Talk:United States

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

Current population (est.): 338,752,000 as of November 16, 2024. The USCB projects 439 million by 2050

Thank You

WP:BATTLE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't like to use this talk page as a place for idle discussion, but I would like to thank everyone that participated in the requested move (everyone but Golbez, David Levy, and TastyCakes that is). It was fun discussing and debating this matter with you and I would once again like to thank you all for participating. Although I lost, I can guarantee you that I will bring this matter up again (that is when unpatriotic people like Golbez, Levy, and TastyCakes leave Wikipedia) when the time is right. Cheers!Valkyrie Red 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) Euhm you like discussing for discussion sake, and want to restart the discussion at your convenience. To me that sounds very close to trolling, not constructive editing. Just accept it and find something to do that you will get universal support for, much nicer work, much better for the project. Arnoutf (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Glad I could help, any time. --Golbez (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC) How exactly are they being unpatriotic..?--Misortie (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Very very clever!151.60.118.131 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Counterfactual edited

removed entirely ", while labor and, particularly, consumption tax rates are lower" clause from sentence whose sense I reversed after reading the reference. Perhaps it was simply a typo on the part of the original author since the matter of fact would have been presumed to be what I edited to and what a reading of the first paragraphs of the reference clearly shows to be the case. I knew this independently so, the Time content is just ... . The Netherlands for example taxes all income over 55K at 52%. Lycurgus (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your problem. The line should be understood as "Compared to Europe, [in the] U.S. property and corporate income tax rates are generally higher [than in Europe], while labor and, particularly, consumption tax rates are lower [in the US than in Europe]". This is exactly what the Time article says. In Europe tax pressure has become relatively higher than in the US (since the 1970s when they were roughly equal) because (quote from Times 1st para) Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services. (note that income tax is not corporate but labor tax in this context, and VAT equals consumption tax). So honestly I do not see your point. Arnoutf (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The text of 1st ¶ of the given reference copied verbatim:

"France, Germany and some other nations are trying to resist such pressures by calling for a "harmonization" of E.U. taxes — in other words, raising everyone else closer to their higher levels. But there's no majority in Brussels for tax harmonization, and swimming against the tide is hard, especially given the heavy impact of taxes on Europe's economy. In 1970, total tax revenue measured as a percentage of the economy was roughly on a par in Western Europe and the United States. Today, it's far higher in Europe, at about 40% of gross domestic product in the E.U. compared with about 29% in the U.S. Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services. "Everyone feels like they are paying too much tax — and they are," says Baudouin Velge, chief economist at the Federation of Belgian Enterprises."

This is the reverse of what you are saying, maybe you've overestimated your English capabilities. Lycurgus (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Time article quite clearly states: "In much of Europe, labor and consumption are taxed — through social-security contributions and vat — at far higher rates on average than in the U.S., where property and corporate income taxes tend to be higher." - Nunh-huh 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides that if you carefully read that first para:

It starts out with stating that several EU countries hold a certain point of view and then states that the EU and US were similarly taxed around 1970

In 1970, total tax revenue measured as a percentage of the economy was roughly on a par in Western Europe and the United States

But that today

Today, it's far higher in Europe, at about 40% of gross domestic product in the E.U. compared with about 29% in the U.S.

Because (note the article is written from a European point of view - see first line and lines below) in Europe

Income taxes have jumped, but so too have taxes on social insurance contributions and vat on goods and services.

Which is followed by the comment of a Belgian spokesperson confirming it is indeed a European point of view.

Together with Nunh-huh's observation this shows that there is in any case nothing "blatantly counterfactual" going on; at most the facts in the Time article are unclear, unless of course you misunderstood the Time article (how tempting to say that maybe you've overestimated your English capabilities). Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PS sorry for the early reversion summary, I reverted between your original edit and your creation of this talk thread; so I couldnt find it when looking. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A misrepresentation like this IS a matter of great principle. As far as the matter of consumption and VAT comparisons are concerned that's entirely spurious, there isn't a VAT in the US and sales taxes vary by state from nothing to as much as 7 or 8% on some things, but the bottom line is the situation expressed above by the Time author. The best thing, and the thing I imagine will happen is that the sentence will be removed in its entirety. Lycurgus (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Arnoutf and Nunh-huh have represented and interpreted the source correctly; Lycurgus has clearly misunderstood it. Content restored. DocKino (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Negatively acknowledging the above before the thread is archived. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Why is America's nickname 'the mixing pot' not referenced. Isn't this the entire idea this country was founded on?Ace ofgabriel (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Melting pot? It might bear mention, maybe in the demographics section, but saying it's the entire idea the country was founded on is clearly an unprovable opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is 'none at the federal level' listed under 'Language' in the Fact Box? We all know there is no official language and since this article relates to the country as a whole, why not just list the REAL answer: None. Anything below the federal level can have its language(s) kusted in its own respective article's fact box. Or am I just beating a daed hourse against some know-it-all 'editor'?65.215.94.13 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Contrary to popular opinion, we really are friendly, openminded folks. And you do actually have a good point. So you were doing pretty good until the last sentence. Shame. --Golbez (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't answer the question. I've just found that there is an alarming number of inaccurate articles that, when changed to a more correct form with citation, are often reverted with no explanation.65.215.94.13 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well I think you've got a point, but I don't think this item in the article is inaccurate, except in the most pedantic of views. I think there's a valid case for excluding the information, using arguments you have made above, but I personally like the idea of erring on the side of including more information in articles, particularly if it describes a somewhat complicated case such as this. Also, all levels of government are mentioned in the article as a whole, and the individual states are of course components of the whole, an overview of language policies at the state level doesn't seem so unreasonable. Whether it should be in the infobox or in a separate section (language?) is another matter. But I'm afraid I must side with the stodgy establishment on this item as well - I kind of like the compactness of how the information is presented in the infobox and its bottom notes at the moment. TastyCakes (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would disagree, and with a lot of confused-sounding words at that (lol). You can still 'err on the side of inclusion' by including it as 'Official Language: None'. The '(on the federal level)' is already obvious and therefor unnecessary since the article is about the USA, which lists no official language(s).65.215.94.13 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is obvious to others, but it isn't to me. I'm sorry if I sounded confused, I don't think I am on this particular matter. Or perhaps you meant confusing? "Erring on the side of inclusion" by not including information does not sound like erring on the side of inclusion at all, but maybe I don't understand what you're suggesting - are you suggesting the bottom notes be left but the (on the federal level) removed?. In any case, if it comes to a vote, I vote for leaving it how it is, but it seems fairly trivial and I won't revert it if you change it. TastyCakes (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly will. The United States is a federation and many of the components of that federation do have an official language (one component has two). The current language is more accurate than the proposal.

Eh, what do I know? just years of study and a PhD in American politics. And no, the US is NOT a 'federation.' But you're the 'editor' and the inaccuracies of Wikipedia are a testament to why some colleges and universities have banned the wikipedia domain from on-campus networs so that students aren't exposed to trivial 'facts', donations are down, and why I donated less this year than last, as the seemingly endless amount of editors revert facts back to vague and esoteric rumors.

Additionally, hats off to the 'editor' who made the 'de facto' entry in the Fact Box, as this, to me and to most academics who study American government and policy, seems best appropriate.65.215.94.13 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article has said "English de-facto" as the national language for a long time. Your complaints are about the "official language". And you might find you have more luck on Wikipedia if you don't act like a pompous jerk. Regardless, right now the infobox says there is no official language at the federal level. Is that not completely accurate? So what's all this talk about vague esoteric rumours? Please limit the discussion to the topic at hand, not things that annoy you about wikipedia in general. TastyCakes (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And 13, if there's any more unprovoked rudeness from you, I'll also simply revert any further comments you feel the irresistible compulsion to inflict on this page per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In fact, why don't you read those enlightening pages and familiarize yourself with our policies and more before you think of returning here—you might find they make life more pleasant offline as well. Come to think of it, as you've expressed your opinion on this small matter as robustly and clearly as possible, there really should be no need for you to return at all, eh?DocKino (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's calm down here and get back on focus. The question is why we write "None at federal level" instead of the seemingly more simple "None". My guess is that this article isn't about the federal government in and of itself, but the country as a whole; that includes the federal government, the state governments, cultures, etc. @harej 03:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Also, per the articles on those topics, an official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other territory; a national language is a language (or language variant, i.e. dialect) which has some connection—de facto or de jure—with a people and perhaps by extension the territory they occupy. The current infobox content on those points looks good to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

'Official language'? This has a Wikipedia entry? The issue I and many others have is that just about anything is alllowed to have a Wiki article these days, and those articles are usually littered with inaccurate items counted as fact, not to mention the number of times I've found fake citations, inaccurate citations, expired citations, dead links, and other Wiki articles (big no-no) as paranthetical references, and often leaves contradiction among the cross-references. 65.215.94.13 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A pretty discusting omission

Forgive the loaded words, but I think for an article of this status and popularity to omit the information concerning the several million murdered Native Americans is unforgivable and should be rectified immediately. See [1] for the debate on the numbers, but we're talking at least 2 million, maybe even 15 million. The only two sentences that allude anything to the suffering of the Natives of America are these: "Excluding the Native Americans (popularly known as "American Indians"), who were being displaced" and "The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures." Just for the record, the article on Cuba has a section dedicated to 'Human rights abuses', which includes the jailing of journalists. For such information to be said of Cuba but (at least) 2 million murdered Native Americans be forgotten altogether on this article amounts to a massive American bias on these two articles. The lands of the United States were inhabited by the Native Americans, therefore the history of the country should at least tell us what happened to them, this article seems to pretend they barely exist. Autonova (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article could go into further detail on the matter, but it seems that the 2 to 15 million number (from here) is for the Americas as a whole, not just the US. If we could get a referenced estimate (or range of estimates) I think inclusion in the history section would be fine. I'm not sure Cuba is a very good example, since the abuses mentioned there were carried out by the current government of the country over the past 50 years while the ones against native Americans were by many governments over hundreds of years, but I understand the notion - articles shouldn't harp on problems in other countries while ignoring those in America. TastyCakes (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Universal Health Care and the United States

Doesn't the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act essentially ensure universal health care? It's not that the U.S. doesn't have universal health care, it's that it has a really bad way of paying for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.145.96 (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all health care is emergency life saving care, so no. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

--And not all health insurance--government insurance included--covers all medical treatments. ER care is still caring for your health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.209.169 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

re the edits that have been reverted: It doesn't really matter that 46 million people don't have health care, but 10 million may not want it. The point is, in other developed countries, regardless of if people want it or not, they have it, and the USA is (I think?) unique in that respect. We don't point out how many Americans don't want military protection. (I say this as someone uninsured, somewhat by choice, who opposes any nationalization of health care, so don't go trying to paint me as biased on this) --Golbez (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)