If that is what it means to "face your accuser" then yes.
Are you prepared to bet ruining an innocent person's life on less?
Rape as a crime is pretty prevalent
Not nearly as prevalent as some seem to think and even IF it were to define it as a womens' issue is disingenuous. The oft quoted 9 in 10 statistic dates back to 1995 when sexual assault was still defined specifically as a crime against women and minors.
Well, first of all, that "hit in income" is part of what makes poverty so prevalent among single mothers.
Work more, get paid more, work less, get paid less.
your point is?
How do you account for this?
I've explained this to you repeatedly but for someone who complains about others "lack of nuance" you seem to have a lot of trouble parsing simple conditional statements.
As far as I know, (see according to the IMF) Norway, Sweden, and the other Scandinavian countries run an economic surplus with very little external debt. This is actually one of the "positive cultural traits" that the Spirit Level cited.
To put this in as simple "non-jargony" terms as possible, their governments have disposable income.
IF the government of some country or another wants to spend their disposable income on domestic programs instead of say building a huge-ass particle collider or fighting world hunger, that is their prerogative. I am not a Scandinavian tax-payer and thus have no stake in the matter.
HOWEVER This is predicated on having money to spare in the first place. Which the US government DOES NOT
The US government spends way more than it takes in, the opposite of "surpluss", and the majority of most of our debts are external rather than internal.
Again to put this in as simple "non-jargony" terms as possible. we are running out of money and our credit rating sucks.
As such we need to EITHER cut back our expenditures till we have a surplus. OR deal with rampant inflation and/or shortages.
And before you even suggest it...
No we can't just tax our way out of it because with our current debt ratio you would need to tax everyone not in the bottom 1% at the maximum allowed tax rate to even make a dent. Even if we restricted ourselves to "the rich" simply confiscating the income and assets of the upper "73 Percent" (what it would actually take to square the circle) is simply not a realistic solution.
TLDR
How do I account for this? Easily, they have the time and the money to spare and we don't.
no subject
If that is what it means to "face your accuser" then yes.
Are you prepared to bet ruining an innocent person's life on less?
Rape as a crime is pretty prevalent
Not nearly as prevalent as some seem to think and even IF it were to define it as a womens' issue is disingenuous. The oft quoted 9 in 10 statistic dates back to 1995 when sexual assault was still defined specifically as a crime against women and minors.
Well, first of all, that "hit in income" is part of what makes poverty so prevalent among single mothers.
Work more, get paid more, work less, get paid less.
your point is?
How do you account for this?
I've explained this to you repeatedly but for someone who complains about others "lack of nuance" you seem to have a lot of trouble parsing simple conditional statements.
As far as I know, (see according to the IMF) Norway, Sweden, and the other Scandinavian countries run an economic surplus with very little external debt. This is actually one of the "positive cultural traits" that the Spirit Level cited.
To put this in as simple "non-jargony" terms as possible, their governments have disposable income.
IF the government of some country or another wants to spend their disposable income on domestic programs instead of say building a huge-ass particle collider or fighting world hunger, that is their prerogative. I am not a Scandinavian tax-payer and thus have no stake in the matter.
HOWEVER This is predicated on having money to spare in the first place. Which the US government DOES NOT
The US government spends way more than it takes in, the opposite of "surpluss", and the majority of most of our debts are external rather than internal.
Again to put this in as simple "non-jargony" terms as possible. we are running out of money and our credit rating sucks.
As such we need to EITHER cut back our expenditures till we have a surplus. OR deal with rampant inflation and/or shortages.
And before you even suggest it...
No we can't just tax our way out of it because with our current debt ratio you would need to tax everyone not in the bottom 1% at the maximum allowed tax rate to even make a dent. Even if we restricted ourselves to "the rich" simply confiscating the income and assets of the upper "73 Percent" (what it would actually take to square the circle) is simply not a realistic solution.
TLDR
How do I account for this? Easily, they have the time and the money to spare and we don't.