that if the top 5% were the sole contributors to the welfare system that there would actually be anything other than "better monitoring" and "There needs to be better checks and controls"?
So, simply put. You are suggesting that the top 5% of income earners pay for the welfare system and then it would only be that 5% that bitches. Is that right? :-3
From my experience people generally are equally upset about having to pay the welfare system as the percentage they pay in to it compared to their income. When income is considered then it's easy to see just how easily the amount of argument we'd get would be only prevalent in the top 5% of any country as opposed to any number even remotely close to 50%.
Even speaking hypothetically how many people would be upset about "the abuses are wide spread" when in fact they wouldn't actually be losing that money? How many would expect that if the top 5% were the sole contributors to the welfare system that there would actually be anything other than "better monitoring" and "There needs to be better checks and controls"?
So, simply put. You are suggesting that the top 5% of income earners pay for the welfare system and then it would only be that 5% that bitches. Is that right? :-3
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Lon;1373495 wrote: So, simply put. You are suggesting that the top 5% of income earners pay for the welfare system and then it would only be that 5% that bitches. Is that right? :-3That's half correct, yes.
Correct that the top 5% will bitch regardless because most bitch at far less expense and 100% correct in that the top 5% of income collectively(And not seen as payed by individuals rather the base of where the contribution comes from) would ultimately pay for those in need.
Those in need defined by public(Top 5%) payed education, health, and residency.
The only need for defining "individual" would be the proportions payed by the varying incomes of those top 5%.
The same system rather the distribution coming from the top "earners" which would be much more monitored in the effectiveness of it all due to a much larger amount of money coming from the same percentage of wealth, being from the top 5%...
Correct that the top 5% will bitch regardless because most bitch at far less expense and 100% correct in that the top 5% of income collectively(And not seen as payed by individuals rather the base of where the contribution comes from) would ultimately pay for those in need.
Those in need defined by public(Top 5%) payed education, health, and residency.
The only need for defining "individual" would be the proportions payed by the varying incomes of those top 5%.
The same system rather the distribution coming from the top "earners" which would be much more monitored in the effectiveness of it all due to a much larger amount of money coming from the same percentage of wealth, being from the top 5%...
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Here's an interesting article...
And for all Americans, things are getting worse: as the projections to July 2009 by Wolff (2010) make clear, the last few years have seen a huge loss in housing wealth for most families, making the gap between the rich and the rest of America even greater, and increasing the number of households with no marketable assets from 18.6% to 24.1%.
Do Americans know their country's wealth distribution?
A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth (refer back to Table 1 and Figure 1 in this document for a more detailed breakdown of the numbers).
Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population. It's a number I haven't even mentioned so far, and it's shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be between 8% and 10%, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by guessing about 2% -- seven times too high. Those surveyed did have it about right for what the 20% in the middle have; it's at the top and the bottom that they don't have any idea of what's going on.
Americans from all walks of life were also united in their vision of what the "ideal" wealth distribution would be, which may come as an even bigger surprise than their shared misinformation on the actual wealth distribution. They said that the ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20% owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20% actually own. They also said that the bottom 40% -- that's 120 million Americans -- should have between 25% and 30%, not the mere 8% to 10% they thought this group had, and far above the 0.3% they actually had. In fact, there's no country in the world that has a wealth distribution close to what Americans think is ideal when it comes to fairness. So maybe Americans are much more egalitarian than most of them realize about each other, at least in principle and before the rat race begins.
...
And now we have arrived at the point I want to make. If the top 1% of households have 30-35% of the wealth, that's 30 to 35 times what they would have if wealth were equally distributed, and so we infer that they must be powerful. And then we set out to see if the same set of households scores high on other power indicators (it does). Next we study how that power operates, which is what most articles on this site are about. Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power.Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
And for all Americans, things are getting worse: as the projections to July 2009 by Wolff (2010) make clear, the last few years have seen a huge loss in housing wealth for most families, making the gap between the rich and the rest of America even greater, and increasing the number of households with no marketable assets from 18.6% to 24.1%.
Do Americans know their country's wealth distribution?
A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth (refer back to Table 1 and Figure 1 in this document for a more detailed breakdown of the numbers).
Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population. It's a number I haven't even mentioned so far, and it's shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be between 8% and 10%, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by guessing about 2% -- seven times too high. Those surveyed did have it about right for what the 20% in the middle have; it's at the top and the bottom that they don't have any idea of what's going on.
Americans from all walks of life were also united in their vision of what the "ideal" wealth distribution would be, which may come as an even bigger surprise than their shared misinformation on the actual wealth distribution. They said that the ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20% owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20% actually own. They also said that the bottom 40% -- that's 120 million Americans -- should have between 25% and 30%, not the mere 8% to 10% they thought this group had, and far above the 0.3% they actually had. In fact, there's no country in the world that has a wealth distribution close to what Americans think is ideal when it comes to fairness. So maybe Americans are much more egalitarian than most of them realize about each other, at least in principle and before the rat race begins.
...
And now we have arrived at the point I want to make. If the top 1% of households have 30-35% of the wealth, that's 30 to 35 times what they would have if wealth were equally distributed, and so we infer that they must be powerful. And then we set out to see if the same set of households scores high on other power indicators (it does). Next we study how that power operates, which is what most articles on this site are about. Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power.Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power