European Elections

[Raining_again]

Just got back. Lib Dem for the Odwin household. Tax the rich and ease my taxes? Yes please.

I spent a bit of my day at work convincing people to vote just so that the BNP get a smaller percent.

 

When we were about to leave our house to go vote I said to my 2 year old "we're going to go vote now Anna." She replies "WE'RE GOING ON A BOAT!!!?!?!?!" Then ran around filled with joy. Fortunately she'd forgotten about it after walking through the park.

 

aww, cute overload :3

[Noodleman]

Just got back from voting. I went for Lib Dems for both Europe and Local, can guarantee they wont win the local one though. The Torys have that sewn up and have done since way before I was born. Given that it was 15 minutes before closing the tally count sheet thing was still on its first page so there must have been less than 100 people voting all day.

[Will]

Greens because of their support for basic income (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html).

 

Granted I only skim read through a few paragraphs of that but my God it sounds ridiculous.

[Ganepark32]

Didn't vote myself. As I see it, by voting it just encourages the politicians in thinking that they can make a difference when they can't really. As long as the bloody BNP don't get anything then I'll be happy. How in the hell a bunch of racist twats are allowed to run in an election is beyond me.

[Haver]

Well read it properly then.

[DomJcg]

I wrote an essay on political disengagement in my exam today,

 

i also voted for the lib dems in the european elections, i liked their views on europe the most, they matched mine, it made me chuckle when i read that the Conversatives were going to come up with an 'anti federalist' alliance. Oh the humanity, i really think they should stop their euro skepticism already ><

[Shino]

Well read it properly then.

 

I cannot make any sense of it. I went to wiki too and I can not see how it is beneficial in the long term.

[Haver]

I'm not interested in arguing or trying to convince anyone on the internet but

 

a) think about your concept of beneficial

b) it's not a particularly complicated idea if you read it properly with some coffee

[Will]

Well read it properly then.

 

Like a spanner I'd read one of the rival ideas more than what they support - far too much text for my brains liking.

 

Is there a link to a condensed version of their views on it? There's no way I can read all that stuff.

 

In theory - sounds like it could be a good idea, maybe.

[Haver]

This is the Young Green's page (http://younggreens.greenparty.org.uk/AboutUs/Policy/CitizensIncome) but it doesn't really discuss or explain the thoughts behind the policy. Van Parijs is probably best at doing that.

 

It also doesn't completely maintain the integrity of the idea, but it's a start.

[Shino]

I'm not interested in arguing or trying to convince anyone on the internet but

 

a) think about your concept of beneficial

b) it's not a particularly complicated idea if you read it properly with some coffee

 

I'm not trying to argue either, just curious as I never heard of the concept.

[Will]

I think that page is actually a lot better at explaining it that the super text link before. I actually think it's a very good idea. As part of a wider simplification of the tax system I think it has a lot of merit.

[gaggle64]

Sadly I was unable to vote as I had remembered too late I had registered elsewhere when Gordon almost-but-didn't hold a general election a couple of years back. Grr. Ah well, at least I'll be registered for the general election.

[Haver]

Well if you are interested, this is the basic idea. There's two fundamental thoughts.

 

A) for people to enjoy 'real freedom' in a capitalist system they need capital

B) the terms for acquiring capital are unfair (employability is dependent on luck-based factors, there are not enough good jobs to go around, requires a certain vision of what a life should be like)

 

Not having capital means that many people are not free to do what they want. This applies to the jobless and those forced into jobs that have undesirable or unfair conditions. A basic income for all, an unconditional income at the highest possible rate, would allow everyone to experience 'real freedom' by allowing them to do the things they want (pursue their idea of the good life) and have a fairer entry into the job market (i.e. you don't *have* to take a bad job). Take for example a cleaner who is asked to work unfair hours, and cannot quit because she/he needs the money. Alternatively, a child born into poverty cannot get access to books because he/she cannot afford the bus.

 

In most of the literature the capital required for such a scheme is derived from natural rights to a fair share of natural resources, a 100 per cent inheritance tax that means everyone gets a fair start, regardless of intergenerational wealth, and for some, a system of 'job rents' (an income tax) in times of job scarcity (where there are not enough jobs to go around).

 

It is also a solution to the 'luck' problem: who we are, the skills we have, the access to key markets (education etc) we have are the result of the family/culture we are born into. This offers guarenteed fair starts for everyone.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Haver
income = inheritance

[Pestneb]

Well if you are interested, this is the basic idea. There's two fundamental thoughts.

 

A) for people to enjoy 'real freedom' in a capitalist system they need capital

B) the terms for acquiring capital are unfair (employability is dependent on luck-based factors, there are not enough good jobs to go around, requires a certain vision of what a life should be like)

 

Not having capital means that many people are not free to do what they want. This applies to the jobless and those forced into jobs that have undesirable or unfair conditions. A basic income for all, an unconditional income at the highest possible rate, would allow everyone to experience 'real freedom' by allowing them to do the things they want (pursue their idea of the good life) and have a fairer entry into the job market (i.e. you don't *have* to take a bad job). Take for example a cleaner who is asked to work unfair hours, and cannot quit because she/he needs the money. Alternatively, a child born into poverty cannot get access to books because he/she cannot afford the bus.

 

In most of the literature the capital required for such a scheme is derived from natural rights to a fair share of natural resources, a 100 per cent income tax that means everyone gets a fair start, regardless of intergenerational wealth, and for some, a system of 'job rents' (an income tax) in times of job scarcity (where there are not enough jobs to go around).

 

It is also a solution to the 'luck' problem: who we are, the skills we have, the access to key markets (education etc) we have are the result of the family/culture we are born into. This offers guarenteed fair starts for everyone.

ok, so in real terms this means what?

no one saves. Regardless of the work we do/don't do, we get to live at the same standard, is that a correct (if basic) interpretation?

thats what I understand atleast.

I presume I have massively misinterpreted

Edited June 4, 2009 by Pestneb

[Haver]

No. Citizens are free to earn as little or as much as they want. The idea of acquiring capital isn't the issue. The issue is that those who don't have capital cannot live a free life, and the terms for gaining capital are in the main luck-based. If I am born in a wealthy country, I can acquire capital. If I am born to a wealthy family, I can acquire capital. If I am born intelligent, I can acquire capital. If the reverse of those three things are true (I'm born in a poor country, to a poor family, and with low intelligence and likely a poor education), then I cannot acquire capital, or at least have a tremendously hard time doing it, through no fault of the citizen. It is luck. So a basic income system guarentees that everyone has enough to act freely.

 

It is also about the terms of work. Some people like to work a lot, some like to work a little. Our conceptions of what is a good life shouldn't affect our freedoms, considering we have a natural right to a fair share of land and resources as a minimum. Basic income enshrines that right. The safety net of a UBI also allows us to pursue more meaningful work. It is a multi-layered idea.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Haver

[Tales]

I can't vote, but they tell us what do anyway

[Raining_again]

Voting should be a manadatory thing imo.

 

Whats the point in having the friggin' system. Like harping on about it being shit and saying, oh well as long as <insert party> dont get elected... WHAT THE FUCK. Dont wan't them to be elected, vote for someone ELSE. Jeesus.

 

I'm sure i'm gonna get some hate for this but I really don't care. There are many other countries where people don't get a say at all, and there are people here throwing away their vote like it means shit all. >_>

[Pestneb]

No. Citizens are free to earn as little or as much as they want. The idea of acquiring capital isn't the issue. The issue is that those who don't have capital cannot live a free life, and the terms for gaining capital are in the main luck-based. If I am born in a wealthy country, I can acquire capital. If I am born to a wealthy family, I can acquire capital. If I am born intelligent, I can acquire capital. If the reverse of those three things are true (I'm born in a poor country, to a poor family, and with low intelligence and likely a poor education), then I cannot acquire capital, or at least have a tremendously hard time doing it, through no fault of the citizen. It is luck. So a basic income system guarentees that everyone has enough to act freely.

 

It is also about the terms of work. Some people like to work a lot, some like to work a little. Our conceptions of what is a good life shouldn't affect our freedoms, considering we have a natural right to a fair share of land and resources as a minimum. Basic income enshrines that right. The safety net of a UBI also allows us to pursue more meaningful work. It is a multi-layered idea.

 

ok, but in terms of earning capital, if I earn £500000000 a year, at 100% income tax, I take home £0.

if I earn £1 I take home, 0.

 

so the basic income system coupled with 100% income tax basically means I have no reason to work for society.

 

so since I like to work little, I could say, work 0 hours a week, and still get a basic income, since the 100% income tax removes any income I could otherwise earn.

[Will]

You woudn't be taxed at 100% though. It's basically saying everyone gets, say, £5,000 a year regardless of what they do. You can then just live off the £5,000 or get a job and have your £5,000 as well as whatever you earn.

[Haver]

Sorry, income = inheritance. 100 per cent inheritance tax. I changed the typo. The thought here is that transferring capital between generations raises barriers to markets (i.e. education) and affects the fair starts idea.

 

If you like to work little, basic income allows you do that (although as Van Parijs says, it remains to be seen how quickly we would be able to establish a UBI at subsistance level). He says that a surfer has every right to enjoy his slice of land/resources and not work.

 

He also says that most people want to work, especially meaningful work. Most unemployed people are not happy being unemployed.

[Noodleman]

Voting should be a manadatory thing imo.

 

Whats the point in having the friggin' system. Like harping on about it being shit and saying, oh well as long as <insert party> dont get elected... WHAT THE FUCK. Dont wan't them to be elected, vote for someone ELSE. Jeesus.

 

I'm sure i'm gonna get some hate for this but I really don't care. There are many other countries where people don't get a say at all, and there are people here throwing away their vote like it means shit all. >_>

 

Forcing people to vote is wrong imo. Just because they have a choice of parties doesn't mean that they will agree with the policies of any of the parties. Heck I only voted int he European one, because the more people not voting BNP means it less likely the cuntsticks get a seat on in the European Parliment. If you have to vote in the election even if you don't agree with any of the parties policies then its not really any better than places like China that only have one party to vote for.

[Eenuh]

Voting is mandatory in Belgium. It has its pros and cons I guess.

 

Pro = people actually vote, heh.

 

Con = people who have no clue about politics and aren't interested might end up voting for the wrong parties.

 

Personally not a fan of this system but oh well.

[dan-likes-trees]

Ultimate win.

 

Found out that the guy I voted for in the general elections is

 

1 - Called Moses

2 - Lives on the road next to mine

3 - Was in Octopussy

 

 

The man is my new hero

[The fish]

People shouldn't vote Green. They get props for being fun lovin hippies then when you look in to it they're less keen to promote their proposed E.U wide ban on stem cell research.

 

I was unaware of that. I'll look it up, and if it's true, I'll never go near them again with a barge poll. Well, unless the Lib Dem's actually inject me with AIDS...

 

I voted Lib Dem's for local, Green for EU.

 

EDIT: I've researched it and I instantly regret voting for Green - why the hell would they have such a ridiculous unprogressive anti-scientific stance.

Edited June 4, 2009 by The fish