Quantcast

Would socialism make america better?

✿Britt ❤'s Steven Tyler✿ 2012/09/11 14:57:42
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Reasons For Socialism
  1. Social Equality: Public education is an example of attempting to equalize the minimum education for all people. Incresed workers right and decreases poverty.
  2. Economic Equality: Minimum wage, food stamps, social security, and public housing are just some ways to reduce absolute poverty and is based on socialism.
  3. Medical Equality: Socialized healthcare means that everyone receives the same minimum healthcare, even if unemployed and unable to pay for medical needs.
  4. Political Equality: Socialism increases workers rights and is more likely to allow more than only two dominate political parties.







Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • no
    ☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sheriff!!
    +29
    Socialism give people no incentive to improve quality of life..Free markets gives people the incentive to improve quality of life!! Look at Greece, Spain and France??..Greece is bankrupt and Spain has 25% unemployment!! I work hard for my money and I don't think that my success should have to go support deadbeats!

    reagan teaches other presidents on economy and socialism

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Mary Mary 2012/10/25 13:28:52
    yes
    Mary Mary
    Democratic socialism like Australia and Canada.
  • Jon Bergen 2012/10/25 12:44:29
    yes
    Jon Bergen
  • Mary Mary Jon Bergen 2012/11/02 10:44:01
    Mary Mary
    +1
    THAT IS AWESOME LOL THANK YOU LOL
  • Jon Bergen Mary Mary 2012/11/02 15:24:18 (edited)
    Jon Bergen
    Thank you. Others more eloquent than I have said the same thing with beautiful words (which is why I Like Ike ~ see below).

    eloquent beautiful ike

    Nevertheless, this great Republican President agrees with the need for socialism within democracy:

    eloquent beautiful ike republican president agrees socialism democracy

    And the reason is simple:

    When democracy is instituted anywhere in the world, the powerful create a political party that resembles the American Republican Party, or Britain's Tories, or any other right-wing organization one would care to name. That party always has the goal of limiting or eliminating the power of democratic institutions and restoring a system where the ruling class rules without being forced to heed the results of referendums, plebiscites or elections.

    Democracy thwarts the will of the powerful by forcing them to share power with the ordinary citizens whose voice, when allowed to speak as a collective, wields a power equal to their own. Power-sharing, in the end, is what the powerful define as 'socialism.'
  • Jon Bergen Mary Mary 2012/11/02 15:52:32
    Jon Bergen
    I know I posted the above elsewhere, but it is important and bears repeating. And this is the reason why:

    posted important bears repeating reason
  • derek 2012/09/19 19:52:56
    no
    derek
    +3
    Hell no. Even this dog can tell Obama is evil. http://youtu.be/XivhwO_zWWg

    Wonder if he's a racist too..
  • Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪ 2012/09/16 22:17:59
    no
    Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪
    +2
    Socialism doesn't work, never has and won't here.
  • teachaman~PWCM~JLA 2012/09/14 15:40:32
    no
    teachaman~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    the concepts that lie behind socialism are exactly what force the system into failure - every single time ... socialism, while re-naming it " economic / social equality", is based on AVARICE - a combination of greed, laziness, and envy ... "greed"is the source of its funding through legalized robbery (theft by use of force) of those that produce and/or succeed in order to pay off those who do not produce or succeed ... while some of the outcomes of socialist ideas are in fact noble, socialism is an attempt to FORCE nobility, in the form normally taken by charity, onto the general populace
  • Trader1 is kerbonkin' 2012/09/14 02:19:48
    no
    Trader1 is kerbonkin'
    +2
    I notice this word pops up a few times ... minimum education, minimum wage, minimum healthcare.

    These reasons are nothing but an attempt at slavery. Give all people the same crap, minimum lifestye with no hope of better and that's a form of slavery. People end up just existing, never striving.

    You can't take money from the rich and just hand it out to the poor. It takes incentive away .... why work when you can get it for free? It takes away any ambition the poor might have to improve their lives ... why try to make more money if the government is just going to take it away and give it to someone poorer than me? It totally destroys the community's desire to help out those less fortunate than them ... why help my neighbor, the government's taking care of him?

    Even if we were to take all the money in the world and divide it equally between every man, woman and child ... we still wouldn't all be equal because the ambitious would just go out and start making money again, the hard workers would throw their lot in with the ambitious and work for them and the ones who didn't work before would spend all their money and then whine that they were poor again.

    It's human nature.
  • ☆Ed☆ 2012/09/14 02:05:52
    no
    ☆Ed☆
    +2
    Absolutely NOT !!!

    Have you actually researched any "socialist" nations???

    Your "Reasons For Socialism" are so pathetically delusional that I seriously doubt that you even comprehend what the definition of "socialism" is!!!

    The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "socialism" as;

    http://www.merriam-webster.co...

    Definition of SOCIALISM
    1
    : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2
    a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
    b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3
    : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    After reading the definition of "socialism", are you truly so naive as to think that the average American citizen would sit still for the U.S. becoming socialist?!?

    First, try as they may, the liberals are incapable of getting a majority of politicians to admit that they want a "socialist" nation because, just as happened in 2010, the socialist Nimrods MASSIVELY LOST their reelection campaigns to CONSERVATIVES...









    Absolutely NOT!!!

    Have you actually researched any "socialist" nations???

    Your "Reasons For Socialism" are so pathetically delusional that I seriously doubt that you even comprehend what the definition of "socialism" is!!!

    The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "socialism" as;

    http://www.merriam-webster.co...

    Definition of SOCIALISM
    1
    : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2
    a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
    b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3
    : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    After reading the definition of "socialism", are you truly so naive as to think that the average American citizen would sit still for the U.S. becoming socialist?!?

    First, try as they may, the liberals are incapable of getting a majority of politicians to admit that they want a "socialist" nation because, just as happened in 2010, the socialist Nimrods MASSIVELY LOST their reelection campaigns to CONSERVATIVES!!!

    Second, you don't really expect anyone to believe the nonsense that YOU, or any other "socialist" would be willing to relinquish ALL of your "private property", do you?!?

    funny socialist ideology


    stupid socialist ideology


    stupid socialist
    (more)
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/10/25 13:30:22
    Mary Mary
    Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
    Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism
  • ☆Ed☆ Mary Mary 2012/10/26 06:11:08 (edited)
    ☆Ed☆
    You socialists IGNORE the FACT that the United States is NOT, and was NEVER INTENDED to be, a "DEMOCRACY"!!! Our founding fathers were very adamant that they had created a "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" and NOT a "Democracy"!!!

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.c...


    The Founding Fathers Rejected Democracy
    by Harold Pease

    The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was "Republic", which is not synonymous with "Democracy." The word "Democracy" is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is "to the Republic for which it stands."
    Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

    So why did they reject Democracy? Because it is inherently flawed with the "share the wealth" philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else's money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of...















    You socialists IGNORE the FACT that the United States is NOT, and was NEVER INTENDED to be, a "DEMOCRACY"!!! Our founding fathers were very adamant that they had created a "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" and NOT a "Democracy"!!!

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.c...


    The Founding Fathers Rejected Democracy
    by Harold Pease

    The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was "Republic", which is not synonymous with "Democracy." The word "Democracy" is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is "to the Republic for which it stands."
    Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

    So why did they reject Democracy? Because it is inherently flawed with the "share the wealth" philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else's money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce.

    Fraser Tyler, author of The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic authored more than 200 years ago said it best. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Where does the money come from for all the "good" that government does? Answer, out of someone else's pocket. If it is with his consent it is a form of charity. If forced, a form of tyranny. The more and the longer given, the more entitled the receiver becomes until he is quite willing to take to the streets and demand more of other people's money, fully satisfied that he has every right to it. This works until those who have money are destroyed as a class and everyone is equally poor. The result is a diminished standard of living for everyone, as was the case under 20th Century communism.

    A Democracy gives us the principles of majority rules and frequent elections with options, but little more. It does not protect us from the government's redistribution of wealth philosophy, which entitles the less productive to get something for nothing.

    A Republic includes frequent elections with options. It also gives place to majority rules, but only to a point, for as your mother told you growing up, the majority is not always right. A Republic is also based upon natural unalienable rights that come from a source higher than man (for example life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)

    Minority rights are protected from the majority in a Republic. A lynch mob is Democracy. Everyone voted but the man being lynched. A Republic rescues this man gives him a fair trial with a bona fide judge and witnesses for his defense. In a Republic there is an emphasis on individual differences rather than absolute equality. Such individual differences are seen as a strength in a Republic rather than as a flaw under Democracy, which equates sameness as equality.

    Limited government is also a major aspect of a Republic. The government is handcuffed from dominating our lives. There is a list of functions and a clear process for obtaining additional power. Finally, there is a healthy fear of the emotion of the masses, destabilizing natural law upon which real freedom is based.

    The Founders created a Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution, as designed, is the mechanism to ensure we stay a Republic. We must demand from our leaders a strict adherence to that document in order to preserve our liberty, and that of future generations.

    Dr. Harold Pease has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
    (more)
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/10/26 07:05:43
    Mary Mary
    And how's that working for you, by the look of you debt IT AIN'T WORKING. When my nephews went to America their memory wasn't Disneyland it was all the people begging. They had never seen anything like that.
  • ☆Ed☆ Mary Mary 2012/10/31 03:07:10
    ☆Ed☆
    It's actually working far better than YOUR socialist BS has EVER worked for ANY nation!!!

    Of course you would know that if you would remove your head from your bowels and instead plant it in BOOKS!!!
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/10/31 03:31:12
    Mary Mary
    Lol sorry sweetie but the australian economy is booming more jobs than we can fill. We are bringing in foreign workers we aren't socialists we live in a socialist democracy. If we were socialists it would be impossible to have the richest woman in the world mining magnate Gina Rinehart :-)
  • ☆Ed☆ Mary Mary 2012/11/01 06:32:32
    ☆Ed☆
    LOL, I feel sorry for your delusional ignorance!!! You're too brainwashed to comprehend what a "socialist democracy" is!!! Perhaps the website, "Socialist Democracy" can EXPLAIN, in SIMPLE enough terms for even you to comprehend, what it's all about!!!

    http://www.socialistdemocracy...


    Socialist Democracy is a Marxist organisation standing in the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Connolly . We believe that the poverty and misery, the oppression and exploitation that marks our society is the result of control of the world’s wealth and productive resources by a tiny class that exploits the vast majority of society. This leads to humanity crippled by the reality and ideology of capitalist society. This reality leads the majority of humanity to premature death and the majority of working people to lives of drudgery and stress in a world over which they have no control. Human rights are routinely violated and inequality has grown dramatically. The ideas that support this social system are those of competition and the rat race. Humanity is left both physically and mentally scarred and disfigured while the planet it lives on is ravaged and devastated.

    We struggle for a society in which class divisions are abolished and the state that enforces class rule withers away. A soci...













    LOL, I feel sorry for your delusional ignorance!!! You're too brainwashed to comprehend what a "socialist democracy" is!!! Perhaps the website, "Socialist Democracy" can EXPLAIN, in SIMPLE enough terms for even you to comprehend, what it's all about!!!

    http://www.socialistdemocracy...


    Socialist Democracy is a Marxist organisation standing in the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Connolly. We believe that the poverty and misery, the oppression and exploitation that marks our society is the result of control of the world’s wealth and productive resources by a tiny class that exploits the vast majority of society. This leads to humanity crippled by the reality and ideology of capitalist society. This reality leads the majority of humanity to premature death and the majority of working people to lives of drudgery and stress in a world over which they have no control. Human rights are routinely violated and inequality has grown dramatically. The ideas that support this social system are those of competition and the rat race. Humanity is left both physically and mentally scarred and disfigured while the planet it lives on is ravaged and devastated.

    We struggle for a society in which class divisions are abolished and the state that enforces class rule withers away. A society based on common ownership and control of its resources by each and every one of its citizens, democratically determining the development of its economy and society, will eradicate the divisions of class, race, sex and religion. A democratically planned society has the potential to progressively reduce the burden of work allowing greater and greater participation in the running of society by those that create its wealth through their labour. The world of necessity (work) will give way to the world of freedom. This will lead to humanity actually living the ideas of cooperation and solidarity and see the true development of human personality in all its potential. Such a society, communism, will not create perfection because perfection itself is not a feature of humanity. It will remove the social causes of inhumanity so that everything that is truly human will be free.

    Creation of such a society can only take place after a new state is created, one dedicated to the abolition of oppression and exploitation resulting from the existence of classes, and dedicated to its own disappearance as a state. Only the working class, as the overwhelming majority in the most developed countries, the creators of all wealth and with no other class below it which to exploit can be the agency of this change. This can only follow the expropriation of the capitalist class of its ownership of productive resources and destruction of the state structure that enforces its rule. The central task of the working class is the leadership of all the oppressed in society in the smashing of the existing state and creation of a new, truly democratic, worker’s state based on the workers’ and oppressed’s own organisations. This emancipation of the working class can only be achieved by the working class itself. Because the capitalist state is a creation of the capitalist class and functions as a weapon of its rule it cannot be taken over by the workers and used to further the abolition of classes and itself.

    In other words it cannot be reformed. Workers must destroy it in revolution. A socialist revolution simply means the vast majority of society under working class leadership carrying out this task. It represents society’s majority becoming truly politically active for the first time. Similarly because society is structured around the ownership of productive resources by a tiny minority and the compulsion of the majority to work, in order to live, to create profit for that minority, society cannot be reformed to abolish exploitation or the periodic economic crises that result from it. Only common ownership and control of the economic and social resources of society can abolish exploitation and the unemployment and attacks on living standards that arise from crises. Again this is only possible through revolution.

    The working class must therefore become the new ruling class of society, but a ruling class that seeks its own disappearance. The task of Marxists is to help train and prepare the working class for this role. This means that the working class must master all the issues of exploitation and oppression that affect everyone in capitalist society. The oppression of women is central to this task and while women’s liberation is not possible except as part of the socialist project neither can this project succeed unless women’s liberation is at its heart. The degree of progress in achieving socialism will best be measured by the advancement of women from all forms of subordination. The task of Marxists is not therefore to lead the economic struggles of workers to overthrow exploitation. It is to engage with all struggles to point them to a political struggle against the capitalist state.

    In order to formulate and defend the ideas of working class liberation and to promote the revolutionary organisation of the working class it is necessary to organise the most class-conscious members of the oppressed into a political party that can combat all the other parties of the other classes. The revolutionary workers party must fight for the allegiance of the whole working class and seek by its activity to represent the interests of the whole class. It must therefore reject all divisions and reject turning itself into a sect that defends only some particular theory or tactic which it seeks to impose on the real workers movement. It must learn from the bureaucratisation of earlier worker’s parties and defend the democratic functioning of its internal life. This includes the right to free and open debate inside the party and also in front of the whole class. It means the right of party members to form tendencies and factions within the party to promote the debate on party policy and action. Democracy is advanced by all members of the party joining together to implement the policies of the majority so that their ideas may be subjected to the judgement of real practice. Such organisation is known as democratic centralism.

    Socialism cannot be achieved in one country but must embrace every country of the world. From this flows the necessity of international organisation both for Marxists and the working class. The increasing globalisation of production means that only international organisation is capable of defeating the increasing organisation of the capitalist class on an international basis, evidenced through the European Union, World Bank, NATO, IMF and WTO and multinational companies. Socialist internationalism is irreconcilably opposed to all forms of nationalism. While we support the democratic content of the nationalism of oppressed peoples we recognise that only socialism can promise democracy for such peoples. In opposition to imperialism we seek the maximum voluntary unity of every nationality. We oppose the commodification of culture and support the free cultural development of every people.

    In Ireland we oppose the imperialist occupation of the country and division of the working class it creates: between North and South and Protestant and Catholic. We stand for the complete unity of the Irish working class and oppose those movements and ideologies that promote its division such as loyalism. Likewise we oppose Irish nationalism which is the ideology of the Irish capitalist class and is an ally of imperialism standing in the way of Irish workers achieving unity and independence. We demand a democratic solution to the national question through self-determination for the whole Irish people. This demand is an integral part of the democratic and socialist programme that sets out the tasks of creating an Irish worker’s state. The programme of Socialist Democracy can be found in our publications and sets out our understanding of the nature of the Irish revolution and the tasks to be accomplished to achieve it. It sets out our principles and policies and is the fruit of continuing debate within our organisation and with revolutionaries outside it.

    We have identified two immediate tasks for the Irish working class. The first is to oppose the Good Friday Agreement which is an attempt to strengthen imperialist rule, reinforce partition and bolster the sectarianism that helps prevent the unity of the working class. We work to build a political opposition to the Agreement that can mobilise mass resistance to imperialism. We oppose republican militarist conceptions of struggle that stand in the way of the oppressed achieving their own freedom. The second is to oppose social partnership in the south of the country, which preaches a false identity of interest between workers and bosses.
    (more)
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/01 06:36:41
    Mary Mary
    Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
    Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.
    Q Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
    Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
    Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs....

    Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
    Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.
    Q Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
    Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
    Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
    Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
    Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.
    (more)
  • ☆Ed☆ Mary Mary 2012/11/01 06:57:11
    ☆Ed☆
    LOL, you truly have bought the socialist BS, hook, line, and sinker!!!

    As for the United States, we are NOT even a DEMOCRACY!!! Our founding fathers were ADAMANT that they had created a "Democratic REPUBLIC"!!!

    Your complete lack of knowledge concerning socialism and communism tends to negate the possibility of you even remotely comprehending what a Democratic REPUBLIC is, and due to your obvious lack of will to honestly RESEARCH the issue, I won't waste time on a neophyte like yourself, that is so lazy that you prefer to be a slave to your government than keeping your freedoms!!!
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/01 07:24:33
    Mary Mary
    We aren't socialist in Australia, we have a socialist/democracy. We have HC for ALL, welfare for whoever needs it PLUS our economy is strong. Governemnt doesn't own everything ask Gina Rinehart the richest woman in the world.
    How's your economy, is capitalism working for you?
  • ☆Ed☆ Mary Mary 2012/11/02 07:05:51
    ☆Ed☆
    LOL....Your LACK of KNOWLEDGE concerning socialism is only outdone by your IGNORANCE of the FACTS about Australia's economy and cost of living!!!


    http://www.australiaforum.com...

    Cost of living in Australia compared to the US

    by Mark Benson on January 7, 2010
    in General Information

    Australia is very popular with US expats who are looking to start a new life in a foreign land where the weather is good, prospects are encouraging and the standard of living is comparable to their former homeland. However, with prosperity comes a price with the cost of living in Australia having been on the increase since around the turn of the century and the difference between the cost of living in America and the cost of living in Australia seemingly growing all of the time – but is this really the case?

    So what are the main factors to consider when comparing the cost of living in Australia to the cost of living in America?

    Property

    Even though the trend of renting your home rather than buying it outright is still evident in America we have seen more and more US citizens acquire their properties. After peaking at around US$322,000 in the first quarter of 2007 the cost of the average home in America is now around US$269,000. However, it is a difficult to compare and contrast against the Australian...





























    LOL....Your LACK of KNOWLEDGE concerning socialism is only outdone by your IGNORANCE of the FACTS about Australia's economy and cost of living!!!


    http://www.australiaforum.com...

    Cost of living in Australia compared to the US

    by Mark Benson on January 7, 2010
    in General Information

    Australia is very popular with US expats who are looking to start a new life in a foreign land where the weather is good, prospects are encouraging and the standard of living is comparable to their former homeland. However, with prosperity comes a price with the cost of living in Australia having been on the increase since around the turn of the century and the difference between the cost of living in America and the cost of living in Australia seemingly growing all of the time – but is this really the case?

    So what are the main factors to consider when comparing the cost of living in Australia to the cost of living in America?

    Property

    Even though the trend of renting your home rather than buying it outright is still evident in America we have seen more and more US citizens acquire their properties. After peaking at around US$322,000 in the first quarter of 2007 the cost of the average home in America is now around US$269,000. However, it is a difficult to compare and contrast against the Australian property market due in the main to the massive divergences in price and quality of housing!

    If you take the largest cities in Australia the average price of a property has increased from AUS$371,000 to around AUS$381,000 over the last year, a year which has seen perhaps the worst economic environment since the 1920s. Indeed many of Australia’s largest cities are seeing houses sell for well over AUS$1 million and there is a feeling that only the rich will be able to live in areas such as Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane, to name but a few, in the future. At the moment property prices compare very well to America but this may well change in the future.


    Taxes

    Australia has a taxation system which is very similar to that in the UK and compares relatively unfavourably to that in the US. However, the American system includes a federal tax rate and local taxes which can often vary wildly from state to state. There are also other issues to take into account such as healthcare which is state funded in Australia via a 1.5% tax levy while in the US there is no real comparable state healthcare system and private healthcare is being pushed on to the population.

    However, it is also worth noting that the relative shortage of skilled workers in Australia has created a situation whereby incomes relative to the cost of living are rising in Australia compared to America which is giving those moving from the US the potential of a higher standard of living. It is worthwhile noting that again this can vary significantly depending upon employment skills and the area of the country in which you decide to live. At the moment the local spending power of citizens in the US and Australia is fairly similar but Australia is certainly on the ascendency.

    Food and Drink

    It is well-known that America has a relatively low cost of food and other essential items and this is no different when compared to Australia. When you consider that food in Australia can cost up to 2.5 times the cost of similar items in the UK and can be even more expensive compared to the US you begin to get a feel for the difference in the cost of living. However it must be said that the cost of the food you buy in Australia will depend upon the type of lifestyle you are looking to create for yourself and your income.

    If you look at for example the cost of eating in a restaurant in America compared to the cost of eating in a restaurant in Australia it is markedly cheaper in America. The price of beer is also cheaper in America as is the cost of the likes of Coke/Pepsi and water. Again, it will depend upon where you visit for your meal but on the whole it is becoming more and more apparent that Australia can be significantly more expensive in many areas.

    While in some cases it is difficult to compare like-for-like, on the whole it has to be said that food in Australia is more expensive than the equivalent products in the US.

    Healthcare

    As we touched on above, the cost of health care in Australia compared to the cost of health care in the US is very different. The Australian system is very similar to the UK NHS system whereby a 1.5% levy is charged on employment income to fund a state wide free health care system. This is at odds with the US system which is very much based on private health care, although changes are being made at the moment.

    Even after the proposed changes to the US healthcare system it will still be more expensive to obtain health care in America compared to Australia. Whether the Australian government moves towards a private healthcare system in the future, or at least encourages some to make the switch, remains to be seen because the ever-growing population is placing more and more pressure upon government budgets.


    Conclusion

    The US has been renowned for many years as a relatively cheap country to live in and this becomes more and more apparent when you compare the current cost of living in Australia to the current cost of living in the US. Even after you discount the wild swings in the currency exchange rates the cost of living in America is still significantly lower than that of living in Australia. However, we also need to consider the benefits of living in Australia and the prospects for the Australian economy.

    There is no doubt that Australia is a country which has grown significantly over the last 20 years with many people believing the best may still be yet to come. The population has quadrupled since the First World War, predominantly because of a fairly relaxed immigration policy, and the continuing influx of skilled workers is having a beneficial impact on the overall Australian economy. On the downside, the influx of foreign workers attracting relatively high incomes has placed pressure on the property market and prices have risen substantially since 2000.
    (more)
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/02 10:54:34
    Mary Mary
    YOU CHOOSE... BEING OWNED BY CHINA OR PAYING MORE TAXES......



    Australian economy leads the world
    Date
    April 18, 2012

    Australia has the strongest economy in the developed world and it is expected to outperform all comers for at least the next two years, according to the International Monetary Fund.
    The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said this update is consistent with the reasons he has given for bringing the budget back to surplus.
    The IMF also forecasts Australia's unemployment rate to remain low at 5.2 per cent in both 2012 and 2013.
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/02 11:06:24
    Mary Mary
    Australia the happiest nation in the world.




    May 23, 2012


    AUSTRALIA is living up to its nickname of "the lucky country", with a new survey marking it as the happiest industrialised nation in the world based on criteria such as jobs, income and health.
    Having sidestepped the economic malaise gripping much of Europe and with near full employment owing to a once-in-a-century resources boom, Australia has come out on top ahead of Norway and the US in the annual Better Life Index compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
    The findings come despite fresh signs that not every Australian is enjoying the benefits of the resources boom, with tourist attractions seeing a drop in visitors and many manufacturers rethinking their Australian operations because the strong local currency has made exports uncompetitive.
    A rising cost of living also is weighing heavily on consumers, who are tightening their purse strings or using the internet to hunt for bargains on items that can be purchased overseas.
    The OECD survey - which rates its 34 member countries on categories like housing, jobs, education, health, environment and work-life balance - shies away from explicitly giving any one nation an overall top ranking, but if each of the 11 categories is given equal weigh...





    Australia the happiest nation in the world.




    May 23, 2012


    AUSTRALIA is living up to its nickname of "the lucky country", with a new survey marking it as the happiest industrialised nation in the world based on criteria such as jobs, income and health.
    Having sidestepped the economic malaise gripping much of Europe and with near full employment owing to a once-in-a-century resources boom, Australia has come out on top ahead of Norway and the US in the annual Better Life Index compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
    The findings come despite fresh signs that not every Australian is enjoying the benefits of the resources boom, with tourist attractions seeing a drop in visitors and many manufacturers rethinking their Australian operations because the strong local currency has made exports uncompetitive.
    A rising cost of living also is weighing heavily on consumers, who are tightening their purse strings or using the internet to hunt for bargains on items that can be purchased overseas.
    The OECD survey - which rates its 34 member countries on categories like housing, jobs, education, health, environment and work-life balance - shies away from explicitly giving any one nation an overall top ranking, but if each of the 11 categories is given equal weight, Australia's cumulative rank rises to No.1, according to the OECD website. It is followed closely by Norway and the US.
    Australia's high rank - based on data from the United Nations, individual governments and other sources - is largely due to its strong economic performance despite the economic turmoil in Europe and anemic growth in the US.
    Strong demand for iron ore and coal exports means Australia's unemployment rate was 4.9 percent in April, compared with 10.9 per cent in the eurozone and 8.1 percent in the US. More than 72 per cent of the working-age population in the country is employed, compared with the OECD average of 66 per cent.
    Unlike many of its developed peers, Australia's government plans to return a budget surplus in the next fiscal year and forecasts its net debt to peak just below 10 per cent of GDP, a fraction of the borrowings seen elsewhere.
    The Australian dollar has recently dipped below parity against the greenback, though it remains at historically high levels and is also strong against the euro and pound, giving shoppers firepower if they travel overseas.
    Despite a minority government that's sinking in the polls after a series of scandals involving key lawmakers and policy missteps, 71 per cent of Australians trust their political institutions, compared with an OECD average of 56 per cent.
    In addition, 85 per cent of people in Australia described their health as good, well above the OECD average of 70 per cent. The survey also found that Australian men spend nearly three hours every day cooking, cleaning or caring - one of the highest scores across the OECD's 34 member countries and ahead of men in the US, Germany and Canada.
    (more)
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/01 07:26:03
    Mary Mary
    Government keeping my freedom for what???? LOL
  • ☆Ed☆ Mary Mary 2012/11/02 07:10:23
    ☆Ed☆
    I wouldn't expect someone as UNEDUCATED about socialism as YOU are to EVER comprehend the FREEDOMS that you've GIVEN AWAY to your government!!!

    The fact is, if you're not still in school, you had better HURRY BACK and actually STUDY this time because you haven't a clue about what you're talking about!!!
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/02 10:47:33
    Mary Mary
    Tell me Ed, ever been to Australia while the cost of living is more our wages are MUCH more we don't have to tip. Just come here and tell me people aren't happier.
  • ☆Ed☆ Mary Mary 2012/11/03 05:21:11
    ☆Ed☆
    Yes, I have been in Australia, and enjoyed my stay very much!!! However, WHY did you "message" me these same replies!!! As I told you, and PROVED to you using your own sources in each of my responses, you're so completely off base that you're making yourself look completely foolish!!!
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/03 08:26:20
    Mary Mary
    Do you argue wages are MUCH higher here. Would you begrudge paying more tax if your wages were higher????
  • texasred 2012/09/13 21:37:34
    no
    texasred
    +5
    When the hell are people going to read and study history? Socialism doesn't work, has never worked and will never work.
  • Phil 2012/09/13 13:37:21
    yes
    Phil
    +1
    Corporations run this country and the gap between rich and poor has never been greater. I don't pretend that I know all there is to know about economic and political systems but, I do know the systems we have in place now ain't working.
  • ☆Ed☆ Phil 2012/09/14 02:09:13
    ☆Ed☆
    +1
    Well, then show us all ONE nation, worldwide, that is doing considerably "better" economically!!!
  • Mary Mary ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/02 10:51:22
    Mary Mary
    AUSTRALIA'S ECONOMY LEADS THE WORLD
    Date
    April 18, 2012
    Australia has the strongest economy in the developed world and it is expected to outperform all comers for at least the next two years, according to the International Monetary Fund.
    The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said this update is consistent with the reasons he has given for bringing the budget back to surplus, and criticised Tony Abbott for "talking down the economy".
    The IMF also forecasts Australia's unemployment rate to remain low at 5.2 per cent in both 2012 and 2013.

    The IMF - which issued its World Economic Outlook in Washington overnight - said it expected the Australian economy to expand by 3 per cent this year as fiscal tensions from Europe and the United States continue to ease.
    The body stated that after a major setback last year with the Eurozone crisis, the global prospect of far more stable financial conditions was gradually improving.
    Advertisement
    The update said that it expects the Australian economy will outstrip growth over all other advanced economies over the next two years, noting we live in a region where exposure to troubled European banks was less than for other parts of the world.
    But it also warned that Australia was exposed to risk if economic conditions in the Middle East caused another oil price spike.
    ...


















    AUSTRALIA'S ECONOMY LEADS THE WORLD
    Date
    April 18, 2012
    Australia has the strongest economy in the developed world and it is expected to outperform all comers for at least the next two years, according to the International Monetary Fund.
    The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said this update is consistent with the reasons he has given for bringing the budget back to surplus, and criticised Tony Abbott for "talking down the economy".
    The IMF also forecasts Australia's unemployment rate to remain low at 5.2 per cent in both 2012 and 2013.

    The IMF - which issued its World Economic Outlook in Washington overnight - said it expected the Australian economy to expand by 3 per cent this year as fiscal tensions from Europe and the United States continue to ease.
    The body stated that after a major setback last year with the Eurozone crisis, the global prospect of far more stable financial conditions was gradually improving.
    Advertisement
    The update said that it expects the Australian economy will outstrip growth over all other advanced economies over the next two years, noting we live in a region where exposure to troubled European banks was less than for other parts of the world.
    But it also warned that Australia was exposed to risk if economic conditions in the Middle East caused another oil price spike.
    The organisation revised up its global growth forecasts, with the global economy expected to grow by 3.5 per cent in 2012, up from 3.3 per cent in the January update.
    A forecast of global growth of 4.1 per cent in 2013 has also been revised up from 3.9 per cent.
    Global growth continues to be underpinned by solid growth in Asia, the report said.
    China's economy was expected to grow 8.2 per cent in 2012 and 8.8 per cent in 2013, while India was expected to grow 6.9 per cent in 2012 and 7.3 per cent in 2013. These forecasts were broadly unchanged from the IMF's January update.
    Mr Swan will attend a meeting of the G20 finance ministers in Washington this weekend, with appointments scheduled with IMF managing director Christine Lagarde, the outgoing president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, and the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke.
    Mr Swan said the latest global outlook update was consistent with the reasons he had consistently given for bringing the budget back to surplus.
    "The IMF also forecasts Australia's unemployment rate to remain low at 5.2 per cent in both 2012 and 2013," he said.
    "With solid growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, strong public finances and a record pipeline of business investment, the Australian economy is the standout performer of the developed world."
    Mr Swan said that the chance of the Reserve Bank cutting interest rates was greatly increased by a budget surplus.
    "The IMF's confirmation of Australia's strong economic fundamentals - with solid growth and low unemployment - further underscores the importance of returning the budget to surplus, and giving the Reserve Bank maximum flexibility to cut interest rates if it considers that is necessary," he said.
    The government has hit out at Opposition leader Tony Abbott for ''getting it wrong'' on the IMF growth forecasts.
    During a morning doorstop, Mr Abbott said the IMF report showed the local economy was ''underperforming'', as they had downgraded the economic growth forecast.
    ''It forecasts 3 per cent for the current financial year and it looks like we are going to get 2 per cent,'' Mr Abbott said.
    ''This is an underperforming economy and it's underperforming because of the poor economic management of the current government.''
    But Mr Abbott's assertion was not correct, according to a spokesman for the Treasurer, who said the growth forecast of 3 per cent in 2012 had been the same since the start of the year.
    Mr Swan tweeted from the tarmac before taking off for Washington that it was ''crucial Tony Abbott stops talking down the Aussie economy – describing us as 'underperforming' despite big tick from IMF this morning''.



    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion...
    (more)
  • ☆Ed☆ Mary Mary 2012/11/03 05:42:17
    ☆Ed☆
    You obviously did not pay attention to what I stated, or else you do NOT know the definition of the word, "CONSIDERABLY"!!!

    I specifically stated, "show us all ONE nation, worldwide, that is doing considerably "better" economically"!!! While Australia is doing "somewhat" better, it is NOT, in ANY WAY, doing "CONSIDERABLY BETTER"!!!

    BTW, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "CONSIDERABLY" as:

    http://www.merriam-webster.co...

    Definition of CONSIDERABLE

    1: worth consideration : significant

    2: large in extent or degree
  • Phil ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/03 00:12:23
    Phil
    As stated before I don't know much but I know what isn't working.
  • Trader1... Phil 2012/09/14 02:24:57
    Trader1 is kerbonkin'
    +2
    No it's not working, because we're taking from the rich and wealthy to give to the poor. How long do you think we can keep digging our hands into someone else's pocket before we clean them out and they become one of the poor?
  • Phil Trader1... 2012/11/03 00:13:11
    Phil
    They have deep pockets and more often then not they got that war because of us.
  • ☆Ed☆ Phil 2012/11/03 05:45:03
    ☆Ed☆
    You WERE CORRECT when you admitted that you, "don't know much"!!!
  • Phil ☆Ed☆ 2012/11/03 05:56:48
    Phil
    You must be one of the rich. I get where this anger is coming from. Do you need a hug?
  • ☆Ed☆ Phil 2012/11/03 06:20:38
    ☆Ed☆
    LOL, stick with YOUR "boy toys" and stop flirting with me!!!
  • Trader1... Phil 2012/11/03 16:05:04
    Trader1 is kerbonkin'
    They got that way because they took risks that most of us are not willing to take. They got that way because they had an idea that most of us couldn't even conceive of.
    They got that way because they have ambition.

    Just imagine what this world would be like if there were no rich, if there were no one to build upon an idea, no one to take a risk.

    Just what do you plan to do after you've stripped the wealthy down to your level? Who's pockets are you going to pick next?
  • Mary Mary Phil 2012/11/02 10:48:02
    Mary Mary
    +1
    SO TRUE PHIL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/22 00:14:37

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals