Staunton Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Why not include Singapore in your list,it's not very socially cohesive either http://thehearttruths.com/2013/02/21/singapore-has-the-highest-income-inequality-compared-to-the-oecd-countries/ ? or Hong Kong... both above us in the posted link and both with a lower tax take than the UK ..there's more to it than the tax take of a country... Let's consider the difference between a democratic nation state and an authoritarian city province before recommending datasets to examine specific contrasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Let's consider the difference between a democratic nation state and an authoritarian city province before recommending datasets to examine specific contrasts. No, let's consider the tax take and relative earnings of each...Singapore is a parliamentary republic with elected "MP's".. you were trying to say that a high tax socially cohesive nation is the best way for education....Singapore is neither of those (like Hong Kong) and is above us in the education table posted earlier in the thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 No, let's consider the tax take and relative earnings of each...Singapore is a parliamentary republic with elected "MP's".. you were trying to say that a high tax socially cohesive nation is the best way for education....Singapore is neither of those (like Hong Kong) and is above us in the education table posted earlier in the thread... London alone, with an area of 1, 570 square km and a population of 8.174 million, is larger than either Hong Kong (1,104 square km, population 7,072 million) or Singapoer (710 square km, population 5.184 million). It is essential to observe the structural differences in order to develop a fair contrast - to compare like with like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 London alone, with an area of 1, 570 square km and a population of 8.174 million, is larger than either Hong Kong (1,104 square km, population 7,072 million) or Singapoer (710 square km, population 5.184 million). It is essential to observe the structural differences in order to develop a fair contrast - to compare like with like. Indeed. Population of Finland, 5.5 million. https://www.stat.fi/til/vrm_en.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Indeed. Population of Finland, 5.5 million. https://www.stat.fi/til/vrm_en.html Yes! That's a good point tinfoilhat. But let me ask you, would you prefer to be an ordinary person in Hong Kong or Denmark? Singapore and Hong Kong are both city provinces, centres of trade that function very much as the location in which the multinationals locate the headquarters of their Far East operations. They are cities, crowded with glass skyscrapers in the postmodern style, their populations are over-represented with corporate executives from Europe and the USA, who leave their children in the care of Cheltenham Ladies, Marlborough, or the US Military Academy, or they take them along and send them to one of the English-speaking international schools established especially for the children of Western executives. Then there is the bustling low-paid service industry that provides the luxury and leisure needs of this wealthy coterie. This is hardly a valid example to contrast with a European nation state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Yes! That's a good point tinfoilhat. But let me ask you, would you prefer to be an ordinary person in Hong Kong or Denmark? Singapore and Hong Kong are both city provinces, centres of trade that function very much as the location in which the multinationals locate the headquarters of their Far East operations. They are cities, crowded with glass skyscrapers in the postmodern style, their populations are over-represented with corporate executives from Europe and the USA, who leave their children in the care of Cheltenham Ladies, Marlborough, or the US Military Academy, or they take them along and send them to one of the English-speaking international schools established especially for the children of Western executives. Then there is the busting low-paid service industry that provides the luxury and leisure needs of this wealthy coterie. This is hardly a valid example to contrast with a European nation state. I think Singapore is a far better comparison than a nice and roomy, low density, realitivly low immigration country like Finland that produces phones and trees. If you took someone from London and dropped them in Singapore they'd cope. Dropping them in Finland would be like dropping them on mars. No disrespect to the Finns by the way. It's just a lot different to England (but probably very similar to Scotland north of the central belt). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I think Singapore is a far better comparison than a nice and roomy, low density, realitivly low immigration country like Finland that produces phones and trees. If you took someone from London and dropped them in Singapore they'd cope. Dropping them in Finland would be like dropping them on mars. No disrespect to the Finns by the way. It's just a lot different to England (but probably very similar to Scotland north of the central belt). No argument there - Finland and Denmark are remarkably similar to Scotland in many ways, similar population density and distribution (though Finland has large tracts of sparsely populated regions beyond its metropolitan area), Copenhagen and Edinburgh share the same latitude, though I suspect Copenhagen is colder in the winter. But, give me Scandinavia any day, especially if you're paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Nothings clouded at all. The designer says they cant afford to pay the minimum wage in this country for labour, and i pointed out it makes sense to source labour in another country, probably somewhere in Aisa ,as labour costs are much lower ,hence maximizing profits. The place to manufacture is Eastern Europe. Wages are around 1/3 of those you have to pay in the UK. Some of the governments will guarantee you a no strike deal if you shift a UK business to their country, and you can have a 10 year tax free window to operate. Being in the EU you can also ship anywhere in within the EU without fear to import tariffs, taxes or quotas. It is also cheaper to export to Germany and the other major markets of mainland Europe if you don't have to put goods on a ship. The main idea of setting up a business is to make money for yourself and your shareholders, not to hand it out in wages and government taxes. ---------- Post added 07-08-2013 at 19:45 ---------- A British designer says she can't afford to pay minimum wage to manufacture handbags in Britain, but she charges £2,000 per handbag! Do you think not providing British people with jobs when making this margin of profit is as bad as not paying tax? I think you will find Gucci provide no manufacturing jobs and pay no taxes in the UK. ---------- Post added 07-08-2013 at 19:48 ---------- It's a business practice and perfectly acceptable, but I would hope that British people would have a little common sense in their purchasing and buy where possible British. Tough times call for a bit of circling the wagons and whereever possible I buy British rather than putting my hard earned into the pockets of foreigners. Not always possible but if we all tried to keep the money in the country rather than handing it to johny foreigner we'd be in a much better carry on in the long term on all sorts of levels. What sort of car do you own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 London alone, with an area of 1, 570 square km and a population of 8.174 million, is larger than either Hong Kong (1,104 square km, population 7,072 million) or Singapoer (710 square km, population 5.184 million). It is essential to observe the structural differences in order to develop a fair contrast - to compare like with like. So now you're saying there's more to a good education system than high taxes and a "cohesive society"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.