Home

Advertisement

Vorhergehendes | Nächstes

Writer's Block: Customizable Party

  • 30. Sep 2008 at 10:12 AM
marx sickle

Invent a political party for the nation in which you reside. What does your ideal platform consist of?


View other answers



I couldn't not answer this. Except I'm on possibly the least co-operative keyboard known to man, so there we go; expect this to be slow and riddled with errors.

One word.

Socialism.

Fairness. Civil rights; full legalisation of free abortion up to 24 weeks, legalisation of euthanasia. Minority rights; full protection for victims of anti-minority crime, legal protection for every alternative (and non-harmful to others) activity and lifestyle known to man. Consenting adults to be allowed to do anything whatsoever between them, providing it hurts no-one else.

Education reform. Abolition of university fees for those on an combined income of under, say, £150k a year. Increased funding for schools, increased provision for gifted and talented students and those with learning disabilities. Development of personalised learning and encouragement of differentiation. Abolition of private and paying schools, with their facilities, teachers and advantages to become available to the public sector. Schools to be atheist, with no 'collective acts of worship' to be enforced. However, tolerance and understanding of other religions to be taught fully, along with simple ethics and philosophy, to encourage debate.

Crime-wise, decriminalisation of marijuana, and standardising of fines (eg, so people who fail to sort their recycling are fined less than people on mild drink-driving charges).

Tax-wise, income tax to be decided on a sliding scale related to income level. Tax levels to be kept constant for those on low incomes, as indirect taxation hurts them far more than direct; those on high incomes to have an increased percentage of taxation, and personal fortunes to be limited to five million pounds, above which, without justification, any excess is confiscated and chanelled into combatting poverty or decreasing income inequality.

Incomes also should be regulated, and linked to the usefulness of the work one does to civilisation, the pleasantness of the work, and how skilled it is. For example, company CEOs may do a responsible and complex job, but not one that requires millions of pounds a year; sewer cleaners do an unpleasant and very necessary job, and deserve to be paid more than minimum wage. Also, increase in the minimum wage, paid for by the revenue on capped incomes, so that everyone has enough money to live and no-one has too much.

Environmentally, huge reform. Excess government money gained by increased taxation of the rich to be thrown into alternative sources of energy, with high targets for cutting carbon emissions, decreasing air travel except when absolutely necessary, and decreasing reliance on cars. The country's rail network to be re-nationalised, to ensure high-quality service at the lowest price possible, and vastly expanded, so that the vast majority of places have a connecting rail link, rendering travel by car impractical and unnecessary.

Foreign-policy-wise, a spirit of international trust and co-operation to be encouraged, including negotiation with foreign powers and governments. An end to policies which make it acceptable for the Western world to act like the world's 'police' and complete withdrawal from Iraq.

The main problem I see is that nobody would actually vote for it. It'd be perfectly simple to finance; cutting unnecessary government funding and subsidies for religious groups would free up money, and increased income tax would create far more resources. It'd be practical, it'd just require huge and sweeping reforms to implement. But if it worked, income inequality would be vastly decreased, and capitalism and its harmful effects would basically... be vastly reduced.

Comments

[info]electthedead wrote:
30. Sep 2008 15:36 (UTC)
Brilliant plan, but...

£150K!?!?!?!?!?!
Who on earth earns that sort of money? (Okay, people do, but seriously, £150K a year and you're fucking minted)

I do apologise, but the absurd largeness of that sum of money made me go WOT and then stare at the screen in mind-boggling amazement for a bit.
As if anyone earns that....
[info]oblivionbystars wrote:
30. Sep 2008 17:07 (UTC)
Combined income-wise, it only means each adult (presuming a nuclear family) earns £75k a year. Which is still WAI TO EXCESS, I guess. £100k was a more reasonable figure - I don't want to benefit the rich or middle-class who can afford it, but neither do I want it to seem like it's just a system reserved for the very poor.

It's fine. Doctors earn that; lawyers do. A friend of the mother's is a lawyer on £250k a year; the parents of this girl at school are both doctors, GPs, and they earn about £105k a year each. It's sick, but people actually earn that much (although refreshingly, 90% of UK residents have a single income of £40k or under. Which is still a lot.)

It melts your BRAIN, no?

(You like my policies as a whole, then?)
[info]electthedead wrote:
30. Sep 2008 17:12 (UTC)
Really, anyone earning under £40K a year I would say was 'poor'. Or at least, not rich. You've got to take into perspective the average wage is only around £22K a year, and although many people earn a lot more, many more earn a lot less.

I didn't think doctors earnt quite that much - but then again, I suppose they type of doctor you are (whether you've specialised, or you're just a GP, etc) will have an effect, and again the type of lawyer you are will affect your income. Some get paid more than others, but it still is an excessive amount
[info]oblivionbystars wrote:
30. Sep 2008 17:16 (UTC)
If we're going to chop the world into 'rich' and 'poor', then yes, the cutoff point should be about a single income of £40k. Of course, under that isn't poor, but in my perfect socialist state, perhaps tax increases should only affect those on an income of above £40k before tax... The average wage being £22k shocks me; I thought it'd be more like £18k, but I guess times have changed. I know a lot of people earn less; I'm not blind to that for a second.

Depending on what type they are, they can earn that much, or even more. They don't have huge starting salaries, but they do earn a lot, and if there's a lot of demand for them, as there always is, because people always get ill, then their salaries will increase. But it... I don't think it's excessive to give doctors high wages; they do a socially useful job, and help people. But they shouldn't get so much more than everyone else, and they shouldn't get that much.
[info]electthedead wrote:
30. Sep 2008 17:40 (UTC)
You've got to take into account all these business men with huge salaries push the amount up - like in maths, when you have an odd bit of data, and it's a big number, so it pushes the mean up to more than it should be, really.

Doctors do do a useful job, yes, but why not pay teachers or prison guards or social workers equally? They all do important jobs, but it just comes down to the fact that if the doctors went on strike it would affect everyone, maybe even politicans.
Lawyers salaries are a joke, mind.
[info]oblivionbystars wrote:
30. Sep 2008 17:45 (UTC)
This is true; freak values. I know that the average wage in my area is around £18k, but factor in the idea that salaries in the North are less on average, as cost-of-living is slightly lower and people are used to earning less, and that makes sense.

This is true, actually; I wasn't looking at it widely enough. If I had more time to develop my ideas, I could maybe develop a scale on which people should be paid, ranking jobs on their pleasantness to perform (people doing unpleasant necessary jobs should get financial compensation for not doing pleasant necessary jobs), their use to society (the idea that company executives are paid more than teachers is a joke), and so on. That would work better than having the current system of gross income disparity, but also better than the idea of having everyone on one salary; due to human nature, that has numerous flaws which I won't bother expounding on.

Lawyers' salaries are a joke; we do need lawyers, because a fair justice system is nothing without someone to argue a case as well as it deserves to be argued and not as well as the defendant can argue it. But they don't deserve that much pay, and it stops poorer people from having as good legal protection. Perhaps an NHS-like system should be developed, with free access to quality legal advice for everyone.
[info]electthedead wrote:
30. Sep 2008 18:01 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't know what the average wage for around here is, but I should imagine it's definately at least a few grand lower than the national average. I know the poverty marker is half the national average, and wehave a great deal of poverty here; my nan live in poverty.

Yeah. Having everyone on one wage is ridiculous. The polarisation of wages does need to be ... unpolarised though. It's disgusting that people can rake in tens of thousends in a week when there are people that can barely afford to buy furnature.

Oh, yes, lawyers are important, but £250K is ridiculous. It's a stressful job, undoubtedly, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
And I thought you could get legal advice free anyway...?
[info]oblivionbystars wrote:
30. Sep 2008 18:28 (UTC)
Aww... your poor nan. Mine lives in council housing, if that's any consolation. But we have an average wage lower than the national average, which makes me sick to think because it means there are plenty of places far above the national average.

Having everyone on one wage is PURE FAIL, and is, sadly, the reason people like your mother don't understand Communism. But a limit on how high or low wages can be would work wonders.

Lawyers are important, but £250k is far more than they need or deserve, I agree.

And can you? I know you have to pay to have a lawyer represent you in court.
[info]electthedead wrote:
30. Sep 2008 18:35 (UTC)
She does alright. It's cause she's on a state pension, and she lives in a council flat by herself, so she doesn't have that much expensises to cover. That said, she doesn't have an awful lot going spare.

Yeah, it does suck. A limit would be better, because ... well, Communism as a practical solution fails pretty hard. As a theory it's good, but it's not .. it will never work on a large scale.

I ... I thought so. Like, if you get arrested, you can get a solicitor, I thought. I don't know. I haven't had much experience in these areas.
[info]oblivionbystars wrote:
30. Sep 2008 18:41 (UTC)
Bless her. That's... bad. Mine has pensions from jobs she's done, but she's still not exactly rich, but it's not that bad. I think it's really sad when people work for all their lives and still have to live in poverty at the end of it.

It does, and people hate it and resent it. And besides, if we could all get the same money for being nursery nurses or artists as we'd get from being garbagemen, nobody would ever take the bins away. But having an upper limit, and raising the lower limit, would work well. It'd make things much fairer, while still leaving you with a practical solution.

I think you can. But I'm pretty sure there are some circumstances in which you have to pay.
(Anonym) wrote:
30. Sep 2008 19:20 (UTC)
not a boring square
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfP4dW3cXmc

lol
the "i'm a decagon, i am very rare" did make me laugh...

oh, and when you get to AS maths, differentiation is very much encouraged :)
in fact, it's on the syllabus!
i know, i'm sad

Profile

marx sickle
[info]oblivionbystars
starlit oblivion
I know 81 places, and counting. It's possibly not healthy.

Latest Month

Februar 2009
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Tags

Gehostet von LiveJournal.com
Designed by Terri McAllister