posted
The United Nations reported that the rich Arabs have to offer more help to their poor brothers. The Arab countries, who are having enough resources and possibilities don't do enough to help their poor citizens. There are for about 340 million people living in the states of the Arabic Liga, and they have enough land, resources and labour. In spite of that,many countries are poor. 140 Million Arabs are living under the poverty line of $ 2 a day. In the last 20 years it didn't become better at all, in some countries it even became worser! Unemployment rates are the highest on the world. They need 51 million new jobs to create, for the next coming 10 years, and even then they will stay on the current line. The report states that the millenium-goals for 2015 are to high.... http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/regionalreports/arabstates/ahdr2009e.pdfPosts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Up. Sorry, Mother Egypt, but I don't want to waste time with your ridiculous garbage posts, so if you indeed want to discuss on a certain level, feel free to join the topic. There are a lot of very rich Arabs, in fact this minority is ruling the whole area, and they don't do enough to develope the countries. Instead of creating jobs for Fillipino's they should hire their poor borthers and sisters. They should educate them. They should offer them healthcare. The only ones who are getting richer are these richest...it's a breeding ground for wars...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Discussing such issues with you here in an expats sites will not solve the problem !
so now its an expats site? what the hell are you doing here then? Has it changed from a tourist holiday selling site to an expats site overnight or does it become whatever you want it to be on the day?
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry, I think I was wrong in assuming that a serious subject could have been discussed here. In a few weeks I'll have a working-visit in Egypt again, so perhaps these people are open to talk about the subject with someone who doesn't live there, but should like to know how people feel about it. It's just liking to know, I dont have the illusion that I can change what even the UN isn't able to change... But, it seems that it is too much asked, and i am sorry. Please go on with placing garbage because you think there are garbage members here, but you know what? Also that isn't going to change one thing.... Have a good day.
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Arab world has failed in every possible way imaginable. This reminder by the UN is just one of them. Egypt is certainly at the forefront of this colossal failure. A failure that will only compound with the new generation. They shouldn't feel alone because the faggoty Gulf is right behind them, and what was once dubbed as an emerging nation (UAE) has defaulted in paying back 61 billion the past month. The reasons are obvious why Arabs are such failures the most obvious is the fear that is instilled in the minds of people. People are in mental chains whether they believe it or not. I can not believe that I wasted my time in such loser nations, with such loser peoples. I pity the people who are kind. I feel ashamed that that I am part of the modern Arab world, but what am I to do, read history books of the glorious past of an the Arab world that shined with visionaries and intellects?
No! I have wasted enough time trying to find something that is just not there. Seriously I am disappointed and the hell with this part of world. Where they can't even build parks for little kids to play. Where they can't even build libraries for the poor. Where they can't even look at one another as being equal. I am ashamed and I swear to God, I am not coming back but only to Haj!
Damn UN report made me sick to my stomach with this latest report.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there has ever been an economical development made by religion. The industrial revolution was a period where major changes were made in agriculture, industry, mining, transport and that had a positive effect on the social/economic and the cultural conditions of the countries, almost every aspect of life was connected with this development. My grandmother was born in the period that the streets were lightened with gaslamps, and had to dry the laundry on public bleechingfields, and she died while her grandchildren worked with computers, all owned a car and a house, etc. She thought the glass window of the microwave in the kitchen was a television, and the voice of the navigationsystem in my car was from a lady who was on duty to show me the way. (That was funny, indeed) But all that changes in a period of 100 years, were only possible because of industrialisation. It started with the UK, Europe and later the US followed. One question of active interest to historians is why the industrial revolution occurred in Europe and not in other parts of the world in the 18th century, particularly China, India, and the Middle East, they all were in that position in a more early stage of history. Numerous factors have been suggested including education, government, working attitude, ecology and culture. Some historians such as David Landes[26] and Max Weber credit the different belief systems in China and Europe with dictating where the revolution occurred. The religion and beliefs of Europe were largely products of Judaeo-Christianity, and Greek thought. Conversely, Chinese society was founded on men like Confucius, Mencius, Han Feizi (Legalism), Lao Tzu (Taoism), and Buddha (Buddhism). Whereas the Europeans believed that the universe was governed by rational and eternal laws, the East, believed that the universe was in constant flux and, for Buddhists and Taoists, not capable of being rationally understood. Another theory is that the British advance was due to the presence of an entrepreneurial class which believed in progress, technology and hard work. The existence of this class is often linked to the Protestant work ethic and if I take a look at my country, this could be true. Catholic church has tried to stop the power of industries, by forbidding catholics to work for protestant entrepeneurs, interfere in their working hours, etc. Industrialisation means modernisation and that doesn't go along with religions. Religions basically are connected to traditional values. As long as religion also is a part of the economics of a country, we cannot expect development on a largere scale. The richest people on this world are Arabic. They are far more richer as the rich in the western enviroments and the poor are far more poorer. The gap between these two extremes is wider as what we know in Europe or, perhaps, also in the US. We are used to pay taxes by income, the more income, the more taxes. While this basically is a religious duty in f.e. the arabic countries, there is much more social equality in the countries where religion is not a part of the goverment, and that's strange. As long as the Saudi elite is able to invest in almost every country on the world, and spreading their influence by that, their own people are suffering under poverty. And that should have been forbidden... Foreign investments? First take care of your own people! Their human rights, their education, their health,etc.
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Questionmarks: I don't think there has ever been an economical development made by religion. The industrial revolution was a period where major changes were made in agriculture, industry, mining, transport and that had a positive effect on the social/economic and the cultural conditions of the countries, almost every aspect of life was connected with this development. My grandmother was born in the period that the streets were lightened with gaslamps, and had to dry the laundry on public bleechingfields, and she died while her grandchildren worked with computers, all owned a car and a house, etc. She thought the glass window of the microwave in the kitchen was a television, and the voice of the navigationsystem in my car was from a lady who was on duty to show me the way. (That was funny, indeed) But all that changes in a period of 100 years, were only possible because of industrialisation. It started with the UK, Europe and later the US followed. One question of active interest to historians is why the industrial revolution occurred in Europe and not in other parts of the world in the 18th century, particularly China, India, and the Middle East, they all were in that position in a more early stage of history. Numerous factors have been suggested including education, government, working attitude, ecology and culture. Some historians such as David Landes[26] and Max Weber credit the different belief systems in China and Europe with dictating where the revolution occurred. The religion and beliefs of Europe were largely products of Judaeo-Christianity, and Greek thought. Conversely, Chinese society was founded on men like Confucius, Mencius, Han Feizi (Legalism), Lao Tzu (Taoism), and Buddha (Buddhism). Whereas the Europeans believed that the universe was governed by rational and eternal laws, the East, believed that the universe was in constant flux and, for Buddhists and Taoists, not capable of being rationally understood. Another theory is that the British advance was due to the presence of an entrepreneurial class which believed in progress, technology and hard work. The existence of this class is often linked to the Protestant work ethic and if I take a look at my country, this could be true. Catholic church has tried to stop the power of industries, by forbidding catholics to work for protestant entrepeneurs, interfere in their working hours, etc. Industrialisation means modernisation and that doesn't go along with religions. Religions basically are connected to traditional values. As long as religion also is a part of the economics of a country, we cannot expect development on a largere scale. The richest people on this world are Arabic. They are far more richer as the rich in the western enviroments and the poor are far more poorer. The gap between these two extremes is wider as what we know in Europe or, perhaps, also in the US. We are used to pay taxes by income, the more income, the more taxes. While this basically is a religious duty in f.e. the arabic countries, there is much more social equality in the countries where religion is not a part of the goverment, and that's strange. As long as the Saudi elite is able to invest in almost every country on the world, and spreading their influence by that, their own people are suffering under poverty. And that should have been forbidden... Foreign investments? First take care of your own people! Their human rights, their education, their health,etc.
The historians were right to state that the industrial revolution did not take place in China, India, etc in the 18th because of “education and government”. This is not too difficult to realize.
"As long as religion also is a part of the economics of a country, we cannot expect development on a largere scale."
This is not true at all and I will point to India, Malaysia, Thailand all of which are very religious nations yet are making progress in development.
Malaysia will offer it's credentials in 2020 (wawasan 2020) to become a credited and recognized developed nation. As you know Malaysia is 60% Muslims with the ruling elite all Muslims, including the Sultans and Prime Minister.
Everyone and every continent is making progress expect for the Arabs and the Africans. It is as simple as that. Most Africans are not religious but most of them are uneducated. That in addition to ruthless regimes is the reason why development is retarded in Africa and the Arab world. Don't blame religion because as I mentioned earlier the Malay Muslims in Malaysia are building everything from micro computers to tall skyscrapers to their own line of cars. And they even great ecotourism industry which further proves they have a head on their shoulders. The Arabs with all the sun can not even harness solar engery.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: The reasons are obvious why Arabs are such failures the most obvious is the fear that is instilled in the minds of people. People are in mental chains whether they believe it or not.
Everyone and every continent is making progress expect for the Arabs and the Africans. It is as simple as that. Most Africans are not religious but most of them are uneducated. That in addition to ruthless regimes is the reason why development is retarded in Africa and the Arab world.
I pretty much agree with this. I also believe that, in addition to the lack of education and culture it is the tendency to look backwards to the "glorious past". Many Arab / Muslim nations are trying to recreate this past, but not by being creative, open and finding new solutions, but by clinging to traditions and trying to return to how things were a long time ago. Of course this is not possible and it keeps people and nations from progressing.
Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know very much about Malaysia, but I do know that it is sort of branch from the big manufactors in Japan. The big industrials from Japan started to produce in Malaysia because it was cheaper and relatively near, so controlable.
Quote: Since 1970, and the institution of the New Economic Policy (NEP) following deadly riots in 1969 against economically dominant ethnic Chinese, the government's commitment to the free market has been hedged by its bumiputurna (literally, "sons of the soil") policies aimed at providing "constructive protection" for Islamic Malays against economic competition from other ethnic groups and foreign investors, particularly in the domestic market. In the Asian financial crisis of 1997, most of the major companies that the government had privatized and reserved for bumiputurna leadership, including Proton, the national car company, Malaysian Airlines, the Renong engineering group, and the Malaysian Resources media group, had to be renationalized to prevent their collapse. A vigorous recovery program mounted by the government that was showing positive results in 1999 and 2000 ran abruptly into the wall of the 2001 global slowdown. Worldwide, foreign direct investment dropped almost 50%, and in Malaysia the decline was an even more precipitous 85%. Gross domestic product growth dropped to 0.7% for 2001, from its usual 7% to 9%. Business in Malaysia remains dominated by non-Malays. Annual growth rates, which had been running 7% to 9%, came abruptly up against a wall in 2001. The government remains generally committed to a policy of free enterprise, although it owns and operates the railway and the majority of the communications systems and has become increasingly involved in certain key industries.
Malaysia economy is growing, but this is relatively new. it seems that the bad expierences with ethnic groups controlling a market was the reason to make that big turn around.
Take a look at this:
Year GDP (in millions) Exchange (1 USD to MYR) Inflation Index (2000=100) Per Capita Income (as % of USA) 1980 54,285 2.17 51 14.78 1985 78,890 2.48 64 11.44 1990 119,082 2.70 70 10.47 1995 222,473 2.50 85 15.69 2000 343,216 3.80 100 11.47 2005 494,544 3.78 109 12.67
I think they are not making progress because they focous on the wrong issue's. It isn't Africa and the Arabic countries, also the Islamic part of Asia doesn't make progress because they are in a constant war. (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, f.e.)
Religion keeps this fire burning,instead of focous on peace and development. This part of the world only has become worser since the last 30 years, and I think religion is the cause....
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find strange is that Egypt is always blamed for the Palestinian crisis when we are poor and have 60% of our population under the poverty line. On the other hand, the Gulf Arabs are filthy rich and have access to all this oil and do nothing. It's not very fair.
Posts: 4446 | From: Egyptian in Sydney | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Questionmarks: I don't know very much about Malaysia, but I do know that it is sort of branch from the big manufactors in Japan. The big industrials from Japan started to produce in Malaysia because it was cheaper and relatively near, so controlable.
Quote: Since 1970, and the institution of the New Economic Policy (NEP) following deadly riots in 1969 against economically dominant ethnic Chinese, the government's commitment to the free market has been hedged by its bumiputurna (literally, "sons of the soil") policies aimed at providing "constructive protection" for Islamic Malays against economic competition from other ethnic groups and foreign investors, particularly in the domestic market. In the Asian financial crisis of 1997, most of the major companies that the government had privatized and reserved for bumiputurna leadership, including Proton, the national car company, Malaysian Airlines, the Renong engineering group, and the Malaysian Resources media group, had to be renationalized to prevent their collapse. A vigorous recovery program mounted by the government that was showing positive results in 1999 and 2000 ran abruptly into the wall of the 2001 global slowdown. Worldwide, foreign direct investment dropped almost 50%, and in Malaysia the decline was an even more precipitous 85%. Gross domestic product growth dropped to 0.7% for 2001, from its usual 7% to 9%. Business in Malaysia remains dominated by non-Malays. Annual growth rates, which had been running 7% to 9%, came abruptly up against a wall in 2001. The government remains generally committed to a policy of free enterprise, although it owns and operates the railway and the majority of the communications systems and has become increasingly involved in certain key industries.
Malaysia economy is growing, but this is relatively new. it seems that the bad expierences with ethnic groups controlling a market was the reason to make that big turn around.
Take a look at this:
Year GDP (in millions) Exchange (1 USD to MYR) Inflation Index (2000=100) Per Capita Income (as % of USA) 1980 54,285 2.17 51 14.78 1985 78,890 2.48 64 11.44 1990 119,082 2.70 70 10.47 1995 222,473 2.50 85 15.69 2000 343,216 3.80 100 11.47 2005 494,544 3.78 109 12.67
I think they are not making progress because they focous on the wrong issue's. It isn't Africa and the Arabic countries, also the Islamic part of Asia doesn't make progress because they are in a constant war. (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, f.e.)
Religion keeps this fire burning,instead of focous on peace and development. This part of the world only has become worser since the last 30 years, and I think religion is the cause....
It appears that you are attributing religion as the sole reason for the development woes in the countries in question. This biased contention is simply illogical and dismisses variables that trump religion as causes for economic development retardation. Pay more attention to the historians you quoted and try to look at it from an objective point of view. Egypt as a nation is a failure not because of religion but rather for the perpetually failed policies by their brutal secular regime.
With regards to Malaysia, I agree that you do not know much about it and relying on outdated economic indicators on wikipedia is hopefully just a bad start if you are genuinely interested/objective. Malaysia is currently an upper middle income economy with a vision to be a developed nation by 2020. Do your research and you will learn that such a feat and challenge has progress written all over it. Something that you have dismissed because you are basing your knowledge on a Wikipedia piece that took into account Malaysia's exchange rate to the dollar (1.17 in 1980 & 3.78 in 2005) BTW it is 3.40 today.
Let us look at real growth indicators, simply put how much money people had in 1980 and in 2008.
The GDP in Malaysia in 1980 was less than 25 Billion in 2009 it was over 200 Billion.
Converted to GDP (PPP) it translates to $2350 in 1980 and $15,200 in 2008. Do you understand what that means? It means a Malaysian in 1980 had the purchasing power of a scooter in 1980 and a brand new Honda Civic in 2008. That is progress.
An intelligent discourse is about accepting facts that arise wether we like them or not. But if you're insistant that religion is the mother of all economic woes while discounting more legitimate reasons then I think your bias wasted my time.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mother of all economic issue's would be overreacting, but let's keep it simple: A religion has religious exploinations for things that are scientifical to declare. They are using religious rules that are limiting people in their development. The more orthodox the religion, the more poverty for the people. Education and development are contributions to the people, so that they are free to develop untill the max. Even a sportsman is limited to develop when religion is on a higher rank as his sport. When every doctor should take illnesses and disabilities as the wish of God, they wouldn't have to research. When a footballplayer isn't able to play a match at sundays because it is a religious day, then he will never reach the top. This is only a very simple example. If I send my children to a catholic school, they will teach them what they know out of the catholic viewpoint. I wouldn't even know about other religions. The crusades would be one line in the historybooks. Protestantism also. All what has been teached should have been in between a frame of catholicism. Reproduction wouldn't be in the books, because it is something that isn'tt allowed to discuss. There are so many simple examples, but in fact they all limit a person te develope. During that industrial revolution the European religions have tried to avoid this development out of the name of the religion. Even the religion of the entrepeneur could be a reason that people weren't allowed to work there, even when they had no job and were living in poverty. They were dependant on what the church gave them. It isn't that long ago, I even expierenced it myself, that the choice of the high school was subject in the classes of the religious elementary schools. If you chould choose a school without a religion ( as I did) the catholic school refused to assist any longer, because we were supposed to go to catholic high schools. Isn't that limiting people in their development?
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But see it is not just religion that makes people do these things. For example, I read that one of the reasons that the Algerians hate the Egyptians so much is because we wiped the part they played in the 1973 war from our history books. Until I read this in the news, I didn't know that the Algerians were involved in a big way lol. So people will always find a way to control others, it doesn't have to be religion.
Anyhow, my husband went to a Catholic school and he's very well educated, even more them me and my school was secular Posts: 4446 | From: Egyptian in Sydney | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by metinoot: The Dutch need to pay repriation to the African Americans for selling them into slavery.
And americans need to pay the salery they owe to all the slaves that worked for free in the US to built your country and for all the people that died in the cottonfields and lousy houses. And to all the mixed race babies that came out of the landlords raping the young slave women. Actually when americans have payed all their debt to the rest of the world there will be no US left...... Posts: 1325 | From: For tooti http://www.csa.gov.uk/ | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by * 7ayat *: But see it is not just religion that makes people do these things. For example, I read that one of the reasons that the Algerians hate the Egyptians so much is because we wiped the part they played in the 1973 war from our history books. Until I read this in the news, I didn't know that the Algerians were involved in a big way lol. So people will always find a way to control others, it doesn't have to be religion.
Anyhow, my husband went to a Catholic school and he's very well educated, even more them me and my school was secular
@7ayat. We don't know catholic schools anymore. They are all interconvential, and they describe all religions on a basic level. Above that, the government is controlling what they teach, so it isn't possible that the children don't learn about protestatism because that would be 'wrong' in the eyes of the catholic church. I guess your husband visited school in another period of time as I did, 7ayat. It was just an example to explain how religion can limit education. @ Meantoot. I don't think I have to reply on this seriously, isn't it? First it isn't the subject, second I doubt you know what the role from the Dutch Trading companies in the slave trade ( which many countries have been part of, even the Africans themselves) have been. Third I don't feel accused by something what the Dutch did in history. Even if my forefathers were living in the Netherlands during that time of history, which they didn't, I don't have anything to do with that. "Better the world and start with yourself" is a Dutch expression. This includes ridiculous accusations to a stranger for something where she didn't was part of.
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by metinoot: The Dutch need to pay repriation to the African Americans for selling them into slavery.
And americans need to pay the salery they owe to all the slaves that worked for free in the US to built your country and for all the people that died in the cottonfields and lousy houses. And to all the mixed race babies that came out of the landlords raping the young slave women. Actually when americans have payed all their debt to the rest of the world there will be no US left......
And where exactly did you learn "American history"?
When do the Danes pay repriations to the Norge and the Swedes?
Posts: 2280 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by VanillaBullshit: Since when have rich people from anywhere helped the poor, other than to embed them deeper in poverty?
Exactly.
In a way they do, however: they are forced to do so, by paying taxes. Free education, free healthcare, the right to have a roof above the head, social allowances, all are payed by paying taxes. So, in a way the rich are paying for the poor.
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by metinoot: The Dutch need to pay repriation to the African Americans for selling them into slavery.
And americans need to pay the salery they owe to all the slaves that worked for free in the US to built your country and for all the people that died in the cottonfields and lousy houses. And to all the mixed race babies that came out of the landlords raping the young slave women. Actually when americans have payed all their debt to the rest of the world there will be no US left......
And where exactly did you learn "American history"?
When do the Danes pay repriations to the Norge and the Swedes?
Everybody knows how the US treated the slaves. Everybody. - there has even been made a billion movies about it. What do we need to pay for in Norway and Sweden???? Posts: 1325 | From: For tooti http://www.csa.gov.uk/ | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even the Africans themselves sold slaves to the slave-traders. They were living in tribes, and as what was 'normal' in case of one tribe fighting against the other, slaves were part of what they took. Slaves represented a certain value. So, as the Romains, the Greec, the Vikings, the Arabs, the Egyptians etc. all did, also the Africans did. They sold the slaves to the trading companies,the Netherlands and many others shipped them, and they were sold to plantation owners in America, but there have been slaves working on plantations all over the world and during all times. The Germans took people from occupied countries by forcing them to work for them, so isn't that slavery? All the illegals who are being captured by their fellow citizens and are forced to work in order to pay back their transposrtation and the process of becoming legal, isn't that slavery? The women and children in the sex-industry, isn't that slavery? So, even right now there is a form of modern slavery, and it is ridiculous to select one certain nationality who were part of the slave-trading during one part of history and accuse them. And it is even more ridiculous to accuse somebody who never has been part of it, because of their nationality. It is proving a lot...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by VanillaBullshit: Since when have rich people from anywhere helped the poor, other than to embed them deeper in poverty?
Exactly.
In a way they do, however: they are forced to do so, by paying taxes. Free education, free healthcare, the right to have a roof above the head, social allowances, all are payed by paying taxes. So, in a way the rich are paying for the poor.
That's completely false and not in any way based on reality. The rich combined, do not pay any where near as much taxes as the average income population. That applied to any country on the planet.
Posts: 1044 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by VanillaBullshit: Since when have rich people from anywhere helped the poor, other than to embed them deeper in poverty?
Exactly.
In a way they do, however: they are forced to do so, by paying taxes. Free education, free healthcare, the right to have a roof above the head, social allowances, all are payed by paying taxes. So, in a way the rich are paying for the poor.
That's completely false and not in any way based on reality. The rich combined, do not pay any where near as much taxes as the average income population. That applied to any country on the planet.
Then I suggest you check the tax-systems of the North European countries...
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by VanillaBullshit: Since when have rich people from anywhere helped the poor, other than to embed them deeper in poverty?
Exactly.
In a way they do, however: they are forced to do so, by paying taxes. Free education, free healthcare, the right to have a roof above the head, social allowances, all are payed by paying taxes. So, in a way the rich are paying for the poor.
That's completely false and not in any way based on reality. The rich combined, do not pay any where near as much taxes as the average income population. That applied to any country on the planet.
Then I suggest you check the tax-systems of the North European countries...
I thought this forum was about Egypt and wasn't this thread to bitch and moan about Arabs?
Posts: 2280 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by VanillaBullshit: Since when have rich people from anywhere helped the poor, other than to embed them deeper in poverty?
Exactly.
In a way they do, however: they are forced to do so, by paying taxes. Free education, free healthcare, the right to have a roof above the head, social allowances, all are payed by paying taxes. So, in a way the rich are paying for the poor.
That's completely false and not in any way based on reality. The rich combined, do not pay any where near as much taxes as the average income population. That applied to any country on the planet.
Then I suggest you check the tax-systems of the North European countries...
I suggest you study mathematics and logic. The rich may individually pay more tax but their numbers are few compared to middle income population. If any government relied on tax from rich people they would not have enough money to build one hospital.
Posts: 1044 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
He is a clown, a joke, totally incompetent. Maybe he was high? How embarrassing for a member of the Parliament tell a visiting Prime Minister if he needs someone to help him finish read the speech. That was so bizarre, I've seen him in televised press conferences where he was reading and he did fine.
I wouldn't put it past the Syrians to have put something(laughing serum) in his water prior to his speech.
Very inappropriate conduct for a PM, especially when visiting a hostile country.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Data] shows that from 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1% of income earners grew by nearly half, from 25.8% to 36.9%. Over that same time, (…) the burden of the bottom 50% of earners was almost halved from 6.5% to 3.3%. The top (1%) payes 12 times as much as the lowest 50%. But obviously still the idea lives that rich must not only pay a lot of more tax in absolute terms than the less rich, but that they also must pay disproportionate much more tax.
Ans that's something what the socialist workers in a prosperity state as f.e. the Netherlands finds natural! Leave it all up to the leftwing...
A taxsystem contains much more as ony the tax on income, and that's what the mathmetics and logics out of your example are ignoring. I suggest to take a look at the financial household of a prosperity state, with all that guarantees and rights. However each country ahs its own taxlaws, so I ám not informed about the taxsystem in every European country, I expect f.e. Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands are kind of equal. And of course, it also depends on the total amount of the ones who are in the highest scale, the middle scale, and the lowest scales. The biggest contributors to the taxsystem here are the middle and small companies. They have to pay taxes on income, on salaries, on the company, the VAT, on export, on the using of roads, on the using of cars, on buying cars, etc.etc. all different taxes. So, such an entrepeneur is one of the people who is keeping economy rolling.
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Questionmarklady, if I'm sitting on a total of say $15 million in assets combined and I fall into the highest tax bracket, I'm not gonna starve.
Your point is moot.
The rich will always get richer and poor will be always be totally clusterfucked.
posted
I guess you're talking about Egypt, VB? I have no idea how the tax-system in Egypt is working, and how much tax there has to be paid. I also am not sure that understood my point. The taxsystem in the West-European countries is based on a certain amount of loyalty; the heaviest contributions for the highest incomes. The REAL high incomes are avoiding this system, by f.e. a citizenship in one of the tax-paradises, which are only open for people with the very high incomes. ( sportsmen, celebrities, topmanagers from multinationals, even the members of the royalty (!), etc.) Of course this is a minority. Most people don't earn that much, and the gap between the higher and the lower incomes is not as big as it is in Egypt. Mainpoint in this kind of economies is that they take as much as possible from the ones who can afford this. The middle and small business doesn't have the opportunity to escape to a tax-paradise because they still have to work for their income, but in common they earn above average and that top is cutted by the taxes. It depends a bit on how your company is registrated, but let's say between 50 and 75%. They devide an income in layers. The lowest layer is hardly charged, the 2nd layer a bit, the 3rd a bit more etc.
So, if you earn 25.000, then you have to pay 2,50% from 18.000 and 22% from 7.000
Average income is 32.500. They pay : 18.000 x 2,5%, 11 % x 14.000 and 43% x 500 = 462,50 + 154 + 215 = 831,50 That's only incometax, one of the many taxes there are!
So, all what the lowest incomes ( and these are mainly social allowances and students) are costing ( that allowance, healthcare, education etc) is payed by the taxes payed out of that taxpaying group.
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so that we're clear. What do you mean be rich, cause the incomes you listed above are not rich. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Posts: 1044 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, as poverty is relative, also wealth is. For someone earning 0-18.000 the highest scale is rich. I didn't even think about the extra-ordinary ones who are living in Monaco, because they want to escape their homeland taxsystem. In that aspect, you're right. It's such a minority, and in fact, they are no part of the population. Some time ago there was some media-attention to the fact that one of our princesses sended her money to such a Cayman-Island postbox adress, in order to pay no taxes, while her income is payed by taxpayers. I don't know how many of such people there are, but it must be less then a few percent max. So, yes, you're right.
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic