7 ms·

My personal counter is that I just couldn't morally accept contributing taxes to a nation which: - Exploits the poor and non-citizens - Overthrows gove

My personal counter is that I just couldn't morally accept contributing taxes to a nation which: - Exploits the poor and non-citizens - Overthrows governments and bullies smaller countries - Has only the most rudimentary social security system - Does not really have a concept of healthy work/life balance. With little time off and none at all for people with newborns. - Takes near-zero environmental responsibility - Literally spies on the entire population of the rest of the world ...

leg100 8y ago
Sorry, which country are we talking about? Barring the guaranteed maternity leave I'm not seeing a helluva difference.
another-one-off 8y ago
That starts to rule out a lot of English speaking countries, including probably the UK. I mean, in the UK alone you'd need to evaluate what, if anything, separates the modern British morals from the morals of the British Empire which was not a very nice organisation [1]. They technically didn't overthrow and bully, but that was because they conquered and colonised. I don't think the lineage of government institutions has changed that drastically. The modern anglosphere (UK, Australia, US, New Zealand, Canada) are all part of the spying-on-everyone gig. The social security system and environmental comments I'll grant you; but the reason for that is (ironically, given your comment) that people don't want to contribute taxes for it. Work life balance I have no comment. [1] EDIT The stereotype I picked up was that a good foundation of modern British wealth was a bunch of things they 'found unattended' overseas. I gather the Indians still claim that some parts of British royal jewelry were stolen from them and should be returned with an apology.
- signal11 8y ago
  > I gather the Indians still claim that some parts of British royal jewelry were stolen from them and should be returned with an apology. Bit offtopic, but this is complicated. A lot of the jewellery were taken from present-day Pakistan (or were gifts from kings in that area) so it's not clear to which country they should be returned to.
- eeeuo 8y ago
  Yes, they did "technically" overthrow. The UK, alongside the US, overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. This is not a point of contention, it's been openly stated by the CIA. I genuinely thought the GP was making a joke until the bit about time off.
bodas 8y ago
Even on a selfish level, the extra 2-3 weeks of PTO in UK is easily more important than the extra compensation in the US. What's the point of having more money if you are stuck in an office for more of the year and can only spend it on material goods? As you say, for women the difference in maternity leave is laughable.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Eventually at Google US you get 5 weeks PTO, which is the same as in Google London. Plus Google has four more holidays in the US than in the UK.
  - lawlorino 8y ago
    > Eventually at Google US you get 5 weeks PTO, which is the same as in Google London. Ah but you're cherry picking an example from one company, I am also not sure how long or what role you'd need to accrue that much PTO. In Europe most (all?) countries have a legal minimum of 3-4 weeks PTO in addition to public holidays, regardless of your job or time working. > Plus Google has four more holidays in the US than in the UK. I'm not sure what the definition of federal holidays is vs. public holidays in Europe, but a quick Google suggests US has 10 while the UK has 8 public holidays.
    - TulliusCicero 8y ago
      I'm specifically talking about what Google gives its employees for public holidays. And federal holidays are basically meaningless unless you, y'know, work for the feds.
  - bodas 8y ago
    "Eventually" but to get to that point you have to endure years of getting half the time off that a burger flipper gets in McDonalds UK. Honestly it's a bit humiliating.
    - TulliusCicero 8y ago
hulahoof 8y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather be a five eyes member than not - but I think it's naive to think any of the member states are innocent of the majority of these statements.
ddorian43 8y ago
Damn, so you want to live in a country that exploits the rich (you) ?
aphextron 8y ago
You forgot: - Defends the global liberal world order and upholds free trade through spending half it’s budget on a military which protects the entire continent of Europe.
- ljcn 8y ago
  A trade war is a funny way to go about that.
- steve_musk 8y ago
  It’s only half of the discrentionary budget, which itself is roughly half of the total budget. And with the pending trade war with our Allies and Trump’s threats to NATO this point may not be valid much longer.
- zimablue 8y ago
  Because the multiple nuclear states in Europe and its standing army which would give the US itself a hell of a fight are otherwise easy prey for ... aliens?
  - foldr 8y ago
    Russia's strategic nuclear capability dwarfs that of any country in the EU. The Russian armed forces aren't what they used to be, but without the backing of the US, Russia's conventional military threat to the EU is also serious.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      They have a lot of nukes because nukes are cheap and Russia's economy is pretty small - a good bit less than Italy and less than half of the UK. They probably do pose a realistic threat to the Baltic states - but that's because they are very small and isolated.
      - foldr 8y ago
        They're not that cheap. Russia spends about 230 billion USD annually, and spends about 10 billion on nuclear weapons. That's more than any country other than the USA.
CM30 8y ago
How many countries are left after that list? You've already ruled out any 'five eyes' countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand), much of Europe (for similar reasons), China, Russia (okay, these literally break all of them), Japan and South Korea (work/life balance), almost all of the middle east, much of South America, much of Africa, etc. Maybe one of the Nordic countries avoids these issues. Maybe.

leg100 8y ago

Sorry, which country are we talking about? Barring the guaranteed maternity leave I'm not seeing a helluva difference.

another-one-off 8y ago

That starts to rule out a lot of English speaking countries, including probably the UK. I mean, in the UK alone you'd need to evaluate what, if anything, separates the modern British morals from the morals of the British Empire which was not a very nice organisation [1]. They technically didn't overthrow and bully, but that was because they conquered and colonised. I don't think the lineage of government institutions has changed that drastically. The modern anglosphere (UK, Australia, US, New Zealand, Canada) are all part of the spying-on-everyone gig. The social security system and environmental comments I'll grant you; but the reason for that is (ironically, given your comment) that people don't want to contribute taxes for it. Work life balance I have no comment. [1] EDIT The stereotype I picked up was that a good foundation of modern British wealth was a bunch of things they 'found unattended' overseas. I gather the Indians still claim that some parts of British royal jewelry were stolen from them and should be returned with an apology.

signal11 8y ago
> I gather the Indians still claim that some parts of British royal jewelry were stolen from them and should be returned with an apology. Bit offtopic, but this is complicated. A lot of the jewellery were taken from present-day Pakistan (or were gifts from kings in that area) so it's not clear to which country they should be returned to.
eeeuo 8y ago
Yes, they did "technically" overthrow. The UK, alongside the US, overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. This is not a point of contention, it's been openly stated by the CIA. I genuinely thought the GP was making a joke until the bit about time off.

bodas 8y ago

Even on a selfish level, the extra 2-3 weeks of PTO in UK is easily more important than the extra compensation in the US. What's the point of having more money if you are stuck in an office for more of the year and can only spend it on material goods? As you say, for women the difference in maternity leave is laughable.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
Eventually at Google US you get 5 weeks PTO, which is the same as in Google London. Plus Google has four more holidays in the US than in the UK.
- lawlorino 8y ago
  > Eventually at Google US you get 5 weeks PTO, which is the same as in Google London. Ah but you're cherry picking an example from one company, I am also not sure how long or what role you'd need to accrue that much PTO. In Europe most (all?) countries have a legal minimum of 3-4 weeks PTO in addition to public holidays, regardless of your job or time working. > Plus Google has four more holidays in the US than in the UK. I'm not sure what the definition of federal holidays is vs. public holidays in Europe, but a quick Google suggests US has 10 while the UK has 8 public holidays.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    I'm specifically talking about what Google gives its employees for public holidays. And federal holidays are basically meaningless unless you, y'know, work for the feds.
- bodas 8y ago
  "Eventually" but to get to that point you have to endure years of getting half the time off that a burger flipper gets in McDonalds UK. Honestly it's a bit humiliating.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago

hulahoof 8y ago

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather be a five eyes member than not - but I think it's naive to think any of the member states are innocent of the majority of these statements.

ddorian43 8y ago

Damn, so you want to live in a country that exploits the rich (you) ?

aphextron 8y ago

You forgot: - Defends the global liberal world order and upholds free trade through spending half it’s budget on a military which protects the entire continent of Europe.

ljcn 8y ago
A trade war is a funny way to go about that.
steve_musk 8y ago
It’s only half of the discrentionary budget, which itself is roughly half of the total budget. And with the pending trade war with our Allies and Trump’s threats to NATO this point may not be valid much longer.
zimablue 8y ago
Because the multiple nuclear states in Europe and its standing army which would give the US itself a hell of a fight are otherwise easy prey for ... aliens?
- foldr 8y ago
  Russia's strategic nuclear capability dwarfs that of any country in the EU. The Russian armed forces aren't what they used to be, but without the backing of the US, Russia's conventional military threat to the EU is also serious.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    They have a lot of nukes because nukes are cheap and Russia's economy is pretty small - a good bit less than Italy and less than half of the UK. They probably do pose a realistic threat to the Baltic states - but that's because they are very small and isolated.
    - foldr 8y ago
      They're not that cheap. Russia spends about 230 billion USD annually, and spends about 10 billion on nuclear weapons. That's more than any country other than the USA.

CM30 8y ago

How many countries are left after that list? You've already ruled out any 'five eyes' countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand), much of Europe (for similar reasons), China, Russia (okay, these literally break all of them), Japan and South Korea (work/life balance), almost all of the middle east, much of South America, much of Africa, etc. Maybe one of the Nordic countries avoids these issues. Maybe.