Norway Loony. Why the surprise?

[MrJonno]

My issue is that once this was established, the goalposts were moved by leftists to change the definition of poverty to being one not of lack of food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare, but instead one of a fixed (or growing) percentage of average income

Well costs are going to be at least related to how much the average person earns. I don't have a problem with saying a person without X,Y, Z lives in poverty (X,Y,Z would NOT be a plasma tv/foreign holiday but would include things like shelter, healthcare,food etc) as opposed to a % of income but its generally a lot easier ot measure that way.

Most people who live on the welfare state have shit lives compared to most people who don't, there are exceptions but living on the dole is not a pleasant experience. It's just right wing propaganda to pretend otherwise

[laklak]

Cormac, your series of posts has pretty much nailed it.

[Tyrannical]

I think that his complaint was that the socialist/leftist government of Norway was ignoring the threat of radical Islam, and that the government itself had been fatally infected with Marxism and was unresponsive to the rights of the people of Norway and that the only way to retake the government from the Marxists was to start a civil war against both Marxism and radical Islam. I suspect that there are a good many nationalists and Islamophobes who agree with his conclusions if not his methods in Norway and the rest of Europe. At least that's what he evidently thought.

I thought I check out white nationalist site Storm Front to see what their opinion was on this.

They are disgusted that he killed white people, and they blame an Israeli/Zionist plot for it, because their Labor party supported the Palestinians and wanted to boycott Israel. So the j00s strike once again

[GrahamH]

My issue is that once this was established, the goalposts were moved by leftists to change the definition of poverty to being one not of lack of food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare, but instead one of a fixed (or growing) percentage of average income

Well costs are going to be at least related to how much the average person earns. I don't have a problem with saying a person without X,Y, Z lives in poverty (X,Y,Z would NOT be a plasma tv/foreign holiday but would include things like shelter, healthcare,food etc) as opposed to a % of income but its generally a lot easier ot measure that way.

Most people who live on the welfare state have shit lives compared to most people who don't, there are exceptions but living on the dole is not a pleasant experience. It's just right wing propaganda to pretend otherwise

Defining the poverty line as a percentage of average income ensures that there will always be people below the line, however good their standard of living may be. It is a simple measure value to calculate, and has a correlation to material deprivation, but it does no good if we aspire to eliminate poverty.

Living on benefits is undoubtedly difficult, however, the comparison to draw is with living on minimum wage, which can be even harder. That is the unemployment trap.

[laklak]

Workhouses! That's the solution. And Debtor's Prison. Teach them to pay their bills on time.

[Cormac]

My issue is that once this was established, the goalposts were moved by leftists to change the definition of poverty to being one not of lack of food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare, but instead one of a fixed (or growing) percentage of average income

Well costs are going to be at least related to how much the average person earns. I don't have a problem with saying a person without X,Y, Z lives in poverty (X,Y,Z would NOT be a plasma tv/foreign holiday but would include things like shelter, healthcare,food etc) as opposed to a % of income but its generally a lot easier ot measure that way.

Most people who live on the welfare state have shit lives compared to most people who don't, there are exceptions but living on the dole is not a pleasant experience. It's just right wing propaganda to pretend otherwise

And my answer to your last sentence is: "So what?".

Why should life on the dole be comfortable?

And, just how comfortable should it be?

Regarding the problem with percentages - a percentage based calculation implies that no matter how far above the breadline a person on welfare was, even if they have a car, house, fuel, holidays, etc. on the state - they'll still be considered to be in poverty if the sum total of benefits received is less than the average income! This is crazy.

[Cormac]

Cormac, what you ignore is that there are two groups of people living off the work that others do.
One is the long term unemployed. I stress long term, because the short term unemployed are simply drawing on what they have paid in. It's their own money that they draw.
The other group is people with a lot of capital. There are an awful lot of them, and they simply never need to work, and live on their investments.

Both groups are inactive, and living on the work of others.

The long-term unemployed comprise a range of people.
Some unable, some disabled, some who want work but live in the wrong place, and some who don't want to work.

Those living on capital have often just inherited it. They never work, and pass that privilege down to their kids. And although their numbers might be smaller than those on benefit who don't want to work, the money they get is usually much higher.

I would do something about both sets of people.
.

Inheritance taxes and a ban on perpetual trusts already deal with people with large amounts of Capital.

In any case, those with large amounts of Capital comprise a very small percentage of the population. What is your real problem with them? What precisely would you do with them?

Incidentally, I'm not ignoring either group, or subgroups.

I just don't think there is anything wrong with wealth, capital, or property. I think that the right to acquire and hold these is a fundamental right.

[Cormac]

All nations are formed by some variety of genocide through this can include assimilation, ones that currently have problems are ones didnt complete the process.

The idea of different cultures living under the same local rulership (as opposed to some empire) is a modern invention (and a very good one)

Not necessarily. I think modern views in archaeology holds that in many cases assimilation occurred. This is probably what happened in Ireland (until the British used Divide and Rule). The waves of immigration before that, with different peoples (who weren't Celts by the way as Celts strictly speaking, did not live in Ireland), arriving in Ireland, did not lead to genocide, but assimilation, generally.

This isn't to say that there weren't battles, because there undoubtedly were. But genocide didn't happen in Ireland until the Famine, and whether or not the famine was a genocide is a very debatable point.

Not convinced countries really existed until the invention of decent transport and communications, no single power could possibly rule any sort of area without some sort of local warlord with extremely limited loyalty to the centre. The nation state idea is probably no more than 300-400 years old. Assimilation where you either convert or die or even just be excluded from society is a form of cultural genocide

Slight move of the goalposts there, as you hadn't mentioned "Nation State".

In any case, we had a nation state on several occasions in our history, when all of Ireland and a large part of Scotland were united under one (Irish) king.

I didn't say anything about warlords one way or the other. As it happens, Irish political entities were run by a warrior caste, but with a very strict legal constitution. (Brehon Laws, for example). This still doesn't mean that genocide occurred.

It seems to be the case that the waves of immigration largely led to a merging of cultures, or wholesale adoption of a better culture, rather than a genocidal sequence.

[Cormac]

I think that his complaint was that the socialist/leftist government of Norway was ignoring the threat of radical Islam, and that the government itself had been fatally infected with Marxism and was unresponsive to the rights of the people of Norway and that the only way to retake the government from the Marxists was to start a civil war against both Marxism and radical Islam. I suspect that there are a good many nationalists and Islamophobes who agree with his conclusions if not his methods in Norway and the rest of Europe. At least that's what he evidently thought.

I thought I check out white nationalist site Storm Front to see what their opinion was on this.

They are disgusted that he killed white people, and they blame an Israeli/Zionist plot for it, because their Labor party supported the Palestinians and wanted to boycott Israel. So the j00s strike once again

Odd, because the psycho is vocally pro Israel.

[Cormac]

I think that his complaint was that the socialist/leftist government of Norway was ignoring the threat of radical Islam, and that the government itself had been fatally infected with Marxism and was unresponsive to the rights of the people of Norway and that the only way to retake the government from the Marxists was to start a civil war against both Marxism and radical Islam. I suspect that there are a good many nationalists and Islamophobes who agree with his conclusions if not his methods in Norway and the rest of Europe. At least that's what he evidently thought.

I thought I check out white nationalist site Storm Front to see what their opinion was on this.

They are disgusted that he killed white people, and they blame an Israeli/Zionist plot for it, because their Labor party supported the Palestinians and wanted to boycott Israel. So the j00s strike once again

... and, at the risk of being pedantic, Israel the state is not commensurate with ALL jewish people.

[Pensioner]

Cormac and Laklak fascist bastards.

[Cormac]

Cormac and Laklak fascist bastards.

Less of the bastard you S.O.B.!

[laklak]

That's Libertarian Fascist Pig Running Dog Oppressor to you, you old fart!

[mistermack]

Inheritance taxes and a ban on perpetual trusts already deal with people with large amounts of Capital.

In any case, those with large amounts of Capital comprise a very small percentage of the population. What is your real problem with them? What precisely would you do with them?
I just don't think there is anything wrong with wealth, capital, or property. I think that the right to acquire and hold these is a fundamental right.

You've given the answer. I would make inheritance tax 100%.
I agree with your last sentence. But you didn't mention inherit.

If inheritance tax was 100%, people should pay less in income tax, with the corresponding incentive to earn. So the incentive to leave your kids a bundle would disappear, but you get to keep more of what you earn. It should balance out.

[Warren Dew]

We have welfare states in Europe precisely so that we will no longer have people starving, or having to live on the streets, or dying for want of healthcare. I am a conservative, economically speaking, and for conservative principles, I think the welfare state is a good idea (but with strict limits). This is because, in the interest of improving economic performance, it is good for society to have good health, an ever improving educational profile across society, and the limitation of violent social unrest.

My issue is that once this was established, the goalposts were moved by leftists to change the definition of poverty to being one not of lack of food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare, but instead one of a fixed (or growing) percentage of average income.

Excellent statement of the problem with modern attitudes toward "poverty".

Honestly, I'd probably be okay with a fixed percentage if it weren't constantly pushed towrds 100%.