Lets Talk, my point is that Australians are the world's biggest
gamblers and lose 15 billion a year. It is not the rich losing
their money, or they would not be rich. But plenty of pensioners
play the pokies. In WA, where the pokies are severely restricted
to only one spot, West Australians only lose a third of what
people in place like NSW and Victoria lose, as the ABS statistic
shows.

I had a look at your equalitytrust figures, but you quoted the
website wrongly, its from the UK, not AU. Its a great example
of statistics misused for a political agenda, which might impress
you, but not me. Throw a country like Singapore in there, which
is a low tax country, as is Switzerland and everything changes.

For instance they try to blame teen births on income inequality.
The fact that the US is the most religious Western country on the
planet, the fact that many kids receive no sex education, many states
do their damndest to ban abortions, unlike say Holland, your stats
ignore all this and try to justify it with income inequality.

Drugs, it must be income inequality. Australia leads and of course
WA has the highest use of amphetamines in the country. Funny that
WA also has some of the highest incomes in the country and anyone
who wants a job can find one tomorrow, if they try even a weeny
teensy bit. Nope, it must be income inequality.

Frankly Lets Talk, you have been sucked in.

Yabby,
I don't think you understand fully the methods used by the creators of the equality trust website to come to their conclusions. You've had a quick look at the website and, because it's conclusions don't sit we'll with your beliefs, you hastily dismiss them. This says more about how fixed you are in your beliefs than the quality of the study.

I suggest you read their book "the spirit level". They have a section devoted to answering points raised by their critics. Your points are among them and they dismiss them effectively I think.

For example, you claim that a single jurisdiction on a single issue, say WA on drug use, disproves their theory. Not true. Even if what you say about WA is true (and I'd need more data - for example I'd say WA does have quite high income inequality - that's what's at question, not wealth) it doesn't disprove the findings. The study is across many countries and cross referenced with data across every US state. Their conclusions are made using the "line of best fit" and the results are clear.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/drug-abuse

The same applies for the addition of countries like Singapore or Switzerland. The researchers go into some detail to explain there choice of countries and how these additional jurisdictions do not invalidate their findings.

Sorry, its you that have been suckered by your neoliberals masters do you can't trust real data when you see it.

Ah Let's Talk, so now you want me to read another book, to explain
the flawed data. Perhaps you can explain it to me, like my first
point, and I can think of dozens more.

There are many, many things which affect culture, you seemingly
want to blame the lot on one thing. How foolish. Sounds more like
the zealotary of a fundamentalist Xtian kind of thinking, then
anything too rational.

So lets take teenage pregnancy. Do you really think that lack of
sex education, lack of abortion facilities, lack of family planning
in general, have nothing to do with the differences between say
the US and Holland?

I've frankly debated some of these topics to death in the past and
I can tell you, if you bother to inform yourself, there are many
cultural issues involved, not just your narrowly focussed, political
agenda point of income inequality.

There are many reasons why countries such as the Nordic countries,
Germany, Switzerland etc have done well, from tertiary training to
the weather. You want to lump it all into one single point. How
gullible of you.

You remind me of a climate denier yabby: you'll desperately look around for any explanation for a set of data other than the simplest explanation which best fits the empirical evidence, because - you can't handle the truth.

Basically, societies work better for most people when extremes of rich and poor are not so pronounced. People are happier, healthier and better educated on those countries. It makes sense, and those studies are good proof.

You should perhaps concentrate on the people you care about - rich people - and leave the rest of the country to people who are genuinely interested in politics. I suggest a career in finance.

*you'll desperately look around for any explanation for a set of data other than the simplest explanation which best fits the empirical evidence*

Sheesh Lets Talk, that sounds just like the creationists and their
simple "God did it" explanation. We won't question the data being
full of holes like a sieve. We'll just become true believers.
I'll just stick to intelligent points of reason, thank you.

*Basically, societies work better for most people when extremes of rich and poor are not so pronounced*

That is exactly why we spend huge amounts on welfare and have
taxation systems in place where Govt spends around 35% of GDP.
We help those that cannot help themselves. But if that keeps
rising to the point where it stifles innovation, stifles
entrepreneurship and effort, it becomes counterproductive and its
all downhill, as countries like Sweden discovered in the 90s, when
their economy started to collapse, they changed direction and
started to deregulate an overgoverning beaurocracy which was
stifling progress.

* rich people - and leave the rest of the country to people who are genuinely interested in politics.*

Actually its working people that I care about, not rich people.
Those who go down mines and all the rest. Not those feathering
their own nests in politics or the gullible who think that they
know what is best for everyone else.

My mistake Yabby. You're not just interested in the rich. Your kindhearted care and empathy extends to miners as well.
LOL!