Except that this is about standard of living. The discussion was wealth of the average population. And as I said, the only way you're going to be able to prove that to me is by showing me with hard data how much the average person makes and gets to keep after taxes.
So when I give you PPP per capita you say it's no good and want more raw and contextual data such as wages after taxation? What do you want it in? USD? At current exchange rates? And what, no consideration due to different costs of living, where $5 in Norway may be able to buy you as much as $8 in USA?
Whatever man, go ahead and look up exactly what you want me to quote, I'm rather sure Norwegians still get more USD into their hands for an hour's work than US citizens. I just can't be bothered to look up something that is less significant than what I already quoted.
No, it's whether or not teachers care enough to do their jobs. And part of the reason schools in America are so ineffective is that there is little incentive for teachers to cover the whole curriculum in a single year because no matter how poorly their students meet their standards, they keep their jobs.
I saw an article somewhere that explained how a bad teacher will cover between 50% and 75% of a year's curriculum, while a good teacher will cover at least 100% of the curriculum, and a very good teacher can cover 125% of the year's curriculum. Currently, in America, teachers that would be considered "bad" by this scale are protected by Tenure; to all appearances, they are doing their job, and so they cannot be fired, despite being unable to bring up the standards of today's society. The difference between Public schools and Private schools probably boils down to the quality of the teachers, not the amount of money spent in a single year.
How is that problem sourced in whether private sector or government runs the school though? The problem are the needless laws that restrict schools from firing underachieving teachers. Should more strict bills be passed on private schools they'd be in the same situation. Public education needs reforms, not privatisation.
But that's wrong. Not all teachers are good teachers. Not all teachers teach the same way. Some teachers are just bad. Thus, the efficiency of teaching is largely dependent on the quality of the teacher and the receptiveness of the student.
True. Which is why richer schools can afford better teachers, and paying for schools makes kids more willing to learn. Those are 2 ways in which private schools get ahead. But notice that it all boils down to money, so public schools with proper funds could get there too.
That is the point I'm arguing. If one school is spending $5,000 per student and another school spends $15,000 per student, and their scores are nearly identical, then one school is more efficient than the other based on how much they spend to reach the same score. It would be the same if you have a machine that is cheaper to use and can complete a job faster than another machine, then that cheaper, faster machine is more efficient. But in the case of New York and Utah, we have two machines that produce roughly the same output, but one costs nearly three times as much. The amount invested should be proportional to the outcome, which is what "efficiency" means in the first place.
Yes. But as you noticed you never had a chance to distinguish between public and private in that statement. All I'm saying is, with same funds and students the efficiency of public and private only depend on management, which means public schools with good management could outdo private schools with poor management.
Then maybe you should clarify what you were talking about; what you said was that it would be cheaper for oil companies to sell to China. I was saying this was not the case, and asked you for evidence.
I meant for oil companies. Not for USA's drilling companies. The international ones firstly sell where it profits the most, then to those who are "friendly" to them. Sharpening laws and taxes on foreign oil sources drilled by independent international oil companies would shorten your oil supply.
Of course, making the claims that you are, you probably don't know know that we did find weapons of mass destruction though; maybe not nukes, but mustard and sarin, which are classified weapons of mass destruction.
First of all, I probably should have said Nuclear Weapons. Seeing as now you have an open gate due to the loosely defined term of WMD. Your own country's military stated that those 500 munitions you quoted were old and damaged, with local thread possibility, and do not classify as WMD.
In 2006 Fox News reported the claims of two Republican lawmakers that WMDs had been found in Iraq, based upon unclassified portions of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center. Quoting from the report Senator Rick Santorum said "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent". According to David Kay, who appeared before the US House Armed Services Committee to discuss these badly corroded munitions, they were leftovers, many years old, improperly stored or destroyed by the Iraqis. Charles Duelfer agreed, stating on NPR's Talk of the Nation: "When I was running the ISG – the Iraq Survey Group – we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction."
So no, to and for my standards of what a weapon of mass destruction is, they didn't find any. If you want to call an expired can of mustard a weapon of mass destruction, then I cannot say you are wrong because there's no clear line.
And I just proved that the idea that it was a war for oil is bullshit. What does that say about what you believe?
The fact is that if there were no weapons of mass destruction and the "war for oil" accusation is a crapshoot, then this was a purely humanitarian aid. Period.
Whatever it was, it had costed your country billions, and Iraq 100 000 civilians. Your definition of humanitarian aid is awesome.
The credibility of your sister notwithstanding, please provide me with a source I can actually see or read. Would you accept a citation from one of my family members at face value?
Visas for Norway and other Schengen member states have a maximum period of 90 days or 3 months.
Foreign nationals planning to study in Norway should apply for a residence permit issued to students by the Norwegian government.
Foreign nationals must apply for a work permit at the Norwegian embassy of their home country before entering Norway to become a Norwegian Au Pair. The Au Pair visa is only granted to holders of a valid work permit. Foreigners must also have a job offer in Norway before applying for an Au Pair visa. The work permit must have been granted prior to their entry to Norway. This means the Au Pair visa needs a tender of employment contract signed by the Norwegian officer as evidence of the work offer to be issued a work permit.
The Au Pair visa is valid for six months. No extensions are allowed for Au Pair visa holders.
All in all, only EEA citizens are allowed to work without permit, But they can only stay for longer than 3 months if they have a job and can prove they can support themselves.http://www.expatforum.com/articles/visa ... ation.html
Yeah, I can totally see someone getting rich off a tax refund. Especially if a tax refund is less than half what they paid. And if that many people got a FULL tax refund, the country would go bankrupt in no time flat, or else have to stop paying for all those fancy social programs like health care and public transportation.
Wat? What's that supposed to mean? You don't get rich by tax refunds, they help you not lose your wealth too fast though. Also the wealth you do lose goes into your own healthcare and education, same as it would go should they all be private sectors. So where are you at loss there?
You don't know if it's good or bad? Then why are we having this discussion?
Because you make outrageous claims about Norwegians being poor, etc. And there is no good or bad, there's what works and what doesn't work, and for who. It did work for them. It could work for the USA. Yet you say Obama is a socialist and it won't work. So I give you a case study where it did work fine.
Your short attention span makes it hard to discuss things with you, since you lose your point halfway through, and you even seem to forget where the whole discussion started.
Who said they were eating them all at once? But still, let's go with that. The kid who brough 10 bags ends up with five and the kid who brought 100 ends up with 5 as well. The Teacher now has 100 bags of Skittles. What the hell is she going to do with that many Skittles, and why is she just allowed to take them in the first place?
A) What will she do, she might give 5 packs to every kid in class. That would seem fair.
B) Why is she allowed to, that's more of a moral question. I think she shouldn't take another person's property. Then again, as BR mentioned, it seems fair to take what you don't need and give it to someone who does need.
If the kids in the class know that the teacher is going to take things from them if they bring "too much," they'll stop bringing them.
The arbitrary example sucks. First of all, what kid would bring 100 apples to school? Secondly, what kind of a teacher would confiscate apples from students? To translate it on economic plane, when your orchard makes 2000 apples a month, and you can eat as much as 1000 apples a month having fed your whole family, from the remaining 1000 some may be taken by the government as tax and for instance given to those who have none.
I thought taxation was for "services rendered," not "because they feel bad." And since when do they consistently use taxes to help the poor? If that were true, the $800B stimulus package would have gone to give the homeless a place to stay and food to eat, instead of helping the environment and putting solar panels on top of Area 51 or what-the-fuck ever. The fact is that at any time, they don't really care about the poor, they just want to look good so they can get reelected.
Nope. The $800B went into healthcare, schools, military, Intelligence, police and fire departments, infrastructure, small companies stimulus, etc. But hey, look, a poor family who cannot afford a private school can still send their kids to a public one. Oh, look, the poor guy is able to get an operation that will save his life. That lower-middle class guy can afford to start up his small business thanks to stimulus packages. Oh look, the holes in roads get fixed, which benefits everyone with a car, and the police can afford new cars, which makes life safer for everyone.
THAT is the purpose of taxation. Luckily for you, your country doesn't think it should only help the poorest, which you gave examples of. No, they think that all classes who pay taxes should be getting something out of what they pay in benefits and services. The less you need benefits and services the wealthier it means you are, and the less you benefit from them.