To be so intrigued by America?

[hollyblueivy]

AIBU to be so intrigued by America and just how vastly different it is to the UK despite both being rich modern nations?

Trump features a lot in the UK news and it has made me look into why the US seem so uncaring. Their systems to help the vulnerable are so different to ours. They have no right to housing so many can easily risk facing homelessness. With no national health service, access to healthcare is much more difficult and expensive, pushing people into deprivation even if they are working.

They don’t seem to have the same socialist heart as the UK and it gives a very much dog eat dog and every man for themselves culture.

I don’t think I fully appreciated this before. Anyone else?

And @mathanxiety's analysis above is right on point. My husband and I moved from one county to another because the schools had the best programs for our son who had special education needs. We were more than happy to pay a slightly higher property tax to get that benefit for him.

“No one”? Ever heard of the Donner party? That was mountains and not plains, but pioneers could run into all sorts of problems that left them stranded in winter, or pushing through dangerous conditions. There used to be a popular computer game called Oregon Trail that did a great job teaching kids about all the dangers and setbacks pioneers had. Players got to pick different income levels for their party (banker, carpenter, farmer) and choose which month they left. Some of the things along the journey were in their control - stopping to rest, picking the road or the ferry, hunting for food, trading or buying supplies at the forts - but others weren’t. You’d run into things like freak blizzards in April, thieves, party members being bit by snakes, undrinkable water. Sometimes you’d have to let your party rest for a week or two until their health improved, or until an ox recovered from an injury. With enough bad fortune, yeah, you definitely could end up crossing the plains in the dead of winter, and that’s accurate to history.

The Little House books are largely autobiographical, and talk about all kinds of harsh realities. I wasn’t a big fan and never finished the series, but even I remember Mary going blind from scarlet fever and the family living through seven months of blizzards.

Personally, I don’t support routine neonatal circumcision, but circumcision is still recommended by the World Health Organization, and a lot of American health organizations take a “has some benefits - make an informed decision” approach.

Little House on the Prairie was brutal. Maybe that poster just meant the TV show? 😆😆😆

Pretty much every little girl read those books and that family went through a LOT. Often on the brink of starvation, nasty winters, illnesses, Ma was so long suffering, didn’t she get badly burned in one book? And it’s basically all Pa’s fault 😡🤬

Thanks for that! I was surprised that the WHO recommended it so I went and checked and found out you are right. Seems it's seen as a cost effective way to combat the spread of HIV. I like to think I've learned something and appreciate well sourced information.

Yes, SCHOOLS are funded out of property tax! That's why the schools are better in better areas, because the residents are paying more property tax for larger houses in safer areas.

Schools are centrally funded in the UK, but the more expensive the houses are in the area you live in, the better chance you have of finding a good state school.

On top of the ability to levy taxes on residents in their districts (catchment areas), there are elected school boards that make decisions on curriculum (apart from state mandated courses), hiring of school leadership, discipline policies, and spending of financial reserves.

I don't understand your high horse here - either the money goes directly to the university from a private donor, or everyone pays (regardless of whether their kids will ever attend university) so the state can fund the university via taxes. This is basically how America's state universities function - a hybrid of direct state grants, federal grants, tax levies, industry and federal funding for specific schools, and private donors and foundations, plus tuition/ room and board.

Private universities rely on funding that is skewed more toward private and industry donations, with obv government (federal and state) contribution too. But private funding is hugely important in that mix.

The UK idea that a university can be funded basically by student tuition bolstered by government contribution is a failed model that has resulted in entire departments shuttered and some universities facing the cliff edge.

By contrast, American universities that have huge kitties can offer a completely free four years to students whose financial circumstances indicate high need and can also thumb their noses at the likes of trump attempting to dictate subjects studied and interpretations of topics he doesn't agree with. Black history, for instance. Universities that are solidly in the black can continue to offer a vast array of language, humanities, and arts courses, and can fund research even in areas that of no interest to Boeing or GE, etc, because the money is there and they don't have to go begging to keep the philosophy department afloat or keep on paying the world's leading expert in Manx poetry of the 11th century.

The likes of Oxford and Cambridge have only recently decided to admit more students from state school backgrounds, meaning that £££££££££ paid to Eton no longer guarantees your son a spot in PPE. I have seen lots of dismay about that from people posting here - basically bemoaning the loss of Oxbridge cachet and wondering if there are alternatives that offer a chance to party with the right people for three years. How is the elitism any worse than your alleged 'corruption'? Legacy / large donor admissions tend to be well qualified applicants, and the money that gets donated to universities because of strong family associations goes toward the financial aid that means less advantaged students can get a life altering education. It would only be corruption if the admitted students were sub par, which is not the case for the vast majority of very 'advantaged' applicants.

If Australian universities have relied on government funding and have been slow to develop 'alumni relationships' / large endowments, then they have left themselves open to interference in academic freedom by all sorts of interested parties, and have limited their ability to offer disadvantaged students the education that could change their lives and the lives of generations of their descendants.

Universities cannot function independently without the money necessary to maintain the integrity of their academic endeavours. The bottom line is the bottom line here.

Also @Goldenbear @Lastfroginthebox On the contrary, the OECD data is the only set that comes up with those figures. I read many sources in order to quote the figures that I did.

Action for Children UK is very firm that 31% of UK children live in poverty.
https://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/blog/where-is-child-poverty-increasing-in-the-uk/

The following respectable groups agree that the figure is 31%: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the UK government, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and more. I am not sure why the OECD data is so different.

The BBC reports the 31% figure as being correct: So does the Guardian. The figure is widely accepted - just Google it.

Media sample:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2g03ykxeko

The US:
United Way says 12% https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/child-poverty-in-america/
Gov census says 16.3% https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/12/poverty-rate-varies-by-age-groups.html
Children International agrees with the 16.3%: https://www.children.org/global-poverty/global-poverty-facts/facts-about-poverty-in-usa
Annie Casey Foundation says 16%: https://www.aecf.org/topics/child-poverty

I discounted the OEDC data when I saw how wildly different it was from all the other sources on UK and US child-poverty rates, and that no other sources seem to tally with it. It seems pretty accepted that the UK rate is 31% and the US rate is 16% approx. I did wonder if the OECD had an agenda, considering how no other sources seem to replicate its data.

My comment was about the WHO and circumcision - nothing to do with child poverty - so I don't know why you've quoted me here. You seem to have thoroughly researched your statistics and that's a really good thing.

I read somewhere ( possibly Prisoners of Geography?) that western Europe benefited from the Cold War and the proximity to Communist states, in that governments had an incentive to make concessions on welfare and workers' rights to reduce the risk of protest or even overthrow by the Left. The US was that much further removed, geographically, from socialism, and hence the establishment there never feel the same pressure to make provision for healthcare, childcare, vacation time, etc. I think what other posters have said about the culture of self reliance by pioneers and immigrants is also a factor in the States.... what mystifies me is that a disproportionate number of the MAGA base who feed off this narrative also seem to be the same ones who rely on America's ( less than generous) benefits system.

The reply of yours that I quoted was your answer to Goldenbear's chart about the OECD child poverty stats that said it was 20% in the States and 12% in the UK.

Apologies - you're right. I got confused.

Lived in the US for nearly a decade. In Illinois. I believe it has one of the highest property taxes, or at least our county did anyway

Our property tax was about 10k a year! We lived in a fairly standard 3 bed house in a nice residential area. It paid directly for the schools and amenities in our area. Literally they’d send us a breakdown of what it paid for every year. Our schools were good and our area was desirable - excellent parks, pools, community centres etc, streets cleared of snow by 7am, and we sold our house within a week at a profit when we left. You got a refund off your state income taxes for your property tax though. I can’t remember what percentage it was. The federal tax rates are way lower than the Uk.

It is just a different system from here. And every state is so different. The salaries are higher but the cost of living is also higher. DH had a good job so our healthcare was good but it still cost to actually use it. My friend’s DH was a fireman and their healthcare was significantly cheaper than ours.

very low income gets Medicaid etc. over 65 get Medicare. A lot fall through the gaps though as they’re not poor enough to qualify but then have to pay loads for insurance.

Id say in my experience people are more generous to local charities and churches etc. They prefer to choose where their money goes!