Miscellaneous desk
< March 5	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 6[edit]

factual figures on how many people receiving welfare benefits in USA[edit]

Many people angry about welfare benefits in USA any factual figures on how many people receiving welfare benefits in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmnh (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Header added: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Social Security, Medicare, Obama phone, Obamacare. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unrelated to answering the OP's question --Jayron32 02:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And don't forget corporate tax breaks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the US has among the highest corporate tax rates in the world, wouldn't Corporate subsidies in the United States, and things like TARP be more relevant? μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by tax rates to me doesn't indicate that the US has an abnormally high corporate tax rate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least your joke has the saving grace that you linked to the punchline. The US has a 39% federal corporate rate plus up to 15% state and local, while the UK and Australia have 20%, and Canada has 16% federal and up to 15% provincial. The moribund Japan has a 38% national rate but no local tax. No country in the world has as high a total corporate tax burden as the US. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hatted material may be indirect, but I don't think its necessarily irrelevant. Inequalities in the corporate tax, tax subsidies loke those to Solyndra, and bailouts of certain industries like TARP are all relevant. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you're trying to make a backhanded political statement. If you're trying to actually directly answer the OPs question about the number of persons who receive welfare benefits from the U.S. government. Calling other forms of government funding or subsidies "welfare" confuses the situation unnecessarily. Doing so is useful only when trying to make a political statement of some sort, not when answering an earnest question. The question didn't really ask anything about corporate subsidies. --Jayron32 06:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the funny part is both Bugs and I have diametrically, almost violently (believe me, I'd smack him), opposed political views. The relevant part here seems to be that certain corporations are getting government benefits or exemptions that other corporations and/or individuals aren't. We agree to that fact, although we might not agree on the explanation or justificiation given for it. I don't actually mind this being hatted, since anyone who cares will simply read the hatted material. μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with the question is that it doesn't define what welfare is. If welfare is "any money collected by the government in taxes and then paid back to the citizens as direct cash payouts or the equivalent to cash payouts" the answer becomes vanishingly close to 100%; the only people who don't collect any government welfare benefits ever are those who die before they are eligible to collect Social Security and Medicare. Essentially everyone who reaches retirement age collects welfare in the U.S. People like to redefine welfare to include "People who collect money from the government who aren't me", but fundamentally, all American citizens who live to the proper age are eligible for welfare. Now, if the OP has specific questions about specific government programs we can answer more meaningfully. --Jayron32 02:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official statistics here. Slightly out of date but won't vary wildly year to year. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Independence[edit]

If Scotland were to become independent, it has been said by EU officials that Scotland would have to re-apply if it wanted to become part of the EU. This implies that by leaving the UK, Scotland would also be leaving the EU, at least temporarily.

In such a case, what would happen to UK nationals living/working in Scotland? Would they need a residence/work visa? And vice-versa. What about EU 'nationals' resident in Scotland? Scottish nationals resident/working in EU member states?

KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I have seen on news and analysis sites suggests that nobody actually knows, because all of this is speculative and needs to be hashed out. So it will depend on what is decided at the time, if Scotland becomes independent. If the vote is "yes", there will be a lot of working on the practical and legal details, including answering exactly this sort of question, before it actually happens. That's also why there are so many views on what Scotland's economic situation would be. 85.255.233.40 (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible people will say "NO" anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.195.248 (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind WP:Soapbox, no to which one of KägeTorä - (影虎)'s several questions? Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a Brit, I don't want to see Scotland go. However, if you do go, we will be sending all the tramps back.217.158.236.14 (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The details of continuity of (or application for) EU membership will almost certainly be clarified and resolved before Scotland finally achieves independence and separates from the remainder of the UK. A "yes" vote would be only the start of a very long process of separation. Dbfirs 13:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most logical way to handle it is to accelerate their entry into the EU and/or slow their independence so that the two happen simultaneously. This would avoid a great deal of hassle in leaving the EU and then rejoining it. Successor states in general often maintain their old treaties, etc., during the transition period, with an exception for some violent revolutions. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Well, yes, Stu, that is what I was thinking - it's the most logical and easy way forward for a smooth transition for all parties involved. I just wonder if our colleagues in Brussels can handle it - after all, they let Germany in twice before the EU even existed ("Brussels welcomes careful Panzer drivers"). However, there are laws that govern this sort of thing, and I doubt Ukraine would be happy that their application for joining the EU has been postponed, while a little country like Scotland can be hurried in, trying desperately to seek a monetary union with the UK Sterling and not the Euro. Even Russia is speaking to Scotland to negotiate a union with them in the Russian Federation. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most logical way for the "No" campaign to proceed is to put the thought into Scottish people's minds that their comfy world will be thrown into utter chaos if they vote "Yes". Which may very well be true. It certainly won't do us (South of the Border) a lot of good and we don't even get to vote. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logic really has little to do with this and there has been much written on the varying opinions of different parties, many of whom are not disinterested. StuRat's suggestion is exactly what the Nationalists propose, but it's not clear that their proposal can be put into action even with the whole-hearted support of the UK government.

Just on a point of order, it's debatable whether an independent Scotland could be accurately decribed as a successor state of the UK as the UK would continue to exist; it would simply no longer include the territory of Scotland. Compare the velvet divorce of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, where Czechoslovakia ceased to exist and the two new states were admitted to the UN as newly created states, or the dissolution of the Soviet Union where the Russian Federation assumed the role of successor state, inheriting the USSR's UN membership with the agreement of the other former Soviet states. Neither of these patterns apply here. What international duties etc. Scotland would assume would be partly down to negotiations pending independence.

However, Scotland's membership of the EU is clearly not only a matter for Scotland and rUK (as the remainder of the UK is being referred to in many news reports). The rest of the EU would have a say in this. It's undoubtedly the case that as EU law and treaties now stand, there is no mechanism for a country that separates from an existing member to become a new EU member seamlessly [1]. The Scottish Nationalists maintain [2] that they would negotiate to amend the Treaty on European Union between a Yes vote and independence, by which they mean in reality, the UK would seek the agreement of all other EU states for the treaty to be amended in such a way as to allow Scotland to "remain" within the EU upon independence. This is of course perfectly possible - the treaty is what the signatories agree it is and contains (in Article 48 [3]) the means to revise the treaty providing all EU members agree the change and ratify it. Whether it is politically probable is another matter. The Spanish, for example, are reported to be disinclined to support any action which would make it easier for Catalonian nationalists to seek independence [4]. This is not the same as arguing that Spain - or some other state - would, at some later date, block the (re-)admission of an independent Scotland that had ceased to be part of the EU when it ceased to be part of the UK, but it does suggest that the Nationalist case in Scotland's Future that Scotland could negotiate a "smooth transition to independent EU membership [...] on the day Scotland becomes an independent country" p.220 is yet to be proven. There is certainly little explanation of how this would actually work in that 670 page document.

This BBC News site has lots of comment on the many different opinions on many of these issues. People, especially those outside the UK who may not have been following the debates, may wish to browse the site before posting unreferenced opinion. Valiantis (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to all of KageTora's questions is that we don't know what would happen. However, we do know what the answers to each of those questions depends on. 1) "What would happen to UK nationals living/working in Scotland? Would they need a residence/work visa?" That would depend on the actions of the Scottish parliament between the vote and the actual date of independence, and perhaps on negotiations with representatives of the Westminster parliament, where the West Lothian question would meanwhile have become a much more serious issue. 2) "And vice-versa." That would depend on the actions of the Westminster parliament, having faced possible constitutional challenges over the West Lothian question, and possibly on negotiations with representatives of Scotland. One scenario is that the UK and Scotland agree on open borders and free movement of labor. Another scenario is that existing non-national residents are grandfathered in and given automatic residence visas, perhaps with a deadline for naturalization, exit, or a fresh visa application. A third scenario is an acrimonious period of mutual deportation, but that is hard to imagine as it would probably not be popular with the constituents of either government, many of whose families would be adversely affected. 3 "What about EU 'nationals' resident in Scotland? Scottish nationals resident/working in EU member states?" That would depend on negotiations between Edinburgh and Brussels. Ultimately it might depend on how adversarial Spain chose to be. If Spain's government decided to make a painful example of Scotland to discourage Catalan independence, it might be able to block extension of the EU's freedom of movement to Scotland, in which case Scottish nationals might face a deadline to leave EU countries, obtain a visa on the same footing as other non-EU nationals, or face legal jeopardy. In which case, Scotland might respond equivalently toward EU nationals. On the other hand, Scotland might find a way to appease or circumvent Spanish opposition and remain within the EU zone of freedom of movement and residence. Again, we just don't know. Marco polo (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add interest, if the Conservatives (who are the major partner in the ruling collation government) win the next general election (to take place in 2015), there will likely be a referendum on the UK leaving the EU, probably in 2017. 62.56.69.137 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the plus side, I don't see many Scots with the attitude "we need to declare independence right now, and damn the consequences !". I think they'd be willing to wait until all the issues with EU membership can be ironed out, before they take the plunge. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So will the remainder of Great Britain be renamed to "Not-So-Great Britain" ? StuRat (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Well they'd probably like to, but that's not the choice they've been given. The choice they've been given is either to say yes to splitting off, trusting that the people responsible will be able to work this stuff out to Scotland's advantage before actually splitting off, or to say no to splitting off. There is no "wait and see option". So I don't see how you think that would work.

And Great Britain typically refers to the island, which remains the same size as it was before and after the Act of Union. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which means the Scots will remain British (in that sense) no matter what the outcome of the referendum may be. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hair[edit]

Why does facial hair seem to grow faster than scalp hair and why does pubic hair seem not to lengthen at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.195.248 (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled Human hair growth which may answer some of your questions. --Jayron32 13:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And any "why" questions gets into why we evolved that way. I suspect that it has to do with clothes. That is, since we started wearing clothes, the need for body hair for warmth was reduced, and it remained a liability by allowing places for parasites to hide, so it gradually reduced to a minimal amount, due to evolutionary pressure. Head and facial hair, on the other hand, was still important because we left our heads at least partially uncovered to see, hear, breath, and speak. (Men have more facial hair than women, as an age and gender marker, and perhaps because men were likely to spend more time outside hunting, while women stayed closer to home.) StuRat (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry StuRat. Your explanation seems to bend evolution to fit your argument. There is a wide variation in the occurrence of body hair on different ethnic types. There are some African and Papuan New Guinea aboriginal people who wear little clothes and also appear to have little body hair. How does male baldness fit in to your theory? I suspect our evolution is not so simplistic. Richard Avery (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, StuRat, what are you suggestion as the mechanism of selection which is supposed to have brought about that evolution? External parasites don't usually kill you. --ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Hair addresses most of these questions, and our article Androgenic hair addresses more of them. In fact, facial hair does not grow faster than scalp hair. Pubic hair, like facial hair, is androgenic hair, which grows to a shorter length before it stops growing than scalp hair does. If you were to shave pubic hair, you would see a growth pattern similar to that of facial hair. When it isn't shaved, it may appear not to grow; however, people constantly shed pubic hairs, and new hairs are constantly growing to replace them. As for the question of why some people have more body hair than others, we don't really know for sure, but some evidence points toward sexual selection. Body hair may have resulted in greater sexual success for men in some parts of the world than in others. The incidence of body hair is highest in the Mediterranean region, and is low among indigenous Siberians, and this suggests that the relatively higher incidence of body hair among male Europeans cannot be explained or solely explained by the need for insulation in a cold climate. The evidence suggests that the ancestors of people lost most of their body hair around 3 million years ago, but that our ancestors didn't start wearing clothing until about 100,000 years ago. So, the lack of body hair can't be explained by the use of clothing. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]