On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:46:42 -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:43:45PM +0100, Michael Graham said: >> >> According to [1] in 1998 the average production worker in the US paid >> 18% income tax and 8% to social security, in the UK paid 17% income tax >> and 7% to social security. And I assume that in the US the average >> production worker would still have to pay for medical care. > > Don't forget that rather a lot of that US expense goes to pay for the > defense of the UK.
The UK spends about 2.5% of it's GDP on defence in the states it's around 3.5%. So as a percentage of your wage hardly any more of it goes towards defence (never mind "defence of the UK"). >> Now I don't doubt that higher earners pay more in the UK but remember a >> nation's greatness should be judged by how it treats the least of its >> citizens. > > No; it should be judged by how many of its least are able to rise above > that. A nation that has 99% poor can treat them well all day long, but > a nation that has 10% poor is treating 89% of its people a lot better. > > But, the average "poor" person in the US has cable TV, a carpetted > floor, full health care, the right to worship as he pleases, and enough > money to eat at McDonalds. Compare this to the average middle-class > person worldwide. If you define poor worldwide then there would be no poor in the US (or the UK for that matter) but poor is a relative term, the US has just as many poor (i.e. below the average) as any other country. If you want a fair comparison you should really compare developed countries. -- OoberMick
