32
   

Countries with Highest Standard of Living

 
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 07:06 am
@dadpad,
We know already that you are the best..
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 07:07 am
@Francis,
... in "footy".
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 07:12 am
@Francis,
Quote:
We know already that you are the best..

Is there an index for best lovers?

I think you might have an edge there.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 07:47 am
@dadpad,
There's nowhere like Lancashire. That's in England for those who didn't do proper geography at school.

H.M. Queen, our Sovereign, was asked where she would retire to if she were, heaven forbid, to retire. After dismissing the idea of Her retiring she speculated that if such an unlikely event were to occur She would settle herself in the Ribble Valley which is in Lancashire. I don't think a suburb of Sydney would have entered Her gracious head.

On the basis of such esteemed discrimination, which has as many choices as maybe at its disposal, Lancashire is the world's best place. The Queen can discriminate between a counter-jumper and a man of principle just from hearing their footsteps.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 08:38 am
@spendius,
The only positive about Lancashire was "Blackpool Night Out".
"Top of the Pops" was better, though.

(The view from Southport towards Blackpool is rather nice, too.)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 09:03 am
@Walter Hinteler,
That's not Lancashire Walt. But a Blackpool Night Out did used to be something special. It was a pop at the tops. The seaside girls I mean.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 09:06 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

That's not Lancashire Walt.


See? Nothing special there.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 11:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Even Hitler told his pilots not to damage Blackpool.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 01:51 pm
@spendius,
What - spendius is trying to justify his Liverpool upbringing?
0 Replies
 
margo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 02:27 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

H.M. Queen, our Sovereign, was asked where she would retire to if she were, heaven forbid, to retire. After dismissing the idea of Her retiring she speculated that if such an unlikely event were to occur She would settle herself in the Ribble Valley which is in Lancashire. I don't think a suburb of Sydney would have entered Her gracious head.


Well ..- we're glad for that. We don't need a freeloading dysfunctional family, expecting to be supported as you currently do! Very Happy
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 02:36 pm
@margo,
Yeah, they get some $83 million a year (last year's estimate) from their government. That amount would sure support a lot of schools and teachers in our country. We're letting teachers go, because the revenue is not there to pay them. We do however spend billions every day on two wars.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 03:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Perhaps if you spent it on yourselves you would all go nuts.

Anytime we wish to get rid of Her Majesty we will do so. We have a permanent debate going on about what to spend our resources on and the consensus has decided what it will be.

From what I have seen Americans spend more on our monarchy than we do. We see what we do spend on it as an investment. Possibly to prevent us having to watch baseball instead of cricket. It would be worth it just for that. We banned professional wrestling on account of how silly it is and because it makes the grannies bloodthirsty.

The Queen and Her family members are patrons of all sorts of things which it would be ridiculous to have politicians patrons of. Imagine having a brand of whisky by appointment to Richard Nixon or Les Patterson. The Monarchy, by that system, does all our tasting and testing for us and stops us believing all the lies the advertisers tell. It's the ultimate stamp of approval and we know that the firms chosen will do their very best not to lose it by being caught with any funny stuff like watering the beer.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 04:12 pm
@spendius,
But, you guys pay the royals all that money for being the titular head of your country, and they don't even govern. Just ceremonies and others tasks with the blessings of the royals; that's an awful lot of money - for nothing!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 04:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From allvoices.com.

Quote:
With terror written on his face, the Duchess of Cornwall, seen as a snarling mob student fees protesters kicked his car on Thursday night.

In the worst violation of real security for a generation, the car carrying her and Prince Charles was sent off, hit and hit with paint bombs, reports the London Daily Mail.

'Gangs steam' A masked protesters ambushed them as they were taken to the Royal Variety Performance at the London Palladium, the increase echoes the 1974 kidnapping attempt in Princess Anne.

The prince and duchess were not injured, but the potential risk to their safety posed new questions about the disposal of the police after the failure last month that saw protesters smash rates Conservative Party headquarters.

Head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson said his anger last night. "The honest people, including peaceful demonstrators who wanted to make his point, condemn what we saw today," he said.

David Cameron, said the attack on the real car was "surprising and regrettable."

According to observers, only half the crowd were students, with a rent a mob of thugs and anarchists other taking control.

The fighting left 12 policemen and 43 demonstrators were injured.

In Wikipedia, the Coalition was plunged into crisis as MPs voted to approve an increase in tuition fees top £ 3.290 a year to £ 9,000.

Three ministerial advisers - two liberal Democrats and conservative one - gave up most of the 83 government was reduced to only 21, a quarter of its normal size.

In a blow for Nick Clegg's authority, 21 Liberal Democrats such as former leader Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy voted against the Government.

Eight other Liberal Democrats abstained and not back the plans, ie, the Deputy Prime Minister could not get even half of its 57 MPs to vote with the government.

authority was undermined David Cameron also challenged eight conservative personal reasons to go online.

Senior government officials saw the rebellion of one side of the walls of the Palace of Westminster as a grim harbinger of the larger protests come in the courts of the Coalition.

A senior official said the government will have to accept that up to 20 Liberal Democrats are now "practically part of the opposition" and begin to align themselves with Labour rather than weakened Clegg.

Mr. Clegg, who promised not to increase charges during the general election campaign, refused to be ashamed to vote in favor of politics.

"I would feel embarrassed if he was not referring to the way the world is not just dream of how the world would like to be," said the deputy prime minister.

But Liberal Democrat MPs openly defied their leader. Greg Mulholland, who voted against the fee increase, accused him of "not listening."

Conservative backbenchers formed an unusual alliance with Labour MPs to trigger uncomfortable questions in Business Secretary Lib Dem Vince Cable, the submission of plans of Commons.

Flanked by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and David Cameron, Mrcable was greeted with boos when he argued that the new fee, paid once graduates start earning £ 21,000, was "more progressive and more related to ability to pay of graduates.

Cable voice faltered as he tried to establish the principle behind the policy - that students no longer have to pay upfront tuition fees.

Senior right-wing Tory Edward Leigh warned that the Middle Kingdom would be the most affected by the changes.

He said: "Many of the people we represent, which are moderate income, which are at work, also need help as well and should not be disadvantaged. Middle-income Middle Britain can not continue paying for it. '

Tory MP Julian Lewis, who voted no, said students from poor families who are put off by the high fees. "I can hear people talking percentages until you are blue in the face, or yellow in the face.

"But I am not convinced that young people from poor families will not be deterred.

During the five-hour heated debate, the shadow business, John Denham, said: "Most of the graduates were not asked to pay something for their college education, but to pay the full cost of their college education."

The former Labour Education Secretary David Blunkett attacked the government cuts maintenance grants, saying: 'I know more about social mobility than most because my life has been an example of social mobility, from the time I was released the day and evening classes, the opportunity to go to college as a mature student. [Nick Clegg] knows nothing of social mobility, nothing. "

Last night the prime minister condemned the violence and said: "In our democracy people have every right to protest peacefully and make their views known.

"But the violence in London today, is totally unacceptable. It is clear that a minority of protesters was determined to cause violence, attacking police and cause further damage to the property as possible.

"They must face the rigor of the law.

"The police have faced a significant risk ... we have responded with courage and professionalism, and deserve the gratitude of the public."
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 10:20 pm
Some years ago someone figured out in Sweden, that presidents would cost us more than the royal family costs. The castles including all the historical things has to be kept up as they certainly cannot be used as apartments for needy or whatever. Presidents and ex presidents costs a lot of money over the years.
And it sure is nicer to have someone who knows how to represent our country in comparasing with some president and wife/husband who does not know how to behave in a foreign country.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 12:19 am
I would be very interested in statistics (if they exist) about the distribution of wealth in the countries with the "highest standard of living".
I think that tells us a lot more more about the quality of life of most citizens in any country.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 12:51 am
@msolga,
What is real wealth? You can have a person with a large estate farm which is worth millions on paper, but that does not mean that person has a lot of money or a big income.
If you have a big firm you have to have a large amount of money put aside for a rainy day.
Distributing the wealth by high taxes was tried in Sweden with the result that some of the biggest firms moved abroad like Findus, Ikea, Hasselblad and others which resulted in loss of taxes.
When an idylic place along the coast which all of a sudden gets popular with city people the properties get valuable so property taxes increase. Now the fishermen and others who have been living there for generations cannot afford to live there. Their children cannot afford to pay the inheritance taxes without selling. Again on paper they are rich, but still they can only pay taxes by selling.
With high inherintance taxes a lot of small firms/farms have to be sold and cannot be taken over by the children.
You have to seperate wealth on paper and income to spend.
Friends of mine had an apple plantation - the property was worth millions, but their income was below the powerty line. Sweden imported apples from New Zealand so they had to throw out their apples and get some money from the state. How should their wealth be distributed? An apple for each of us?
Sweden has gotten rid of inheritance taxes and changed the whole tax system and now things are better.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 01:40 am
@saab,
Saab, theoretically in my country (Australia) we are all exceptionally well off at the moment, according to official statistics.
We are all experiencing good times, based on the mineral boom.
What I am saying is, this this might well be the truth for some, but it certainly isn't the reality of many others. It is not as though we all share the wealth.
At the same time we are experiencing these so-called "boom times" in my country, many do not experience the benefits at all.
Many are living below the poverty line. Many are homeless. Many are living on pensions which do not in anyway, reflect "boom times".
I don't think some sort of "average" standard of living statistics reflect the truth or the reality of how many people actually live.
That's why I was saying that statistics about actual distribution of wealth might be a better indicator of well being.

Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 01:59 am
@msolga,
Msolga: it will take quite some time but I think it's worth reading as it contains the answer to your question:

The world distribution of household wealth
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 02:07 am
@Francis,
Thank you, Francis.

I have begun reading but can't follow through to the end of the information provided in your link right now.

But I definitely will, as soon as I am able to!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2022 at 10:57:24