Previous  1  2

No, they don't.



Britain is 2nd after the US in giving money to charity.

The British are the 3rd-richest people in the world, after the US and Japan, when it comes to GDP per capita measured by how much assets each person has (such as ownership of land etc) rather than just income per capita. This is a more accurate way of measuring GDP per capita.

Around 440,000 households in Britain have assets worth over $1,000,000, a third more than Germany despite Germany having a larger population and two-thirds more than France, which has a similar population.

People in North America tend to take an Americo-Canadian centric worldview as though they are the two most important countries in the world even though Britain outstrips Canada economicaly, militarily, politically and in terms of population.

   

are religious contributions considered charitable donations in the US?

   

GB before you rattle your sabers and remind us all how great your country is perhaps you should take the time to notice that there is no discernible difference on your chart between our two countries.

I am not familiar with the site but theysay your wrong on richest countries GDP[web]http://www.aneki.com/richest.html[/web]

   

That's because your chart shows normal measurements of GDP per capita.

Measuring GDP per capita by measuring total assets rather than just income then Japan is first, US is second and Britain is third. This is a more accurate way of measuring GDP per capita than just measuring income, and on that measure the British are the third richest people on the planet.

Most people measure GDP per capita by just income, but if you measure it by including assets - other things that generate wealth rather just income, such as shares, savings accounts etc - then this gives a more accurate measurement of GDP per capita.
***************************************

Richest tenth own 85% of world's assets
David Brown
The Telegraph

World's 3 richest countries (GDP per capita)

1) Japan - $180,837
2) United States - $143,727
3) Britain - $126,832

Compare these to:

Holland - $109,418
Germany - $86,369
New Zealand - $37,000

These are the most accurate ways of measuring GDP per capita, and take in other factors as well as just income, which is how it is most commonly measured.

Also by these measurements, the Democratic Republic of Congo is the poorest country in the world, with a GDP per capita of $180.




The richest 2 per cent of adults own more than half the world’s wealth, according to the most comprehensive study of personal assets.

Britain boasted the third-highest average wealth of $126,832 (£64,172) per adult, after the United States and Japan, a United Nations development research institute found.

Those with assets of $500,000 could consider themselves to be among the richest 1 per cent in the world. Those with net assets of $2,200 per adult were in the top half of the wealth distribution.

Although global income was distributed unequally, the spread of wealth was more skewed, according to the study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the UN University.

“Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and high-income AsiaPacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90 per cent of total world wealth,” the report said.

Researchers defined wealth as the value of physical and financial assets minus debts.

The richest 10 per cent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of assets. The bottom 50 per cent of the world’s adults owned barely 1 per cent of global wealth.

Among high-income nations, the amounts varied from $37,000 per person in New Zealand to $86,369 in Germany and $109,418 in the Netherlands.

In terms of wealth distribution the US was among the most unequal, whereas Japan had one of the lowest levels of inequality. Britain ranked with Russia, Indonesia and Pakistan in wealth inequality.

James Davies, Professor of Economics at the University of Western Ontario, and one of the authors of the report, said: “Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years and we think that is true for inequality in the distribution of wealth.

“There is a group of problems in developing countries that make it difficult for people to build assets, which are important, since life is so precarious.”

The gulf between rich and poor nations has long concerned politicians and economists, who say that it is one of the biggest bars to development.

Household wealth in 2000 was valued at $125 trillion, equivalent to about three times total global production, or $20,500 a person, according to The World Distribution of Household Wealth report.

Average wealth in the US was $143,727 a person in 2000, and in Japan, $180,837, it said.

In India the figure was $1,100, in Indonesia per capita wealth was $1,400, and in Zimbabwe, $1,465.

The Democratic Republic of Congo came last with $180.

Professor Davies said that there were some hopeful signs: China and India, developing rapidly, were gaining wealth.

In countries such as Bangladesh, the spread of microcredit institutions was helping to increase personal wealth. In others, registration programmes were allowing the poor to own land for the first time, he said.

Anthony Shorrocks, the institute’s director, said: “Despite its rapid growth, China does not yet feature among the super-rich, because average wealth is modest and evenly spread by international standards.

“However, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveals, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade.”

thetimesonline.co.uk

   

Yes my good man you just showed how changing the format for stats makes them change to suit a purpose.

Aside from that most people donate to charity from their disposable income not fixed assets.

   

It's not a contest. The only things that matter are that people are helped, and that people realize that although we are very prosperous, we give a lot away too.

   

For yearly income tax you can claim up to a cretin amount of religious contribution as charitable donation. I'm not to sure how much that is though. I think thats what your asking about.

   

But looking at GDP per capita, measured by the NORMAL way of measuring GDP per capita, it makes me wish that England could become an independent nation.

If England gained its independence from Britain - without being part of the same Union as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - it would be an incredibly wealthy country - it would be the 7th richest country in the word in terms of per capita GDP, and richer even than the United States. England's GDP per capita dwarves that of all the other big European nations - Germany, Italy and France - and also Canada. But the only GDP per capita that people see is Britain's rather than England's.

So an independent England would be vastly rich compared to its large European rivals, the Canadians and slightly ahead even of the Yanks.

Though we still lag behind the Republic of Ireland.


Here are some GDPs per capita -

Republic of Ireland - $50,150 (5th)
England - $45,373 (7th)
United States - $44,333 (8th)
Canada - $35,133 (16th)
Germany - $33,854
Italy - $29,700
France - $29,316
Scotland - US$25,546
Wales - $23,741
Northern Ireland - $19,603

wikipedia.org

But the UK's GDP (England/Scotland/NI/Wales) is $38,624 (13th) [[between the US and Canada in the above list]].

In fact, because we wouldn't have to pay billions of £s to the Scots for subsidies anymore, an independent England could be even richer.
-----------------------------------

The Celts also let us down in terms of standard of living.

On the HDI Index, Britain ranks only 18th in the world, with an HDI of 0.940.

But Canada has an HDI Index of 0.950, ranking in 5th place in the world.

The US HDI Index is 0.948 - ranked 8th.

France's is 0.942 - ranked 16th.

So all those countries are ranked higher in the HDI Index than Britain.

BUT if you count just England (taken the Celts out of the equation) then England has an HDI Index of 0.955, ranked 5th in the world, a higher standard of living than Canada, France and the United States.

It's just those poverty-stricken Celts that drag Britain down. The English are richer and have a higher standard of living than Canadians and Americans but as Britain (England/Wales/Scotland/NI) we rank lower than canadians and Americans on both counts.

Canadians and Americans oftens ay that they wouldn't move to Britain for a better standard of living because they have a higher standard of living than Britain anyway, which is true.

But, at the same time, coming to England you will still get a better standard of living, as counting it on its own ranks it 5th in the world.

Only Norway, Iceland, Australia and the Republic of Ireland have a higher standard of living than the English.

It's just that everyone sees BRITAIN'S HDI Index and not England's, so it gives the impression that the English don't live as well as they do. It's the Celts that drag us down.

   

Interesting stats

   

Previous  1  2