Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< April 26 << Mar | April | May >> April 28 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.


April 27[edit]

President Trump’s beliefs[edit]

Is Donald Trump much like his father, as far as known of his fathers beliefs, like on religion, business investments, family, etc? President Trump has been known occasionally to be genuinely kind, was that true of his parents also?107.77.228.200 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Guthrie had Fred Trump as a landlord for a time, and complained bitterly about Fred Trump's profiteering and racism... AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting because I think Guthrie himself transcended having a bad father.107.77.228.200 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For point of reference, Guthrie complained bitterly of Fred Trump in a song he wrote called Old Man Trump. --Jayron32 12:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For further reference, that song is about an actual event. Trump took an old run-down apartment, kicked out all non-whites, and raised rent to get the poor out of the building. Then, he cleaned up the building and rented it out to higher-income whites than those that used to live there. There is a WP article on gentrification. After 1968, it became illegal to quickly remove people based on race, but raising rent and/or taxes still happens. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia article titled Fred Trump has some information that you can read and decide for yourself the answer to your question. --Jayron32 12:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does being a sustenance farmer count as being self-employed?[edit]

A sustenance farmer's income is just enough to feed himself and his family. He does not sell anything. He just eats what he grows. If a US citizen wants to live such a lifestyle, then would he be registered as self-employed or unemployed? Does he still have to pay property taxes to the government, even though his income is his food supply? SSS (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the USA, there is federal income tax, state income tax, and also property tax, which is at the state or local level. Barring a tax expert showing up here, you would need to look at the instructions for the 1040 form and see what they say about it, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SuperSuperSmarty -- The usual term is "subsistence farmer", and it commonly refers to farming families who do not sell their crops, but instead eat what is left over after their feudal overlord or landlord has exacted his tribute or rent. If you have a suitable plot of land and want to try to live on what you grow, then no one is stopping you, but it's not a commercially viable form of agriculture in the United States (the landlords of sharecroppers started displacing them over 50 years ago). AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Self-sufficiency is a similar concept. Alansplodge (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that no one "registers" as anything with the U.S. government in a general sense. All the U.S. government (and various state and local governments) cares about is if you pay them the money you owe them. If you do owe them money, there are processes, including an escrow-like system called withholding, where some money is 'withheld' from payments and put aside to cover one's tax burdens at the end of the year, if you didn't pay enough you owe the government the difference, if you payed too much you get a refund. To manage that system there's a whole mess of paperwork to fill out. HOWEVER, if you don't owe the government anything (such as that you didn't have enough taxable income) you don't have to file any paperwork. Whether this actually applies to you is something you would need to consult a professional (tax lawyer, accountant, etc. about). --Jayron32 14:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US, in 2018, in general, you are not required to file a US tax return if you make less than $10,400 (single, under 65). Most states follow this same minimum. If youy own property, in most locations you owe yearly property tax. The rules for property tax are complex and highly variable, but are in general based on the asssesed value of the property and the zoning: property zoned for and used for farming is often taxed at a low rate. A dirt-poor farmer on 40 acres of arable land with water and a 2-room cabin is probably sitting on at least $100,000 of property even in the cheapest location in the US, and is going to owe at least $500 a year in property tax. (I made the numbers up). This will get much worse in just about any realistic situation. -Arch dude (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This US person might benefit by being formally self-employed. A self-employed person must pay about 15% social security tax and employment tax on every dollar earned with no lower limit, but this qualified him or her for social security retirement benefits and also for Earned income tax credit, which is a "negative income tax". To do all this,the worker files a tax return. A subsistence farmer generally does have income because he or she must sell some crops to buy stuff like tools that simply cannot feasibly made on the farm. -Arch dude (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the founding fathers and tyranny[edit]

The founding fathers built many ways in to the constitution to impede the rise of a tyrant. Do you think it was primarily from having lived under a monarchy? From reading John Locke? Or what that made them give so much attention to tyranny?Hoover12345! (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read United States Declaration of Independence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since the DOI predates the Constitution by over a decade, a better thing to read would be the Federalist Papers, which came about after the Constitution, and are an extensive defense of it. I would recommend the OP to read that (and as an aside "Do you think" questions are not answered in this forum. We're here to provide you reading material. The Federalist Papers are that reading material.) --Jayron32 14:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You will find a prudent introduction to the subject at Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Ties to the British Empire. Follow the related links ( unless your view was about a fat USA, at the world table - represented by some kind of a Kaiser ? Who would have even thought they could afford it :) . --Askedonty (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Founding Fathers, a 1963 essay by Hannah Arendt, argues that the Founding Fathers looked to the Roman Republic for their inspiration. That being the case, it seems likely that they didn't want it to end up with a latter-day Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Besides the Romans, who influenced the writers of The Federalist Papers specifically about preventing tyranny? I am sincere about this question and I have tried other places to find the answer.Hoover12345! (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more recent example that they must have been familiar with was the Commonwealth of England, the republic established after the trial and execution of King Charles I in 1649. Although started with high ideals, after the dismissal of the purged parliament, it quickly degenerated into a military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell with the backing of his army. I can't find a reference that the Founding Fathers had this in mind, so this is just my speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A number of these people were influenced by the philosopher and theologian John Witherspoon: "In his lectures on moral philosophy at Princeton, required of all juniors and seniors, Witherspoon argued for the revolutionary right of resistance and recommended checks and balances within government. He made a profound impression on his student James Madison, whose suggestions for the United States Constitution followed both Witherspoon's and Hume's ideas. The historian Douglass Adair writes, "The syllabus of Witherspoon's lectures . . . explains the conversion of the young Virginian to the philosophy of the Enlightenment."[1]"

Witherspoon himself had some influence from the political ideas of David Hume, who was concerned with how to avoid factionalism and abuse of power. Hume's views were shaped by the history of his native Scotland:

  • "This outlook needs to be seen within the historical context of eighteenth century Scotland. Here, the legacy of religious civil war, combined with the relatively recent memory of the 1715 and 1745 Jacobite risings, fostered in a historian such as Hume a distaste for enthusiasm and factionalism. These appeared to threaten the fragile and nascent political and social stability of a country that was deeply politically and religiously divided.[2][failed verification] Hume thought that society is best governed by a general and impartial system of laws; he is less concerned about the form of government that administers these laws, so long as it does so fairly. However, he does write that a republic must produce laws, while "monarchy, when absolute, contains even something repugnant to law."[3]"
  • "Canadian philosopher Neil McArthur writes that Hume believed that we should try to balance our demands for liberty with the need for strong authority, without sacrificing either. McArthur characterises Hume as a "precautionary conservative",[4] whose actions would have been "determined by prudential concerns about the consequences of change, which often demand we ignore our own principles about what is ideal or even legitimate."[5][failed verification] Hume supported the liberty of the press, and was sympathetic to democracy, when suitably constrained. American historian Douglass Adair has argued that Hume was a major inspiration for James Madison's writings, and the essay "Federalist No. 10" in particular.[6]"
  • "Hume offered his view on the best type of society in an essay titled "Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth", which lays out what he thought was the best form of government. He hoped that, "in some future age, an opportunity might be afforded of reducing the theory to practice, either by a dissolution of some old government, or by the combination of men to form a new one, in some distant part of the world". He defended a strict separation of powers, decentralisation, extending the franchise to anyone who held property of value and limiting the power of the clergy. The system of the Swiss militia was proposed as the best form of protection. Elections were to take place on an annual basis and representatives were to be unpaid.[7]" Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Adair, "James Madison", Fame and the Founding Fathers, ed. Trevor Colbourn (ndianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1974) 181.
  2. ^ Wiley 2012, p. 211.
  3. ^ Hume 1741, p. 119.
  4. ^ McArthur 2007, p. 124.
  5. ^ McArthur 2007.
  6. ^ Adair 1957, p. ?.
  7. ^ Hume 1987.

Growth of top household incomes in US when adjusted for increased housing costs[edit]

According to this link [1] real household income for the 90th percentile (I think that's what it's referring to by mean of the top quintile) has grown in the US by 91% in the past 50 years. I'd imagine a lot of the 90th percentile households today are located in a select number of expensive metro areas versus 50 years ago. Housing prices in those metro areas have really surged faster than inflation. Has anyone tried adjusting for this factor in understanding what is the real household income growth of the 90th percentile over the time period? I'm curious if most people in the 90th percentile in the US are actually worse off today than 50 years ago, assuming that they were all first time home buyers or renters. Muzzleflash (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 90th percentile of household incomes are people making $170,000 or more per year. I'm not remotely concerned about the wealth or income of anyone who makes that much money. That is, btw, nearly three times as much as the average American household makes. If they can't make their budget balance on that kind of income, that sounds like a deeply personal issue with not being able to control spending. The people I'm worried about in major metro areas are average middle-class families like teachers, retail workers and bus drivers. They're actually being priced out of housing altogether. If someone makes $170,000 a year, they can afford *something* - it just maybe won't be the McMansion they dreamed of. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OP requested some data. I have no idea if that data exists or not, but your answer provides them no help in finding that data. The OP did not invite you to express what you are, or are not, "concerned" about. There was no need to interject your concerns to their request for a reference. No one asked for them. --Jayron32 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "top quintile" is the top 20% - from latin quinque (five) and quintus (the fith), a quintile is one fifth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the top quintile is thus the 80th percentile. --Jayron32 15:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about "mean of the top quintile"? Does the article refer to the 90th percentile? Muzzleflash (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mean is an overloaded word, but they probably mean (no pun intended ;-) the arithmetic mean of all incomes in the top 20%. From that alone you cannot convert it to a particular percentile - if there are 20 people, one of which makes 20 million and 19 of wich make 10000, their mean income is a bit over a million, but none of them will make a million - one makes vastly more, and the rest is massively below that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Chinese ruler[edit]

Who was the first Chinese ruler with contemporary evidence of their existence?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Ding (who I might add, relative to my question about lust below, had 64 wives.) 174.16.98.178 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is lust the only vice which would end almost all multicellular life if it vanished?[edit]

To follow up on my question above, if any of the other vices disappeared overnight, would any harm be done?

On a more serious note, when crimes of lust such as adultery, prostitution, and pornography are legalized, does the offset in vice squad responsibilities allow them more effective enforcement of other vice laws?

[The most important of the three questions was moved below.]174.16.98.178 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er... considering that "lust" is not a vice in non-humans, then no? Furthermore, one can procreate without lust. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone want to reproduce without lust? 174.16.98.178 (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when a mummy and daddy love each other very much, they ... (you know the rest. Imagine how this would sound in your version: "When a mummy and daddy lust after each other very much, they ...") -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I love a whole lot of people very much, almost none of whom I would even want to think about attempting to reproduce with. I expect most people would say the same. Even if I were somewhere that I needed to raise kids to survive, I think I'd rather just move somewhere else. 174.16.98.178 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. However, some people want to have kids even without being able to have sex! Like... imagine every single person who's gone through IVF, or with a surrogate. Lust was not involved in that decision, at all (hopefully). --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, but sperm banks have family history and genetic donor standards presumably so that there is a tropism towards a suitable sexual partner, which operationally shares characteristics with sexual attraction. 174.16.98.178 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was explained above to you that lust is not sexuality. If you want to be taken seriously in your questions, you need to show that you have read and understood the responses already given to you. If you start a question with an incorrect premise, there's no way to get anywhere. Lust is a vice because it causes harm, not merely because it is sexual in nature. One can be sexual and not lustful.--Jayron32 22:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be asking questions if I thought all my premises were correct. I agree lust isn't merely sexual attraction, but an excess of such. The correct answer to the general question other than the specific one below I have been trying to get at is, "Would people starve if gluttony vanished?" 174.16.98.178 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you already have what you consider the correct answer, why are you wasting our time here?--Jayron32 11:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which prostitution laws result in the least child sexual exploitation?[edit]

In the context of the recent changes to Section 230 of the US copyright law that impact Wikipedia, intended to prevent child trafficking facilitated by prostitution advertisements, which kinds of regulation (e.g., of the two kinds in Australia, for what I hope is the easiest example) have done the most to end child sexual exploitation? 174.16.98.178 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asked at Talk:Australia#Which prostitution laws have the least child exploitation? 174.16.98.178 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per [2] and [3], child sexual abuse is about twice as frequent per capita in the states and territories where prostitution is not regulated. 184.96.253.8 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

provincial cheques[edit]

Why does cibc not honor provincial endorsed cheques with cibc on the cheques and if so why does the province endorse cibc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:88A0:A39:0:0:0:9 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(That would be this CIBC. But as to "why", I think you'd have to ask them.) --69.159.62.113 (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2018_April_27&oldid=839681523"