• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst Country in the Developed World?

MrMike said:
Always wondered why the Liberals who promised to leave USA if Trump won to go live in another country never seemed to offer up Mexico as their go-to destination!

Plus they didn’t leave....
Click to expand...

Har har, dur
 
MrMike said:
Always wondered why the Liberals who promised to leave USA if Trump won to go live in another country never seemed to offer up Mexico as their go-to destination!

Plus they didn’t leave....
Click to expand...

The few folks whom I know made such a remark restructured their finances/income generating activity so as to dramatically reduce their federal income tax liability. Two purchased property and established businesses abroad to facilitate doing so and primarily reside there rather than in the U.S. homes.

In the scheme of things to the U.S. Treasury, their tax avoidance is of no matter. To the persons involved, it's satisfying to them that they're paying almost nothing to the federal government. They used tactics similar to what's below intimated.

personal_income3.png


capital_gains3.png

​

So, did they leave in the sense of renouncing their U.S. citizenship? No, because it wasn't necessary to do so. They did what they wanted to do which was step-up dramatically their federal income tax minimization efforts.
 
Xelor said:
The few folks whom I know made such a remark restructured their finances/income generating activity so as to dramatically reduce their federal income tax liability. Two purchased property and established businesses abroad to facilitate doing so and primarily reside there rather than in the U.S. homes.

In the scheme of things to the U.S. Treasury, their tax avoidance is of no matter. To the persons involved, it's satisfying to them that they're paying almost nothing to the federal government. They used tactics similar to what's below intimated.

personal_income3.png


capital_gains3.png

​

So, did they leave in the sense of renouncing their U.S. citizenship? No, because it wasn't necessary to do so. They did what they wanted to do which was step-up dramatically their federal income tax minimization efforts.
Click to expand...

translation: the celebrities who promised to leave if Trump were elected reneged and didn't live up to their promise...

For your weak attempt to explain away their lack of follow-through, I'll give you an E for effort!
 
Xelor said:
Doing exactly what you suggested returns a site having the following as content.


World map indicating the categories of Human Development Index by country (based on 2015 and 2016 data, published on 21 March 2017)
Very high -- dark blue
High -- medium blue		 Medium -- pale blue
Low -- palest blue


The map and captions above illustrate precisely what motivated my request for clarification: "developed" is not in everyone's mind or remarkings binarily assessed/measured. To be sure, one can find research documents wherein the authors have bothered, unlike the OP-er, to define precisely what nations they mean by the term "developed;" however, those authors' definitions are applicable to the paper/book they wrote.
The OP-er could have very handily simply pointed to any of those sites that appear on page-one of the Google search you suggested and said, "Use this." That would have adequately clarified what he means by "developed world."


I don't much care what the OP-er defines as "developed world;" s/he could invent his/her own as far as I'm concerned. I merely want to know what he specifically means by that term so that I can apply it in considering the topic being discussed. I have indicated the need for a clearer exposition of the OP-er's context and the s/he has refrained from providing it.

Lacking a clear understanding of what be the OP-er's frame of reference, I've not offered an opinion of what I think is the worst developed country in the world. I am fine with that because I think abetted by the requested context, the thread has potential to foment intriguing discussion; however, absent that context, this is little but a "bitch and moan" thread (troll thread?). I suspect that the OP-er and others are fine too with my not offering my opinion because I don't imagine anyone chomping at the bit in anticipation of my remarks.
Click to expand...

Like I said, its Saudi Arabia. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is worse off socioeconomically than Saudi Arabia has been watching too much Aleckz Jonez.
 
Xelor said:
The few folks whom I know made such a remark restructured their finances/income generating activity so as to dramatically reduce their federal income tax liability. Two purchased property and established businesses abroad to facilitate doing so and primarily reside there rather than in the U.S. homes.

In the scheme of things to the U.S. Treasury, their tax avoidance is of no matter. To the persons involved, it's satisfying to them that they're paying almost nothing to the federal government. They used tactics similar to what's below intimated.

personal_income3.png


capital_gains3.png

​

So, did they leave in the sense of renouncing their U.S. citizenship? No, because it wasn't necessary to do so. They did what they wanted to do which was step-up dramatically their federal income tax minimization efforts.
MrMike said:
translation: the celebrities who promised to leave if Trump were elected reneged and didn't live up to their promise...

For your weak attempt to explain away their lack of follow-through, I'll give you an E for effort!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What?
  • Celebrities:
    What did I say about celebrities? I was quite clear about whose remark and behavior I described: "The few folks whom I know." I said nothing about their being celebrities or even that I know any celebrities. I think it safe to say the folks whom I know who've restructured their situation are luminaries of a sort in their respective professional spheres, but celebrities in the standard sense of the term, well, I made no such attestation.
  • Lack of follow-through:
    A key point of my post is that the folks whom I know and who asserted they'd leave the U.S. is that they did follow-through. Did you not read the second sentence in the post? Let me repeat it for you: "Two purchased property and established businesses abroad to facilitate doing so and primarily reside there rather than in [their] U.S. homes." That is the very definition of "following-through."
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Like I said, its Saudi Arabia. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is worse off socioeconomically than Saudi Arabia has been watching too much Aleckz Jonez.
Click to expand...

I suppose Saudi Arabia, like Russia, which is what I suggested, is a reasonable pick. I'd sooner live in Saudi Arabia than Russia, but others may differ. As Gulf countries go, I don't prefer Saudi Arabia, but my own dealings suggest it's preferable to Russia, which is why I went with Russia than it.
 
enderpotato00 said:
No I meant to say that people who think the US is the worst place to live, should go to Somalia and see how privileged they are.
Click to expand...

No one said USA is the worst place to live.
 
Geoist said:
No one said USA is the worst place to live.
Click to expand...

One should not mix " The standard of living " with " The life style " !..there is no argue about the high standard of living,but the life style, is another story.
 
jet57 said:
Caused by guns; exactly right. So what's your solution?
Click to expand...

I provided a question relevant to the subject. Solutions must be relative to the problems they are intended to solve.
 
KevinKohler said:
I provided a question relevant to the subject. Solutions must be relative to the problems they are intended to solve.
Click to expand...

So you have no cogent ideas for a solution.

Thought not.
 
Xelor said:
To the extent your remark was sarcastically presented, it most certainly did.

So I don't make the same mistake, what in your remarks alluded to their being sarcastic? I ask because I've seen many folks on this site post with complete sincerity a multitude of inane remarks. To wit, the proposition that "more guns = more safety" is one of them. What is there in your post (first one quoted above) that informs readers that your remarks are sarcastically made?
Click to expand...

I would have thought that the appeal for more statistics to prove that guns save lives was pretty obvious sarcasm.
 
Xelor said:
Yes, most of Russia is in Asia, but most of the people in Russia aren't in Asia...
Click to expand...

Amazingly informative statistic.
Good to know.


...clearly you're not well up on current affairs to refute my opinion by citing what metrics militate for my being "not well up on current affairs."
Click to expand...

What ???

...that may not make Russia the worst country in the developed world as per your definition of "developed world"....
Click to expand...

Do you understand the definition of the word "Broadly" as in "Broadly speaking" ?

If so go read back...and while you're at it research human rights breaches and Russia.
 
TurtleDude said:
you're lying or ignorant. There is no evidence gun control-and by that I mean laws that restrict what honest people can buy or own or how they buy or acquire firearms-decreases crime. Its a faith based myth
Click to expand...


Another one who was blissfully unaware of the sarcasm.
 
Rich2018 said:
Totally agree.
Click to expand...

why don't you tell us what types of gun control saves lives. We know its not the brady bill or the Clinton gun ban
 
Rich2018 said:
The sarcasm appears to have sailed unobstructed over your head.

Xelor said:
To the extent your remark was sarcastically presented, it most certainly did.

So I don't make the same mistake, what in your remarks alluded to their being sarcastic? I ask because I've seen many folks on this site post with complete sincerity a multitude of inane remarks. To wit, the proposition that "more guns = more safety" is one of them. What is there in your post (first one quoted above) that informs readers that your remarks are sarcastically made?

Rich2018 said:
I would have thought that the appeal for more statistics to prove that guns save lives was pretty obvious sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, now you know you were mistaken.

As I noted earlier, there are plenty of folks who'd make exactly the same remark you did and mean it. What in the way you made it should have informed me that you were making it sarcastically rather than sincerely?

Rich2018 said:
We need stats that show gun ownership SAVES lives and teens in the USA are LESS likely to die than in other developed countries.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
What do you consider the "developed world?"
  • OECD nations?
  • Something else?
Worst in what context?
Rich2018 said:
Broadly speaking - Europe (less the ones in the Balkans practicing ethnic cleansing), USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Xelor said:
Using that definition: Russia.
Rich2018 said:
Clearly you're not well up on current affairs...and Btw most of Russia is in Asia. So remove Russia...and Turkey
Xelor said:
Clearly you're not well up on current affairs to refute my opinion by citing what metrics militate for my being "not well up on current affairs."
Rich2018 said:
What ???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What part of my comment do you not understand?

You qualified "developed country" as "Broadly speaking - Europe..., USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand."

I applied your qualification and named Russia as the worst developed country, and you took exception with my having done. Your basis for your exception was that most of Russia's land area is in Asia and you disparaged me as not being "well up on current affairs." You cast that aspersion without citing any metrics that show Russia is preponderantly not a viable candidate for "worst country in the developed world."

In response to your insult, I, in post 91, shared multiple metrics showing that currently, the vast quantity of Russians are in European Russia and that Russia overall lags the rest of OECD countries in nearly every major dimension.


Rich2018 said:
Do you understand the definition of the word "Broadly" as in "Broadly speaking" ?

If so go read back...and while you're at it research human rights breaches and Russia.
Click to expand...
That most Russians are in European Russia makes Russia quite fitting given the "broadly" aspect of your qualification of what "developed country" means.


The state of human rights in Russia, though I didn't mention them in post 91, further militate for construing that Russia is the "worst country in the developed world."

  • Human Rights in Post -Soviet Russia
  • Freedom of Expression in Russia as it Relates to Criticism of the Government
    "Russia performed extremely poorly on its promise to build a true democratic society. The changes brought in the most recent years are inconsistent with the intent to build a democracy and the culture of free and open speech."
  • Human Rights in Russia and the Former Soviet Republics -- This document describes a litany of Russian human rights atrocities.
  • Women's human rights in Russia: outmoded battlegrounds, or new sites of contentious politics?
    "The Russian state under Putin has been effective in both depoliticising and repoliticising women's human through the demonising of feminist activism, as exemplified by ***** Riot, to further the development of a heteronormative patriotism that closes down dissent in the name of a return to “traditional Russian cultural values”, which also appears to hold appeal among the wider population."
  • European Convention on Human Rights in Russia -- This document details the abysmally inadequate progress (not no progress, inadequate progress) Russia has made toward legislatively establishing the legitimacy of human rights as a matter of law.
    "Law-application practices are lagging far behind the proposed methodologies. Moreover, to describe the general legal culture and, if you want, professional instincts of the bulk of the law-application officials, you need the talent of Mikhail A. Bulgakov."
  • 2016 Human Rights Report on Russia by the U.S. Dept. of State
    The human rights problems:
    • Restrictions on Political Participation and Freedom of Expression, Assembly, and Media
    • Government Discrimination against Minorities
    • Torture and excessive force by law enforcement officers that sometimes led to deaths;
    • Prison overcrowding, and substandard and life-threatening prison conditions;
    • Executive branch pressure onthe judiciary;
    • Lack of due process in politically motivated cases;
    • Electoral Irregularities;
    • Extensive official corruption;
    • Violence against women;
    • Limits on women’s rights;
    • Trafficking in persons;
    • Discrimination against persons withdisabilities;
    • Social stigma against persons with HIV/AIDS; and
    • Limitations on workers’ rights.
So again, you lambasted my choice of naming Russia as the "worst country in the developed world" as being indicative of my being bereft of an awareness of current events. You are mistaken.
 
KevinKohler said:
Nor do you. Not relative to the problem.
Click to expand...

I given my ideas in this thread a few time now: prosecute errant parents. The Police Chief of Huston and the mayor are suggesting the same thing, so it's a great idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom