Grow Up, Will You & Be Accountable !
Many of our problems in the United States isn't the government's fault at all. It is the fault of the person or people involved. The government shouldn't rescue people nor solve their problems. The crux of the problem is the irresponsibility of the person & people involved. It is the individual's fault that h/she is in the predicament that h/she is in. The government isn't here to solve people's problems & to make their lives easier. That is up to the individual. Agee or disagree?Individuals must learn what you say here from their parents early in life. Parents must teach that consequences result from good or bad decisions.
Good and bad decisions are based on complying with the real world and common-sense as far as what works in life and what doesn't.
I would say we are still trying to figure that out.
Life is not easy. Even if there was a rule book, would we want to follow it?
The school of hard knocks ends up being our greatest teacher.
When the government steps in and starts mandating, restricting, charging or the opposite: handing out, bailing out, excusing and taking away consequences people learn the wrong things and are negatively affected as far as being of good will, strong in character, healthy and happy.I believe the answer can be yes and no. A person is responsible for his economic and social needs, and that of his household, not the government. But in times of economic disaster, like a flood and fire, the goverment has to come, with cloths, medicine, food, and sometimes shelter for the displaced and homeless people. I personally believe that a man should boldly take the bull that approach him directly. But if a person thinks otherwise to survive only on government economic drop outs, let them think twice.
Thank you, Miekabagh, for your sensible answer. But it is the Republicans who forget that it was Democrat President Bill Clinton, not their party, who did away with lifetime welfare mothers.
MizBejabbes, you're welcome. I've took note of Bill Clinton's mis-tempering with the social package. I hope this time on around, both the Republcans and the Democrates will agree on a common front the package Clinton, tnk away. Americans are suffering.
You are misinformed or you approve of freeloaders. President Clinton signed a bipartisan act that got rid of professional freeloaders, not people who couldn’t work. People who are unwilling to work in our society deserve to hurt. I don’t know what you mean by “mis-tempering” but it does not describe his actions. Bipartisan means that both the Republicans and the Democrats approved the bill to pass it.
Firstly, where on earth did you find that picture? It's incredible.
On to your erm, argument? I'm not sure I completely understand what you are trying to get at here. What problems are you reffering to specifically? Homelessness? Economic inequality? The prison system?
In any case, "Tough love" and turning a blind eye is rarely a viable solution to solving any socioeconomic issue in the long run.
It's in the government and everyone's interest that each individual in a society is given the oppertunity to achieve their fullest potential. And sometimes, that means providing a helping hand.Yes, but the individual who gets the helping hand from the people needs to pay them back when things are better.
That's where a good tax system comes into play, I suppose. Although, should we not also help people because that's the right thing to do as well?
I'm more than happy to pay a little extra tax if it means fewer people trapped in poverty, for instance. And while they're might not be any tangible benefits for me in the short term, in the long run, the knock-on effects benefit everyone (for instance, less poverty typically means less crime. Likewise, better education=more informed voters)
I'm simplifying the matter here, of course, but typically speaking, the happiest countries in the world are those that invest in their citizens. Nothing improves by lumping people into debt every time they need help.That is much the way I see things as well, Mike.
The government isn't responsible for people's upkeep. That should be the sole responsibility of the people. The problem starts with the people themselves. Who told them to make irresponsible life choices. Poverty/ being poor is the result of making unintelligent life choices, no more no less. Successful people shouldn't carry those who refuse to plan their lives, living willy nilly.
Most people don't get the chance to "plan their lives". They're served the hand they're dealt.
I'm lucky to have grown up with a decent family, had a good education, and done okay for myself. But say I had grown up with an abusive father or in a bad neighbourhood? What if my only life choices were between joining a gang or becoming a victim? I'd have to be a fool to think that "personal responsibility" and "good decision-making" would make my problems go away at that point.
Likewise, if my parents owned an emerald mine like Elon Musk's, I'd daresay I'd be sipping a Mai Tai on some tropical island right now.
But surely you don't really need all of this spelt out for you, though, right?C'mon now, man, get real. People are in the situation they are in because they WANT to be. People don't think, they act instinctively. Smart people PLAN & STRATEGIZE their lives while others believe in being passive in life, accepting like lemmings what comes their way. Most people unfortunately refuse to use their brains to live a better life, they would rather complain than take ownership of their lives. Reasonably intelligent people CAN make their lives BETTER but they refuse to take responsibility for their lives.
Thank you for agreeing. I have surmise this issue since I was a teen. Why do people want the government to take care of them? Isn't their responsibility to take care of themselves? I vehemently think so.
Would you agree with getting rid of social security, medicare, Medicaid & public-funded education at all levels? Of course rid us from any regulations on corporations, food safety, transportation safety. Where do you draw the line?
My father was one who taught independence and taking care of yourself and your family. He wouldn't allow me to take out a student loan to finish college. I finally graduated college at the age of 49 by finishing a degree I started at the age of 18. After raising my children in near poverty from my low paying jobs (as a single mother with a deadbeat ex), I finally raised myself to upper middle class. But I could proudly tell daddy that I got two degrees without owing a dime when I graduated. By that time he was dead and it didn't matter. Sometimes it takes a little boost to help people who are trying to help themselves.
But, look at all the time you lost because someone in your life who could have easily given you a boost did not.
Geez, even my Dad let me take out a student loan, after all, I was the one who had to pay it back.And family is the one to do it. If your family can't, you do it yourself.
In your case (and cases like yours, such as mine,) You are the one that started a family.
It wasn't your dads fault that you left college.You're right. It was my mother who told me to leave college, get a job and move out.
I kept going to college even though my mother did the same. I graduated right before I dropped the nickel. I was on track to get teaching credentials.
I would have, but for that darn nickel. Many women just keep forging ahead. I focused on my fate and did well. As I surmise you did too.That is great, Kathryn, but you are younger than I am. My point in saying that is before the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s, it was legal to pay college students in my state 1/2 of minimum wage. Minimum wage at that time was $1 an hour. So there was no way a woman could support herself on 50 cents an hour and go to college without outside help. I know that sounds horrendous to people born 20 or 30 years later, but that's the way it was then. Even living at home and working a part time job AND with a scholarship, I still had to have my parents' help. Could you see yourself buying a car, renting an apartment and paying 50% of your tuition on half of today's minimum wage? In case you are wondering what the women's movement had to do with getting minimum wage for male students, one thing it focused on was just how unfair the practice was for all young people back then. Looking back, I do see things that I might have done differently, but hindsight is always 20-20.
Wow, I never knew that about students and minimum wage! I always got at least minimum, even working for the college (a computer programmer at minimum wage!). But that was in the late 60's/ early 70's and in Oregon.
One semester I worked at a Dairy Queen for 50 cents an hour. The next semester I worked in the college admissions office for 50 cents an hour.
Miz, this is all America. But I'm good off to note it. Something like it in my country is holiday job, when schools were closed for the holidays, and secondary, college or university students were given temporary jobs for a fix income. The scheme is no longer operative for over 50 years.
Did college students hold regular jobs in your country to help pay their expenses? Or was it just holiday jobs.
Just holiday jobs. It didn't paid expense for the education. Regular job holders, that goes to school part time couldn't qualify for it. These set of working-students, on self sponsor will finance their education to the end.
To your two questions, I likewise say no. And, I'm in complete agreement with all your answers. Thanks.
Are you sure that was not some state law? I worked a minimum wage job in college at that time (US) and never heard of it for women or men.
Did you work in the 1960s or earlier? I didn't think you were that old. It is very possible that it was a state law in Arkansas (or any right to work state). This state has always been a "right to work state," which actually means the employer has the right to hire and fire at will. I think federal minimum wage laws later put a stop to that, but I'm not sure when. After I entered the workforce, I did run into similar problems with lower salaries for women in the State of New Mexico when I lived there in the early 1970s.
But being a right to work state has nothing to do with the minimum wage. There is also the question of violating the federal minimum wage, which is illegal everywhere in the country all the time.
Is it possible that, as a child, the state had a higher minimum wage (higher than the federal minimum), but allowed young people to work for less than the state minimum as long as it was at or above the federal?No, the 1970s. You are correct in that may have been before my time. I was just commenting that I had never heard of that law, and was wondering if it was something from the state.
Was Arkansas a right to work state back then?
“Why do people want the government to take care of them?”
Why not? Government assistance when needed does ease unnecessary suffering; and helps people in their hour of need, and helps those who are able to work to get back into ‘full time employment’ – It makes for a caring society.
Government benefits in the UK, is generous compared to the USA, and extends beyond just the low paid and unemployed. Excluding the NHS (National Health Service) universal healthcare which everyone (rich and poor) in the UK get ‘free’ at the point of use, 30% of those getting some kind of government benefit e.g. child benefit, disability benefits etc. are in full time employment, and 43% of those getting some kind of government benefit are pensioners; so only 27% of those receiving government benefit are of working age, and unemployed or on a low income (the other 73% are either in full time employment or pensioners).
Britain, although more generous than the USA in its government benefits, is by no means the most generous country; France, Finland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan are all countries who spend more of their GDP on government benefit than the UK.
The welfare state is a big part of British family life, with 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families in the UK), of which about 8.7 million are pensioners e.g. of the 12.4 million pensions, 8.7 million receive some form of government benefit.
The Difference Benefits in the UK (not all are means tested), and the number of people claiming those benefits (2020):-
• State Pension = 12.36 million pensioners
• Child Benefit = 7.21 million families
• Universal Credit = 5.57 million individuals
• Housing Benefit = 3.05 million
• Personal Independent Payment = 2.57 million
• Employment and Support Allowance = 1.88 million
• Attendance Allowance = 1.53 million
• Pension Credit = 1.49 million
• Disability Living Allowance = 1.37 million
• Carer’s Allowance = 1.3 million
• Jobseeker’s Allowance = 0.34 million
• Income Support = 0.28 million
Without State Benefit millions would be in poverty, with no ‘disposable income’ which would adversely affect commerce, because without income the millions of poor would not be able to spend money in the shops, and restaurants, and cinemas etc., and their lost income would lead to them laying some of their employees off (redundancy); and in return, if the shops sell less, because the poor don’t have disposable income, then they buy less from the producers (industry), who in turn have to make people redundant because of reduced demand for their goods: Classic Economics.This sounds like the argument for illegal aliens in the US that I see on these forums.
Take a store owner to start with, and a poor family. Take wealth from the store owner and give it to the poor family. The poor family now buys from the store, giving the owner 5 cents on the dollar spent; we took $100 from him and he earns $5 when it is spent in his store.
Thus the store owner benefits greatly from us taking his wealth to give away. He only loses 95% of it.
Didn't follow the logic in the past, don't follow it now. If the concept was workable then the answer is to print vast sums of money to give away and we all know where that leads.It's standard economic theory; you obviously didn't do economics at college or university.
One thing that people do not realise is that wealth is NOT a fixed sum; it grows and shrinks with the economy e.g. recession vs economic growth.
For example, as one would be taught in any classic macroeconomics; in simple terms:-
Assuming the MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume) is 0.8, if a government injects $1 billion into the economy, that $1 billion will grow to $5 billion by the time it works its way through the system, and ends up back in the government's pocket. This happens by for example:-
* The government gives $1 billion to the poor.
* The poor can't afford to save, so they spend all of it e.g. in the shops to buy food, clothes, and perhaps a few luxury items.
* Some of that extra $1 billion the shop keeper gets from the poor spending money in their shop goes on wages, some on the cost of the goods, some on overheads (rent, electricity etc.), some is profit.
* The government will at that point get some of that $1 billion back, some in the form of 'sales tax', some in the tax on the profit from the shop, and some on the tax on wages of the employees of the shop.
* The knock on effect is that the shop keeper is busier, and has to take on extra staff, who themselves will earn wages that are taxed, and whom themselves, will spend more because of the increased income that they have: The beginnings of economic growth.
* The shop keeper will also buy extra goods from his suppliers; and with the extra profits, some of which will be taxed, and some will be used to employ extra staff to meet the extra demands on thier goods; extra staff earning and spending money, all of which is taxed at every point.
The more people employed, earning and spending extra money, the more tax revenue the government will get: Economic Growth.
Below are a couple of simple and short videos that explains the above in 'simple terms':
The Multiplier Effect (In less than 5 minutes) https://youtu.be/lShcx6hLy24
Multiplier Effect and Accelerator (in macroeconomics) https://youtu.be/25KlFCoDW34You missed the entire point. Whether it is the shopkeeper or the poor that spend the wealth the shopkeeper earned, it is still spent, and by one person. It will be multiplied just as you said, but only at the same rate it would have if the shopkeeper spent it.
Now, you may complain that the shopkeeper will save it rather than spend it, and that has some truth in it, but if he does all is not lost. That savings is not under the mattress; it is in a bank or other form. If he buys stock as a savings program, the stock seller will spend it. If in a bank the bank will loan it out and it will be spent.
So whether it is the shopkeeper that spends his income or the poor that it is given to, the wealth WILL be spent. No net increase, then, to either the country or the shopkeeper.You miss the point; the only reason the shopkeeper got the extra money in the first place, in the example, is because the poor person was given it by the government (benefit). If the poor person didn’t get that extra $100 (for example) from the government then he would not have had it to spend in the shop, and the shopkeeper would have sold those extra goods; his sales and profits would have been down: Classic ‘bottom-up’ economics; it’s all part of governments changing tax rates and levels of government spending (including social/welfare benefits) to influence aggregate demand in the economy is known as ‘Fiscal Policy’.
Yep, savings vs spending is all part of the MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume) formula; governments use that formula all the time to determine the ‘rate of interest’ e.g. during times of high inflation (Demand outstrips supply) governments will tend to raise interest rates to encourage people to save (take money out of the economy, and reduce demand). In periods of recession, governments will tend to lower the interest rate to stimulate growth e.g. encourage people to spend more. That’s known as ‘Monetary Policy’.
You’re last paragraph is wrong; you’ve completely ignored the fact that the extra money injected into the economy, regardless whether it was given to the shopkeeper by the government in the form of lowering taxes (top down economics), or given to the poor in the form of extra benefits (bottom up economic); it becomes part of the circular economy e.g. it will be spent over and over again, creating extra wealth: If the initial sum injected into the economy by the government was $100 and the MPC is 0.8 then that $100 will become $500: Standard Economics. As I said, you obviously did NOT study economics at college or university, and you obviously didn’t bother watching either of the video links above, which explains (in simple terms) this aspect of the circular economy.
Yes, I likewise didn't read economics at college (university), though I read history. Yet, economics, is a major core discussion topic at the university because economic issues are frequent topics in history. And, because I read economics at the GCE A/level, I know what that means. The Brits in their education system taught me that at the upper primary level in a civic class, the flow of money in the economy. That said, for those who are ignorant, here's the fact. Governments at some point of economic prosperity maintain savings reserves or development funds. But during an economic recession, money can be withdraw from the reserves, or savings, and pump into the economy. There's therefore, no need to print money, that are not backed by the gold reserve. The best classical of this challange is 'the buck rest here' or how the Great Depression was taken care off in the USA.
Cool, it's a great subject that I enjoyed studying; as I'm sure you did when you did your GCSEs and A Levels; I didn't do just economics (macroeconomics and microeconomics) I also did economic history. I did them at GCSE and 'A' level at College as part of my 'Business Administrative' course, exams which I passed, giving me qualifications that helped to advance my career in the civil service. My wife did the same course at degree level at university; so I was able to give her some additional mentoring at home.
Britain is not the same as here.
We are a prosperous rich country and have many ways to create a percolating economy. We are no longer a production country, however, and have gone from production to service. Thanks to those who sent their producton jobs over seas and to China. So less Jobs.
Britain is a small little place, surrounded by the sea; beautiful, quaint, delicate and sweet. We are a rough and tumble nation full of people who are willing and able to be independent and work for their freedom, which they always have ... since the first pilgrims and settlers who left their little delicate, king ruled country and forged a new life on this continent full of dangers, wild animals, native aborigines and harsh weather.
Yet they stayed, thrived and now here we are.
So you think this country of robust, healthy people want to redistribute the wealth?
No, they do not! So just pipe down with your re distribution of wealth.
Its my money, I made it and you can too. And if anyone needs a hand-up, let their families, churches and charities help them with the goodness of their hearts ... which they have.
We need to bring back production, tax the corporations and bring back regulations on the illegal creation of monopolies.
A percolating economy is what we need.
and TRUMP, if there no one else who can do the job of bringing back Power to the
INDIVIDUAL."Britain is a small little place, surrounded by the sea; beautiful, quaint, delicate and sweet."
Someone's never seen Cardiff on a saturday nightActually, in your first paragraph, Britain is very much the same as the USA:-
• Britain is also a prosperous and rich country that has many ways to create a percolating economy; if you check you will find out that Britain is the fifth wealthiest country in the world.
• Likewise, since the 1980s, Britain is no longer a ‘Production’ country; the Service Industry is the primary part of our economy. Albeit, although the ‘Production’ jobs have gone overseas e.g. to China, it hasn’t meant less jobs, as the Service Industry has created a wealth of jobs; most people now work in the Service Industry – hence unemployment in the UK is only 3.8%.
Yeah, Britain (which once owned and controlled two-thirds of the world) (the British Empire) is a small and little place, surrounded by the sea (an Island), and as you say beautiful, quaint, delicate and sweet. And yes the Americans are a rough and tumble nation. And is full of people who are willing and able to be independent and work for their freedom; and also full of millions living in poverty, in ghettos (which we don’t have in Britain). Britain is also full of people who are willing and able to be independent and work for their freedom (albeit the European concept of freedom is different to the American concept of freedom). But we have more compassion in Britain, wealthy people in Britain do not take the selfish ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude, but offer more aid and help to their less fortunate citizens.
One of the main reasons the first pilgrims left Britain was because of religious persecution; so in comparison to the harsh life they left behind in Europe, America was in many ways paradise.
I’m not talking about ‘re-distribution of wealth’ in the sense that you’re thinking; there is a lot of misconception on the subject: What I’m talking about is injecting money into the economy to create wealth, as described in simple terms in this video on economics below:-
Marginal Propensity to Consume (basic economics) https://youtu.be/QS70Nx_BQ2s
Where you say “I made it and you can too”: FYI I have made it too. I worked all my life, bought my own house, have a good pension; so I’ve got more money and wealth than I need, so we have plenty of luxuries around the home e.g. 55 inch TV with surround sound, TV system in every room, proper home office, fully equipped, three freezers, two cars etc., what more do we want – and of course, we always have three holidays (vacations) a year. And all paid for from my own pocket. Yes, I’ve made it in life; I’m not working class, I’m lower middle class.
Yeah, I agree with your penultimate paragraph “We need to bring back production, tax the corporations and bring back regulations on the illegal creation of monopolies.” something which Britain is doing to a large extent, and has always generally done; except that Britain has found the Service Industry a more lucrative business than manufacturing.
So the government should not subsidise companies or farmers? Nor give tax breaks. It should not give money to the police or fire brigade to help people in need. Nor should it give money to education or health care or churches.
In short, I don't think that will work.The question move from personal to co-operate. In each case, and depending on the situation, I'm incline to opine that the government should step in.
Yes, I think a government should protect the people. Protect them from crime, bush fires, help by natural disasters, defend the country. protect them for getting diseases etc.
A government should take care of it's country and therefore take care for it's inhabitants. If a country is willing to spend millions on the military but is not willing to pay for help of homeless people a government has failed in my opinion.
If a country is willing to pay millions to big companies to prevent them of becoming bankrupt but is not willing to help individuals with their debt in the same crisis a government has failed to help its citizens.Okay, but do you feel that the government should take away my salary to give to my neighbor? If I get up at 5 and work 12-16 hours a day, but he gets up and works 8 then sits in a bar drinking beer, does that mean the government should be taking away my salary to give to him?
When a government is willing to take away my wages to give it to someone who does not work as hard as me that is when it has failed.You are talking about tax. Tax is taken and used to maintain the country.
Question is how many tax should be taken and how should it be used.
Personally I think it's a huge injustice to see Amazon not paying it's taxes and somebody working hard hours for just a few dollars paying a lot of tax (% of income).Taxes are taken and wasted for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with maintaining a country. Do you think when a government taxes a citizen and then uses those funds to go fight a war halfway across that world that is justified?
Military preparedness is just part of what it takes to maintain a country, Doc. World War II case in point.
Militart preparedness has nothing to do with sending soldiers to Iraq to look for WMD. That was just wasting lives and your countrys taxes.
That is true in my opinion, but the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, the State Department and Congress differed from that assessment.
The viability of every military conflict we have been involved in has always been questioned. But, I am not so naive as to not recognize the need for armed forces and military preparedness in this dangerous world, and the public tax to support it.Yes, I understand that the majority agreed with that decision at that time. I also understand there is a big difference in offensive wars and defensive wars.
Dr. Mark, it seems you're stretching the questiom a little too far. I would justified it if the money were used to fight off any intruder against the country. But if a neighbouring country is being attack by an aggressor, I would still justify it if help is ask.
So for instance if the corrupt government of Southern Vietnam asked the US to kill the citizens of Vietnam because they are starting a revolution it is okay?
Or maybe the government of Liberia asked for help from Nigeria to kill its citizens that are causing a revolution in the country, it that okay? I do not think it is justified.
Taxes are the main and most important parties want control over. Remember that the first thing Trump did when in office was make huge tax benefits for the rich. He did not have any haste to build a wall. That's high on the list to get voters but low on the list when governing as it is not a power tool.
The fact that the Republican and the Democratic party are influenced by lobbyists of all kinds of cooperation is to influence tax and money streams.
The war in Iraq was never about justifying something. It was about making money. Halliburton, Blackwater made war a private enterprise. With Dick Cheney making it possible.
9. 11 was only used to get the public behind the war. But actually, the war against Iraq was against the public wishes. Millions across the globe protested against the war in Iraq, even before the war started, something which hardly happened with the other great war in Vietnam, where the mass of the people only started to demonstrate long after the war had started.
So Tax makes or breaks a country.
And if you ask me, the tax should be used for: good education (not private) system, good clean drinking water from the tab, good healthcare for all citizens, good prisons (not private), good railroad and bus networks, good roads, investing in culture and art.
But that's my opinion.
Everybody votes for the party that he/she thinks spends the tax most wisely.... It is a sad thing that in the US you have only two choices. This is in my opinion the bottleneck of the US, as both parties are corrupted by money and the Republican party is also corrupted by religion. (and neo-liberalism..)Yes, I agree that both parties in the US are corrupted and very into distributing pork to their followers. Here in Brazil we elected a president that has been trying to stop that but he is probably going to lose because he stopped the pork to the media, the celebrities, and the banks.
Now the TV stations are supporting the other candidate (a former president that kept up the pork to the TV networks), the celebrities are almost all against him (he tried to decrease the money for the Rouanet law, which provides tax money to singers and actors), and the banks are supporting the leftist candidate since he started a new program (PIX) that allows electronic transfers that the banks are not allowed to charge for.
If Trump had tried to institute those new laws he would have made more enemies. At the very least I do not think those taxes should be going to the arts nor for military intervention.For what I know about Bolsonaro is that he allowed and supported the destruction of the Amazon as no other president before him. Something that is a world crime in my opinion, knowing how important the Amazon is for the world and life on earth.
And his huge mismanagement during the COVID crisis. He is in the same club as Trump, not giving a mierda about ordinary people.
Tax should go to the cultural sector, as without culture a country is nothing.
There are millions of people dependent on the cultural sector (bars and nightlife included.) Without culture no arts, no tourism, no social structure or cultural identity. Some arts and performances, study and research is too expensive to pay out of a private pocket. You need government support to maintain a museum, to restore a 17th century ship, to maintain cultural heritage, etc.
The cultural sector is actually incredibly important for a country as there are lots of jobs connected to it, and therefore lots of money goes around in this sector. (people go to an event, than take a drink in a bar or have something to eat in a restaurant or bar...no event...no bar/restaurant..) It is all connected.If the average salary is less than $10,000, and the cultural law gives benefits to those celebrities making that much in a month, do you really think it should continue? I do not. I do not want to pay work all day to pay taxes to support an actor or singer. If I wanted to support them, I could go to one of their shows or buy their music. If the people drinking in the bars want to support them, they are free to go to one of their shows too. It is not something the government needs to interfere in.
I really do not want to bother discussing the Amazon with you since your views are obviously influenced by the mainstream media that he stopped supporting. If you really want to know I suggest you come here and see what thing are like.
The same thing about COVID. If a person does not want a country to stop working so that the economy crashes and jobs are lost in the future does that mean he does not care about the people? You might want to think instead of just swallowing whatever lies the MSM feeds to you.You are talking about supporting the rich. That's something else.
But if you go to a concert you pay for the artist, but also the people who build the stage, the people who do the security, the people who do the lightning, the people who do the sound, the people who do the cleaning up, the organisation, etc. If all this was just in one ticket, your ticket would be far more expensive and the concert would only be for the rich.
Now if you want to see a movie, go to a dance performance, want to see an exhibition. If this was not supported in one way or another by the government you would never have the opportunity to see these things as the entrance ticket would be far too expensive.
I don't know how things are in Brasil but here in Spain in the summer, every village has its own fiesta. And bands are playing on a stage in the center of the village. These bands are paid for by the town hall. Do you think this is bad?Where does the town hall get its money?
Are there people who should not have been taxed due to not having enough money for their own or loved ones' survival, yet they were (taxed)?Paying for a local band? No, that does not seem so bad. It gives a lot of people an opportunity to get drunk and party in the town square. Spending taxes locally makes more sense.
Here is an example of what I am talking about though. These groups earned many millions of taxpayer money, and there are other individuals that gained millions too. https://exame.com/brasil/os-15-maiores- … t-em-2015/ (I only have this page in Portuguese, but if you are a Spanish speaker it is pretty easy.)
Not everyone here has clean water, people still go hungry in places, and there are pockets of extreme poverty in the northeast. Does it make any sense for a government to spend money on big entertainment (and building olympic pools and football stadiums) when those sorts of things are going on.
When former president Lula was asked why he was investing in football stadiums instead of building new hospitals for the poor, his answer was "Hospitals do not win the World Cup." (During the pandemic the hospitals were over 100% capacity and the people were dying in the aisles waiting for beds.)What you see here is corruption and laws made to make the rich richer. This does not mean that it is bad to subsidize the arts.
As said the arts/culture is a huge industry, including tourism and maintaining cultural historic places and nature reserves.
The article above is a classic and not typically only for Brasil. But yes, the gap between poor and rich is far to big
Here in Spain there is a classic case of the Duchess of Alba who has lots of land, using it for agricultural use, and so she get lots of Money from the European Agricultural department. But the reality is that she is hardly doing anything with the land and has a minimum of labourers working on the land with low payment. Easy money!!
Tax is not bad, but it should be used well and transparent so it can be checked what the government has done with the money.
But this is seldom the case...
Nevertheless I pay my taxes knowing that it also will be used for bulls running in the street of a village during fiesta time... It's not what I want that the government does with my money but it's the whole package.
You hit the nails right into the wood. Thank you.
To the abovementioned question, the answer is no.
I can understand your views, and I completely agree with you. Let say the government leave the recent covid-19 challenge to each individual to manage as their health initiative. Could the degree to which the pandemic is subdue be achieved yet? Of course, the answer is no. If a person lacks job, government should provide it, or a form of social security in liue of it.
Dr.Mark, the government couldn't take you're money and give it to your neighbour because you're working harder. How would you feel if the government for the same reason you state take your next door guy money and give it to you? But for ecommic and social disaster reasons, government intervention become necessary.
Yes, the government in every country takes the money from those people that work harder or are more successful and gives it to those who prefer to spend their time in bars or watching TV. My salary is also taken by politicians. It is called taxes.
No, I would not want my neighbor money. I would not even want to take Elon Musks money as it is his, he earned it.
Do you think your taxes or profits from the oil industry are going to help in cases of disasters or are they being used by Nigerian politicians?It's a pity that when the money from tax is release for relief, it always divert into wrong use.
"In any case, 'Tough love' and turning a blind eye is rarely a viable solution to solving any socioeconomic issue in the long run.
(socioeconomic issue.)
It's in the government and everyone's interest (How so?)
that each (?) individual in a society is given the opportunity to achieve their fullest potential.
(fullest potential)
And sometimes, that means
providing a helping hand.
(providing a helping hand.)
See how this type of thinking tugs at our heart stings and gets us to comply to tyranny?
However, in the miserable end we now regret helping.
Cuz WE have N O T H I N G.
(LOST all we HAD.)That was what Jesus advocated when he said to give all your money and possessions to the poor and follow him. (Then you would be just another poor beggar.)
This comment to be dealt with further someother time and place.
MizBejabbes, but Jesus did not just stop there. He also added that after the deeds, and you follow him, you'll have treasures in heaven. Did he mean it? Yes. We'll just take a look at any two or three of his original apostles, Peter, James, and John. They left all and follow him. They did not become poor. And yes, certain of the New Testament books were credited to their names, which are all time best sellers!(as part of the whole bible). Yes again, no book has beat the Bible in sales. If these men were alife, they'll be some of the richest men the world over. Thank you.
They did not become poor because in those days people took them in. They left self sustaining lives and lived off other people. That might not work so well today. In fact, some of the most righteous Christians are not very charitable toward the homeless.
Are YOU okay?
You like high taxes?
You like inflation?
You like not being able to survive, yourself?
Really, I don’t think so; that’s a very staunch Republican/and old fashioned Conservative attitude.
• A wife with young children where her husband dies or abandons her, it isn’t necessarily her fault.
• A person who is made redundant, it isn’t their fault.
• A person who has to give up work because of long term chronic health issues, it isn’t their fault.
• A person who can’t work because they’re disabled, it isn’t their fault.
• A person who can’t get a decent job because of prejudice e.g. because they’re black, it isn’t their fault.
• A person, who loses their home and becomes homeless, because they can’t pay the mortgage, because they’ve lost their job from redundancy, ill health, or because their marriage has broken down, it isn’t their fault.
• A person (in America) who become old and infirm, and can’t get the medial and social care they need, it isn’t their fault.
• Children growing up in poverty, it isn’t their fault.Some persons though healthy don't want to work, because they inherit a large futune. When this runs out, still they're unable to work, and become beggers. It's they fault.
Most people are in the dire situations they are in due to THEIR OWN making, no one else's. People have to plan, organize, & strategize for their lives to be better/comfortable. Many people are infantile, refusing to consider the future ramifications of their actions.
Really?
• If your husband leaves you with young children, is it your fault?
• If you’re made redundant, how is it your fault?
• If you have long term chronic health issues which prevent you from working, how is it your fault?
• If you can’t work because you’re severely disabled, how is it your fault?
• If you’re prejudiced against, making it difficult to get a decent job e.g. because of the colour of your skin, how is that your fault?
• I you lose your home and become homeless, because you can’t pay your mortgage, because either you’ve been made redundant, through long term ill health, or because your husband has left you for another woman, how is that your fault?
• If as an America, you become old and infirm, and can’t get the medial and social care you need, how is that your fault?
• If you’re a child growing up in poverty, how is that your fault?The only question without any real answer (except "it isn't") is the last one. In all the rest, there is at least some answer applicable.
For instance, if your spouse leaves you with children, it is extremely likely that you share at least some of the blame for a failed relationship. You certainly are to blame for picking them in the first place.
If you are old and infirm, unable to provide for yourself, why didn't you save during your working life to provide for your later years? You are at least partially to blame for not doing that.
If you're severely disabled, ask yourself how Stephen Hawking, a severe quadraplegic, managed to survive and to do very well.
Just some answer for some of the questions, but they are all the same. To deny that a person has to responsibility for themselves, and is never to blame for their failures, is not true.People need too stay in good with family members.
So often, they shut out the people who could help them one day when help is needed. Did you help your family members now that you have lost your husband and are feeble and alone??
Did you keep the relationships happy with conversations and phone calls or show them your care and concern with cards and letters?
(Forget emails and Facebook. Thats too much work and no fun.)
Did you visit them in hospital and remember them in your prayers when they needed spiritual attention?
Did you tune into your grown children or just forget about them 'cause you did your job.
How about your grandkids?
Someday they could be a great assistance to you. They love you so much when they are young. Keep it up, I say!
Keep up the love and familiarity of FAMILY.Well yeah, people do need to stay in good with family members, but it’s not always the case that you shut yourself off from your family; all too often it’s the other way round, unfortunately.
Yeah, some families are, and so are some humans in general.
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!!!!!
If your spouse leaves you with children ....
I think this statement is too simplistic, "You are to blame for picking them in the first place." There are studies that show that deception by that person can be in play to cause the victim spouse to have picked him or her. That falls under "domestic abuse" and today people are warned about that, but in my day, women were brainwashed to believe the man was always right, after all, he was the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD. And women could be deceived into marrying an abuser. Of course there were men who were deceived into marrying gold diggers. The simplicity works both ways.Yeah, with a marriage, in some cases certainly “it takes two to tango” e.g. if your husband leaves you with the children part of the blame maybe yours; but equally in lots of cases the wife/mother is the innocent party because some men are just ‘not faithful’ (because their brains are between their legs). Yeah, in some cases it’s obvious to everyone except the bride that her husband is a cad/bad apple/no good for her; but in a lot of cases the only way you’ll know if you’ve made a mistake (when falling in love) is if you’re crystal ball is working!
Whether you can save to provide for yourself in old age depends on whether you were wealthy enough during your working life to provide for your old age; not everyone earns enough to do so, many people struggle to pay their basic bills when they’re working, and just don’t have the spare cash to invest in their future. At least in the UK it’s a little easier on the elderly because universal healthcare (NHS) is free to all for life, and provided you’ve worked for at least 35 years you’ll get the State Pension.
Yeah, a lot of severely disabled people are successful in life; but a lot are not, and through no fault of their own. If you are severely disabled there are only a limited number of jobs that you are capable of doing – and finding those jobs is nigh-on impossible.
I am not denying that a person has responsibility for themselves, I am just pointing out that it is unreasonable to assume that everyone who is ‘down on their luck’, or ‘who have fallen on hard times’ are not to blame for their downfall, bad luck – being made redundant or become chronically ill are things that people have no control over.Another thing they have no control over is if the family dies out and they are left alone. This does happen.
My great grandmother rented out rooms after the death of her husband.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that everyone is capable of doing that; there are plenty of old frail people living on their own, with no family, who struggle to look after their own, let alone trying to be a landlady - they are just not physically or mentally fit enough to do so.
Or they don't own a home so they don't have rooms to rent.
There are times in life when the most unsuspected person needs help...through no fault of his own.
Thank God the government is there to lend a helping hand.
There are those that take advantage of this system...and that part is wrong.A popular, and educational, TV series in Britain is “Rich House, Poor House”; where a family from the top 10% wealthiest Brits swop homes and lifestyle with a family from the 10% poorest Brits, for a week – It can be a real eye-opener on how the other half lives.
Below is a short extract from one of the episodes (as a taster): https://youtu.be/pVhC8Fx7B4wArthur, after the one week trial, did the rich family reach out to the poor family in terms of some finance, advise, education, and such that could pull out the poor in their rut? Likewise, did the poor ask the rich how their attain that state of posperity? Best of all, did the test results into friendship? I've never heard of such an exercise.
It’s a British TV Series that’s been running since 2017, six one hour long episodes each year for the past six years.
The strict rules laid down by the TV Company are that the rich family are prohibited in providing help or financial support of any kind at the show. However, in spite of that strict rule, some of the rich families do break the rules and do give their poor counterpart help and financial support. Below are just three such occasions where after the episode the rich family have helped to assist their poor counterpart out of poverty, and given them a step-up towards a brighter future.
• https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/ric … s-22553244
• https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/10/rich-hou … -13109437/
• https://www.tyla.com/life/mum-strugglin … e-20220822Thank you. I like the way the rich give out a helping hand on their initiative.
Yep, it's very British - we don't have the same animosity between the classes that is so apparent in America.
Arthur, thank you again. I pray the producer of the show continue the rich house, poor house family swap, in perpetum re memoriam. I see it as a way of extending the goodness of prosperity.
Thanks, yes I'm sure the TV programme will continue to be made for years to come.
Great! But I forget to tell you that I also read 'Economics for Managers' as an Administrative Officer. So when I retired from the civil service of my state as Chief Administrative Officer, I still had a firm grip of the understand. That is, how money flow in the economy. PS: this reply would have come under the response to our discussion how you mentor your wife reading Economic History at the university. But unknow to me, it land here. So good for us.
Very impressive; I wish more people were as well educated as you.
Maybe the musicians can just play on the street sometimes, for the non-rich.
... after they make their profit from the rich.Perhaps a mechanic can repair my car for a dime on the street..
~ musicians and mechanics are apples and oranges, BTW.
I made the comparison as being a musician or a mechanic is both a profession.
Sorry for the harsh reaction.
My wife is a professional violinist. She plays the first violin in a baroque orchestra in The Netherlands (playing the Mathew Passion from Bach etc.) and she has two klezmer bands in Spain.
As for instance, a Mathew passion takes about 4 hours. It's a great performance. But it wouldn't be possible without government support. (Or you should make the entrance fee quadruple.) Normally the musicians are paid by, partly the choir members who hire the orchestra, partly by private sponsors, and partly by state subsidiaries (so yes, tax money), I don't see anything wrong with this.
Without government funding in the cultural sector, live concerts, dance performances, and museum entree would be for the elite. And many artists would live on a bare minimum. (some already do) Professional musicians are highly skilled, studied for years, and devoted their lives to it, still, they get paid less than let's say a web developer with just a few years under his/her belt.
So yes why not government subsidiaries? Farmers get subsidies too, so why not artists?Why not have government subsidize (or just pay for) ALL entertainment? Bars, race tracks, casinos, fishing trips, etc. If you're going to subsidize one, shouldn't you subsidize all of them? After all, it isn't cheap to go to the races or bet at the casino, and a deep sea fishing trip can set you back several hundred dollars.
If we lived in one of those countries where people were forced to study something maybe subsidies make sense, but no one in your country or mine forces people to study violin, so I agree the subsidies should be the same as those paid to casino employees. No one forces anyone to study how to deal blackjack either.
They are, in one form or another. it's called Tax reduction.
Some forms of entertainment have to pay less tax than others. The porn industry in Spain has to pay less tax than theatre and art for instance. I bet the casino industry has to pay less tax too.Why do some industries pay a lower tax rate? To pad their profit margin? Seems to me that if they can't make a profit on a level (tax) field, then they should give it up as a bad deal. As a general rule, the taxpayer should not be subsidizing business, although it is common (and useful) to pay business, sometimes through a tax reduction, for something the government wants.
A tax holiday say 2 to 3 years should be given to some companies for them to establish.
Not everything is done to make profit. With healthcare and education profit should not be the main goal. (That's why a government should regulate healthcare and education otherwise it will be profit over people.)
Armies should not make profit , still a country needs one. (bur war is always been a way of making money for a country, and the weapon industry loves it...)
The police should not make profit (nor jails. private jails are a terrible idea! imo)
One interesting story Wilderness.
During the cold was the US also had a cultural war with the USSR. showing it the freedom of expression.
In the 50/60s you had a group of famous painters called "American Expressionists" with among others Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning.
These artists where, as a lot of artists are, against the establishment and critical against the government, the war in Vietnam etc.
The US wanted to show the world how free and open minded it was in contrast with the USSR.
And thus the FBI/CIA gave millions to promote and organize exhibitions of these artists in London and other western cities. This was all done through a middleman as the promotion of the art and use of it as a cultural weapon would have been a no go for the artist themselves. It is only recently (couple of years back) that it was discovered that the FBI/CIA used art in the war against communism.The story of Jackson Pollock, Abstract Expressionism in the US and the CIA. - YouTube.
How the CIA Secretly Used Jackson Pollock to Fight the Cold WarAnd during that time when the CIA was dumping money into the arts, some poor child in Chicago is freezing his toes off.
And during that time millions of dollars and thousands of dead bodies was spent in Vietnam. The money spent on the arts is pocket money in comparison with that.
Are you saying that because they wasted money killing people in one place it is okay to waste money somewhere else?
No I'm saying that you have to see things in perspective. The money spent on art is in no comparison with the money spent on guns. So complaining about wasted money on arts is focusing on a detail and not seeing the bigger picture.
The money spent on arts is super small compared with other subsidies like in agriculture, military, transport, tourism etc.)
The bigger picture by the way is that artists and intellectuals (and therefore education) are dangerous to the powers that be. As they are the people who can challenge the powers that be with other ideas.
The less money spent on arts the less free a country is. It's connected with freedom of expression."The less money spent on arts the less free a country is."
This is an interesting claim. Can you provide any facts, numbers or statistics backing it up? Starting with a definition of what "free" means - does it mean freedom to pay half one's earnings to government or does it mean ability to live, and spend, as one wishes?I don't think it's such a strange idea. (I have not done research on this.)
Free in the sense of freedom of expression, and freedom of speech.
Of course, you have dictatorships who spent lots of money on the arts that suit them. Like Hitlers Third Reich or Stalin's USSR or Saudi Arabia and many other dictatorships. But that's more propaganda than art. and the art is dictated from above and censored.
The first thing dictators do is lock up scholars and artists and limit the freedom of expression, limit the freedom of study.
In other words, the freer a country the more diverse the arts are and the more money is spent on the arts, by individuals or government.
As shown in the story about the CIA using the arts to showcase the freedom of the USA.
That is quite an argument, kind of like "Well, Trump reduced taxes so I am going to forgive student loans for rich people."
Just because the forces of one side in a country chooses to waste money on one thing the other side is not justified in wasting money. Two wrongs do not make a right.???
Sorry but I lost you.
I don't understand your response.
My argument is that a country without art is a country without a soul.
If you want a healthy nation you have to invest in the arts and the freedom of expression. Even if you don't like the things expressed.
A healthy nation should be open for all kinds of opinions and art forms. A government should promote dialogues of thought and expression.
If a government does not support the arts it's a sign of suppressing ideas and a failing democracy.
Thus, the less money given by a government and the less support given to education the more the government starts to act like a dictatorship unwilling to support freedom of expression.Wasting money on sending people to die to die in the jungle or desert makes no more sense than spending money on arts. It does not make a country more free. It just creates people beholden to the government.
If you don't want any museum in your country, nor any concert hall, or theater. Nor preserve ancient and historic sites. Selling your national treasures to a foreign country as the government doesn't want to maintain or have the responsibility over it. wel yes, than you should strongly apose tax money for arts and education.
You think you end up in a better country?
The private sector won't fill the gap by giving money to the arts or art education.You have heard of paid admission, right? It is an interesting concept where people pay to see things they want to see, like ancient sites and musical performances.
You obviously feel it is okay to subsidize the rich opera viewers with the salary of the working class. You think when people do not have enough to live on you have a better world?As I said before, if people have to pay the full entrance price without subsidy it would only be for the rich to see a performance.
Real world example:
An entrance fee in the Netherlands for a 4-hour concert of a group of 30 musicians costs €30 (more or less $30). (Baroque music - Mathew Passion of Bach)
This is the prize that includes support from the government.
The musicians earn about 250-300 € for a performance. (the singers much more!!) (this includes rehearsals and travel costs.)
So if you have a full church of about 150 people = (150x€30) = €4500 - this will never cover the costs of the musicians.
So if you want to have this concert without government funding you have to ask . (300x30+ 5x800 (singers) = €13.000 (probably 15.000)
divide 13000 by 150 public. This will be a ticket of €86.
Now if you want that the concerts are only for the rich, this is the way to do it.
In reality this concert is paid partly by the choir who hires the orquestra, partly by local private sponsors, and partly by the government. And partly by the entrance fee.
It's not that the government pays the full €13.000. in reality, it's a small percentage. The majority comes from the amateur choir that performs in the piece as well.Do you really think those numbers justify taking away the income of the working class to pay for entertainment for a few?
My daughter-in-law is going to a concert with my grand daughter. Tickets are between $80 and $100. One is comfortably middle class, the other at the bottom end of the wage scale.
Both are managing to buy their own ticket to the concert, a concert no different than thousands of others across the country. It seems to me that the only ones subsidized are those that middle class America does not attend much.I can't say anything about the US.
I recently went to a concert of Marcus Miller (bass player) in Madrid. and it cost me €40.
It was part of a three days open-air jazz festival. I guess it was partly sponsored by Madrid, partly by beer brands, partly by the ticket sale and some other companies. Inside the park , beer and food were sold, including a market. I guess the people hiring a stall also paid for part of the concert.Your Madrid concert sounds like our music festivals. Capitalism at work. Ticket sales plus vendor sales plus sponsorships, and you have an affordable ticket, (scaled to the talent).
A simple American expression covers the essence of your argument that the Arts would only be for the rich if unsubsidized: You have Cadillac tastes and a Volkswagon budget. You shouldn't expect someone else to make up the difference just because the Cadillac is nicer.
I wonder if those high-brow performances could be performed with 15 musicians instead of 30, or 3 singers instead of 5, or less expensive staging? Could a Mathew Passion of Bach be performed with fewer musicians and less expensive staging?
GACould a Mathew Passion of Bach be performed with fewer musicians and less expensive staging?
Not really as you would have to change the whole musical composition of Bach and the storyline (Jesus' way to the cross.)
The Mattheus Passion is a funny thing in the Netherlands. With Easter, all the churches have their own concert. And people are happy to sit on the hard wooden benches (reformed churches often) for 3 to 4 hours on end , perhaps with a little coffee break. (people have their own booklet with text and the seasoned Matthew Passion goer takes their own cushion with them.)
Believers and non-believers alike come to these concerts. There is a kind of tradition going on here. And although Bach was a german composer, he's incredibly popular in the Netherlands.
About the Cadillac and Volkswagen, that's true as these are consumer products. Art is more in the realm of education.You are right, we were in the realm of consumer products—in the sense of the type of productions mentioned. It's even more unjust if you are speaking of religious-sponsored productions. But that's a different direction than my comments.
For perspective, I am not completely against supporting the Arts, I think they add value to society. However, the degree and purpose of that support aren't unconditioned. I'll support a museum but not a Mathew Passion production. Relative to public funds I see a difference in the benefit. Sue me ;-)
GAYes, of course, the support isn't unconditioned.
Most governments are very stingy with funding the cultural sector. (although it's the most profitable one. In the sense of what a government invests in culture and what it gets back - like tourism, catering sector etc.)
It's an endless debate about how to spend money on culture. Should a opera theater be funded, an archeological dig, or a bullfight.
Different countries have different priorities and approaches.
I pay my taxes and it saddens me to see the bullfights and local governments supporting this entertainment..
And then there are also political corruption scandals that make paying taxes not directly a populare pass time. In Spain there was a lot of corruption a couple of years ago, luckily with the new government (the labour party) this has gone down and things have become more transparent. (but of course, you will never get rid of it completely. There is always an I scratch your back you scratch mine network.)
But as a good note for instance. The Spanish government is giving a 20 cent discount on every liter of gas. trying to reduce the steep gas prices.
(as a driver that's a good thing, if you don't own a car you could think, why not spend it on bicycle paths...)
I think there are always good things and bad things done with the tax money. But it's a personal taste in a way of what you find good or bad.
And that's where voting your fav. party kicks in.Just think, if governments spent ONLY for things the country needs (no more city water works, no more bullfights or other culture, no more subsidizing gasoline, no more payments to individuals (for charity, nothing in return), how much simpler things would be. Let the government buy the military, police, major roads, etc. - things everybody benefits from, and very little else. There would always be complaints, of course, but they would go far down compared to what they are now. The population would be much happier, right?
Those numbers show that if the government did not sponsor the concert the concert would be for the super-rich and not for the middle class or working class. Because that's what happens when the government stops supporting art.
You are the one who wants art only for the rich, not me.
This was just an example. The same thing for a Jazz festival, a cover band playing in the town hall in the summer or a Rock Concert by the Rolling Stones."You are the one who wants art only for the rich, not me."
No, everyone can enjoy entertainment without the governments intervention.Some people don't have much money but would love to go to a concert or a museum. Your system denies poor people education.
Tax is not custom-made.
I pay road tax, but still, there are a lot of roads that are repaired with government funding that I will never use in my life.
Do you think tax should not go to those roads you never use?
It's the same conversation.
In the end, you don't live alone in the world, and the road repaired with your money, the road that you will never use, will perhaps bring you one day the best news you've ever heard in your life. Or maybe not, but you helped your country make it a better place with a better infrastructure that helps a taxi drivers bring a tourist to a restaurant that he couldn't reach otherwise. And without the good infrastructure, the restaurant couldn't have survived.
Or do you think it's only the restaurant's responsibility to pay for the road?That is a very poor comparison. One is an essential the other is entertainment. I am sure you enjoy the taxpayers footing the bill for your entertainment, just like other taxpayers enjoy you footing the bill to subsidize their bullfights. Neither of those things are okay.
The art industry is essential too. Thousands of people work or are dependent on the cultural sector. Without the cultural sector, there is no design industry, no tourism, no films to watch, games to play, music to listen to and the list goes on.
And as stated before with the example of the CIA using art in a cultural war. We all watch American movies, read American books and eat hamburgers in McDonald's with an American interior design. Art is used to conquer countries, and win colonial cultural wars. We are in the midst of one right now with more and more Chinese documentaries on Netflix showing the good things of China (like the Chinese cuisine...etc) and TikTok conquering the world.
Before it was Mcdonald's, Walt Disney and Rambo influenced other countries into the American Way of Life.
Art/Culture is an incredibly powerful tool and an ambassador for a country.
It is definitely essential for a country.
When I think of Brazil, the first thing that comes to mind is Carnaval and Samba. I have no clue what Brazilan Banks are called or the name of the Brazilian Stock Exchange. That's the power of art.Thanks for including that example about Brazil. That is exactly the reason that governments should not get involved. Why should I be paying my taxes to support a bunch of people dancing in the street, when I would prefer that we be known for our rodeos, sertanejo (country music), and bull riders. (The top bull riders in the world are Brazilian, but it is not like they get the government to support them and announce this.)
How would you feel if your government supported advertising the red light district of Amsterdam as a tourist attraction? "Come to Amsterdam, visit the famous red light district."
That is the power of government interference.I think carnival is economically far more important for the government and the country than bull riding.
Thousands of tourists come to Brazil because of the carnival, I don't think they will come to a sertanejo festival.
So, whatever your taste may be, money wise it's far more interesting for a government to support carnival than bull riding.I am not suggesting they support sertanejo. People can buy tickets themselves. The money spent on carnaval is not repaid by tourists. It is just another way that government provides a diversion to the people.
Do you remeber that European that said "Religion is the opiate of the People"? Here it is "Carnival is the opiate of the people".Of course it's repaid by tourism. What do you think those tourists do? They spend money in Brasil. Tourism attracted by art and culture brings millions dollars each year to a country.
Do you really think they pay enough to cover all of those costs? No, they do not.
A quick research tells me:
The Costs of the carnival in 2020 was (70 million. reals - 13.34 million dollars.)
The revenue of tourism was 7.99 billion Brazilian reals. (in 2020)
So yes, it pays back big time!!!
Cancelled carnival in 2021 has heavy effect on Brazilian economy
Roughly $1.5 billion may not circulate, in addition to nearly 25,000 jobs not created, according to estimate
Canceled carnival has heavy effect on Brazilian economyNice to see you arguing against the poor and hungry.
Do you really think that if the government did not spend 70 million reais the carnaval would cease to exist? That government does not need to take food away from the poor and working classes to support the entertainment needs of others.¿Arguing against the poor and the hungry ?
Carnival creates thousands of jobs. It creates billions of dollars.
with only a little bit of investment of the government (42 million of the total 70 million needed)
That's like spending $42 in a project and getting $8.000 back!
That's what I call a good investment.
Now, what the government does with this money is a different question.Umm, no. It's like investing $40 and seeing your neighbor collect $800 from your project while you get nothing.
That's called capitalism.
You give the government $40, Government makes a whooping $8000. Which is great.
But as said...
The big question is: What is the government doing with the profit?
Is it giving you back your $40 in one way or another + bonus,
or is it going to fill its own pockets, or spend it all at the weapon store?No, capitalism is when you invest and YOU make a profit.
But if you're trying to tell me that the entire profits from this thing went to government I would have to say that it is absolutely socialism, not capitalism, for in capitalism governments do not run profit making enterprises.His numbers are really bogus anyway, made up by some technocrat looking to make the investement of taxes look appropriate, which is it not. It includes gas sales, beer sales, everyone staying in a hotel, etc.
Even without the government investment people would be buying gas, drinking beer, and staying in hotels. One could also argue that the increased beer sales on that long weekend are because of govenment intervention but that would be wrong. (There are also more fatal car crashes that weekend than at any other time of the year. Is that because of govenment interference.)His numbers are really bogus anyway, made up by some technocrat ...
That's a presumption and an empty statement without fundation.
If you think I'm wrong, do your own research.
Google : Brasil tourism revenue.
And Brasil Carnaval costs.Go ahead and believe what you want. I run into people like you all the time that believe whatever Google provides for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Did you read the section at the bottom of the page where they tell you to believe whatever Google sees fit to print?I don't believe Google. As Google is the search engine. Google is not writing the news or scientific papers or conspiracy theories or train tables. Independent people do, some with years of study behind them, some with only hearsay.
End of the conversation, I've got better things to do.Dr. Mark/Peterstrep, both of you are okay. I got it.
Yes I'm okay Miebakagh57, thanks. Just talking too long about the same subject.
But you do believe their search results, based on your answer.
Depending on the source.
When I type Climate Crisis for example, I believe a scientist with 30 years of experience in the field more than a blogger, politician or influencer on Twitter.Yes, I agree with you. If I read a source that is inflating numbers tô make the government look good it throws all of their data into doubt though.
You do realize this is like claiming that since the city paid for the police to divert traffic from the shoppers looking at the Christmas lights in a suburb all the money gained by all of the stores at Christmas was because of the government?
Of course governments makes money and invest. How do you think they run a country?
You pay tax. That's like buying a product. You give an entity money and this entity gives you something back increasing its wealth by doing so.
You give tax, the government invests tax in action, and action improves the way of life.
If a government kept all the profit it's not socialism, it's called corruption.By taking money from it's citizens. NOT by running a for-profit business.
But yes, paying taxes is (somewhat) like buying a product. However, when you buy a product and half the cost of that product is simply given to someone else rather that being in the cost of the product, your price is now twice what the value you receive is.
I suppose you could say that is the "profit" government makes, but if so it is a profit margin beyond anything reasonable and far, far beyond anything available to capitalist businesses. Those same business that are taken to task for earning a fraction of the profit that government is.Well, capitalism in general doesn't care much about how the profit is made.
But I guess the different kinds of capitalism is a whole new discussion.
But the key point is that the only way to influence the way your tax is used is by voting I guess.
But in general, I'm very skeptical about that point. As the rich are in power and they will not change a tax system in their disadvantage. Tax is a powerful tool and used to keep a class system.No, capitalism doesn't care much about how money is made. But it certainly cares about who is making that money - if it isn't the one investing then there will be no investment.
Except, of course, for taxes where if you don't pay you are behind bars.
Yes, tax is a powerful tool and used to purchase votes. This in turn promotes a class system just as you say.Except, of course, for taxes where if you don't pay you are behind bars.
Don't worry, if you have your money at tax havens, like the queen of England and many celebrities and politicians have, all is fine...Okay, does not the Queen of England agreed to pay tax along with other members of the Royal Family?
According to the Panama Papers that revealed who of the rich and the famous dodge tax, the Queen of England had huge amounts of money in tax havens. Also the Queen of England does not have to pay inheritance tax.
I guess Nathanville can tell you more about the questionable finances of the Queen/King of the UK.
Revealed: Queen's private estate invested millions of pounds offshore
No, it is like spending $42 on a new piece of clothing and then assuming that all of your income comes from that $42 costume. "Wow we sold more gas this weekend. It must be because of the new jacket. More people are staying in hotels, it must be because of the new jacket."
The governments only excuse to throw away money on this and other entertainment/distractoins is so that they can distract the people from important things like inflation and crime.
Interesting subject, roads. In my area (and I think most of the US) we have many, many roads. Some were built by the federal government years and years ago (the "interstate highways" in a plan to bring the country together, and are a major part of why America has been successful overall. Those are mostly maintained by federal funds.
Some are built by the state, connecting one city to another and at the same time making farms accessible. Without them we would all starve, even as we begged for items produced in a neighboring city.
Others are built by cities connecting parts of it to other parts. These are maintained by the city or county (in my area, mostly county), depending on what they are.
Finally, neighborhoods have roads running through them connecting the homes to city streets. These are usually built by the person developing and building the neighborhood, but are maintained by the city. Only a few, upper end, neighborhoods maintain their own roads, and other people are not allowed on them.
So the roads built by the feds benefit the entire country. So do roads built by the state, as products move from within a state to within another. City roads primarily benefit city residents...and are typically built by the taxpayers of that city, not the federal government.
The different types of roads, then, are mostly built by, and maintained by, the entity benefitting whether country, state, city or private neighborhood.Yes, well here you won't believe the stupidity about roads.
There is a road that leads along the canal to many country houses here.
Part of the road is in the territory of one village and part in another. And it's apparently officially in possession of the entity that maintains the canal...
In other words, nobody feels the responsibility to repair potholes and keep maintenance.
It was done 7 years ago and one village made one part of the road, the other village did the other. (but as one village is bigger and has more money, one part was done better than the other) and there is a big gap between the two parts as non of the two villages took responsibility for the in-between bit...So far for working together!
Now we are writing (as neighbours) to both villages and the entity that owns the street...(who does not have any haste to maintain the road)
So there are still lots of potholes in the road... and with the dry summer (and in August nobody works because of the heat) we had a pretty bumpy road that has costs already a couple of flat tires...
So yes, roads are an interesting subject...
Hope you still enjoy your new car.LOL That truly sounds like exactly what happens!
Yes, I am. Since hitting home with it last March I have burned 1/2 of a tank of gas. Some 5700 km and I have yet to refill the tank. I can live with that, for sure.
True - not everything is for a profit, but the vast majority of private business IS for profit. Percentage wise, the number of non-profit organizations is miniscule, although the government itself should be non-profit as well.
"With healthcare and education profit should not be the main goal."
And yet many of America's premier universities ARE for profit, and people fight bitterly to be accepted there, for they are viewed as far superior to the public, non-profit universities that dominate the landscape.
Armies are not owned by private business, unless you count the security forces many companies employ. And those forces DO make a profit for the company or they wouldn't be there.
No, war is not a method of making money...for the govt. involved in one. Only some private businesses profit from war.
Why does the porn industry pay less tax? (imagine the quips struggling to get out).
GADon't ask me! I know this as a theatre group who was furious about it and sold its show as a porn show (there wasn't a nude in sight though!!!) to make a point.
Perhaps porn is seen as cheap entertainment and Shakespeare more high brow...That brought a chuckle. One of those quips I didn't let out was along the same lines: Porn is the poor man's opera. Theater is the rich man's bordello.
GAha, that's a good one! have to remember it.
Wasn't it when the theatre was for the rich, they all brought their own binoculars with them. Supposedly to watch the play better, but it was more used to spy on the other hi-society visitors in the public.
Why not subsidies? Because everyone has to pay for them, and not everyone wants to go see a violinist.
But I also think the farmers should not be getting the subsidies. At the very least there should be a ceiling on payments so that no one company or person can receive a huge amount.You also pay for the maintenance of roads you will never use!
And if farmers didn't get subsidy your hamburger would cost $40. (which would not a bad idea environmental wise...)If beef costs $40 a kilo because the government does not pay subsidies to corn farmers, that is not a bad thing. (Grass fed beef does not cost $40 a hamburger though.)
We have a program here in Brazil where beef farmers can borrow money to buy breeding animals and then pay it back with no interest. (Governement banks, so the taxpayers pay that interest.) Does that make any sense? Not at all.Meat is very expensive if you stop subsidising it. ($40 was just a number) The grass land and soy feed, the amount of water used for cleaning the cow shit of the land and cleaning the cows, giving them shelter and drinking water. etc.
But that's a side thing.
No, I'm a vegetarian so that I pay tax and support the meat industry does not make sense to me. But I don't think it's possible to make a custom tax package where everybody pays tax only for the things they want.No, it is not, which is why we have to elect officials that are not willing to give pork to every person that comes along looking for a handout.
I produce grass-fed lambs and know that it can be done without using up all of those resources that you point out. Unfortunately it is a lot more profitable to use up government subsidized soy and corn.
On reading your comments I was curious in what subsidies British farmers get; and on checking it’s just $4 billion per year – which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things, and therefore well worth every penny for what it achieves.
I was unaware that concerts were subsidized anyway, but I'm not sure what subsidies museums and art galleries get. I think some of our European friends have been reading propaganda.
It wasn’t obvious from your comment what you were refereeing to, so I had to back track on other comments in this forum to make the link e.g. a comment made by Peterstreep (7 days ago) that concerts, museums and art galleries are subsidised.
And FYI, it’s not propaganda; in Europe, including the UK, concerts, museums and art galleries are subsidised by Governments – what Peterstreep is correct for Europe, and as Peterstreep there is absolutely nothing wrong with governments subsidising such things so that they can be enjoyed by all, and not just the filthy rich.
In the UK for example:-
• National Museums (found in every city across the UK) are ‘Free Entry’ because they are ‘State Owned, and State Run’.
• The Arts Council is a government-funded body dedicated to promoting the performing, visual and literary arts, and they currently pay £407 million ($470 million) per year to 828 arts organisations, museums and libraries.
Interestingly ‘Channel 4’ is a popular TV Station in the UK that was created by a Conservative Government (as a State Owned Enterprise) e.g. owned by the Government; and under its Licencing Charter with the Government it is NOT allowed to make its own TV programmes directly, but must employ the skills and talents of the ‘Arts Industry’ e.g. another way of the Government supporting musicians and artists by giving them commissioned work in the entertainment media (which they might not otherwise get) - Quite a socialistic approach for a Conservative Government.
Also interestingly, although Channel 4 is a State-Owned TV Station, it has been a case of ‘the worm that turned’ e.g. back in 1991 Channel 4 deliberately broke the law for a week by broadcasting for a week every film, documentary or show that it could find, that had been banned (at some point or another) from broadcasting on British TV. An interesting week that doubled viewing figures, and almost got the TV Channel prosecuted with criminal charges.
Here is a short extract of one of the banned shows, aired by Channel 4 in 1991: https://youtu.be/gHNYLLp0yFs
The banned show that stuck in my mind, and one that took the government by surprise e.g. they didn't have enough time to get a court injunction against it being aired, because the title was misdirection was a banned programme called "All About Organisms", whereas in fact it was all about a word (with a different meaning) that sounds very similar to Organisms. Of course, with the Government making such a public fuss about the show the following day, it just served to further increase viewing figures for the TV Channel - a win-win for them!
Channel 4 (like the BBC a State Owned TV Station) is also popular because it’s good at making documentaries that is ‘critical of government’ and large organisations when Channel 4 sees there is an injustice etc., something the BBC can be good at times too e.g. back in 2015 the BBC did a damning report on British Supermarkets and how they were responsible for such a high level of food waste in the UK – the documentary ‘named and shamed’, and forced supermarkets to mend their ways through public awareness and public demand.Yes, it's a great gift to have museums free of charge in the UK. I hope it will continue. (although often you have to pay for special exhibits)
As art should be excisable for all income groups.
And yes, it surprised me how much funding there was for the cultural sector after the COVID year, far more than The Netherlands was prepared to give. (They found it more important to give millions to a semi-private company like KLM than to support the thousands of people working in the creative sector.)
The strange thing is that the cultural sector is a very lucrative sector as it's given the least amount of money, but lots is coming in. It is seen as a luxury, but it's not a luxury, it's the livelihood of a country. Most countries advertise themselves abroad through cultural events.
K-Pop
Jazz
The Beatles, Rolling Stones, David Bowie, The Spice Girls, Shakespear, Tolkien
Tea ceremony, Samurai,
China Ceramics
Rembrandt, Mondriaan
Da Vinci, The Sixtine Chappel
Franch Cuisine, The Citroën,
Jazz Music, Funk and Soul, Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol
ABBA
Daft Punk, Bach, Goethe
Those names are related to countries.
You can probably make a list of companies too, but you still talk about an image, a sentiment, a story, and not about money or business. Culture is what defines a country.An interesting twist is that due to the war in Ukraine next year's Eurovision Song Contest, which was won by Ukraine this year, will now take place in the UK, because Ukraine (as the 2022 winner) is not in a position to host the next show themselves. Holding it in the UK is something that the UK Government wasn't keen on because, although the BBC will bear the brunt of the cost, the UK Government will be expected to put its hands in its pocket and make a contribution towards the cost - which runs into tens of millions of dollars e.g. it cost Azerbaijan $76million when they hosted the Eurovision in 2012.
Although the host city (which is yet to be decided) will also be expected to make a small contribution towards the costs, they will be laughing all the way to the bank because of the revenue they'll earn from all the spectators and press staying in the city for the week of the contest; typically, 10,000 to 20,000 audience capacity, plus the ability to host thousands of journalists.
And it will be good PR for whichever city in the UK hosts the Eurovision with a viewing audience of over 160 million (pre-Ukraine war over 200 million) - viewing figures reduced to 160 million because since the Ukraine war, Russia (who normally participates, and normally does quite well in the competitions) is currently barred from the contest and the Russian State has blocked viewing in Russia, which is normally tens of millions of Russian fans of Eurovision.
The Four Ways Eurovision Gets Political: https://youtu.be/O0QwlZ3VFeQAh yes the European Song Contest...
I think that if they had put on the bus that the UK would be thrown out of the European Song Contest if they choose to vote Leave....nobody would have voted Leave...
(Same with the Champions League..)
Missed opportunity.. (misinformation and lies were apparently allowed to manipulate your voters)Yep, you're right. The News Media did go to great length to debunk the misinformation and lies, but too many people didn't pay attention - some of whom now regret not listening: But 'That's Life'.
The story I told about the CIA funding art exhibitions of the Abstract Expressionists abroad to promote American culture is true.
And as such, I was reading and talking about US propaganda.
Culture and art is used by governments all over the world to promote their way of living. It's an advert for their country.
In the U.S there is the National Endowment for the Arts. To get the funding off the plate of the debate it amounts to .003% of the national budget. Not very much. Through that they provide grants. Below are two links the top to their main landing page and the second to the Grants.
National Endowment of the Arts
https://www.arts.gov/
National Endowment of the Arts / Grants
https://www.arts.gov/grants
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Escondido where I live population 150,396 we have the California Center for the Arts for the city/community. It does receive grants, though even reading the financial statement I don't know if federal or not. It lumps them in one entry.
They offer a variety of Arts and with ticket sales too. And, they have other sources of revenue like renting out the halls. I know the company I worked for rented from them for our Christmas party for more than 300 employees and spouses.
California Center for the Arts
https://artcenter.org/
California Center for the Arts Financial Statements
The opening statement reads:
The Center for the Arts Foundation Board of Trustees and staff are committed to managing the Center for the Arts on behalf of the City of Escondido with good stewardship practices. Our revenues are derived from rental revenue, grants, memberships, sponsorships, fees for services and from the City of Escondido. For the past three fiscal years revenues have exceeded expenses. Excess revenues are used to support the programs we offer. We are also committed to full disclosure of our financial status and welcome your inquiries on our operations.
https://artcenter.org/about/financials/What's government in the established state there for? Is it for protecting the State, and her citizens? Then, government is also responsible for providing social, educatinal, and economic needs of the people. A classical example is the government of the United Kingdom. Although each citizen had the task to fulfil his/her immediate needs, government still taken on unemployment issues, and others. I believe this type of government is the best.
Thank you. I believe if Nigeria, my country had not copy the American Presifntial system of government, she should have not been in the mess she's at present. Seriously, I had said it before. Let me said it once again for the benefit of all. When Nigeria was operating the Parliamentary goverment, even under military rule, health benefits or medical treatments are always free. Salaries and pensions are paid promptly. It was under the American system that all these run into bottle-necks.
Yeah, the American system is far too Laissez-faire.
Related Discussions
- 7
Should the head of state be held accountable for the consequences of their decis
by Tom Radford 13 years ago
Should the head of state be held accountable for the consequences of their decisions once retired?Specifically I'm referring to Bush and Blair with this post. It seems to me that when in power you can make the most terrible and misguided decisions but as soon as you either retire or lose an...
- 17
What are your ideas for the best way out of this economic mess?
by Ross Harrison 12 years ago
What are your ideas for the best way out of this economic mess?Sometimes I think the people in government are no more qualified to handle the economy than the average layman. Lets see what solutions you can come up with. Together we can make a difference!
- 149
We all need licenses and insurance for a car, not firearms?
by Castlepaloma 11 years ago
We all need licenses and insurance for a car, or home, even our dog and many of our jobs needs license and none were design to kill.About 80% of Americans own guns, but that's not enough. Do we really need more guns in circulation to stop mass shootings.There is 10 States firearm kill more than...
- 25
Do you believe everyone you meet was destined to be in your life?
by Cindi 11 years ago
Do you believe everyone you meet was destined to be in your life?For a life blessing or life lesson?
- 7
Why do people blame their parents for the problems in their lives?
by Tristina Green 7 years ago
Why do people blame their parents for the problems in their lives?If your parents are the reason that you are struggling in life, if they have failed to teach you what you need to know to take of yourself, if they have not taught you the fundamentals of being a grown up, if they have not prepared...
- 35
Do rights come with responsibilities?
by Michael Collins aka Lakemoron 11 years ago
Do we (Americans) have freedom of speech? If so should Joan Rivers’s apologies for what she said? Can we learn from this and other people who say what they think without considering the consequences while you have the right to say what you want you have to take responsibility for what you say. Is...