European Elections

[Pestneb]

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.

 

ok, the huge flaw is gone. I still disagree though. it removes freedom. If I die tomorrow I would like my money to go to my family, not to the government. the government has done nothing to earn that money.

As far as education is concerned, I don't see it. we have free education upto A-levels, then at uni, although I disagree with the current system, it is basically fair (although I feel the loan and grants should be universal and not income assesed)

 

you get out of life what you want, and yes we should have systems to mobilise people and open up experiences, but I believe penalising people for having saved and caring for their family is the wrong way to go.

[Nicktendo]

I wrangled with Lib Dem and Greens for a couple of weeks before today and ended up going for Lib Dems because the Greens are a bit too Euroskeptic for my liking and I generally see Europe as a massively positive thing to be a part of.

[Pestneb]

I see europe as a good thing, but I do believe it is becoming too political. I don't want to see a united states of Europe. I Think Europe should stand united, but as unique individual countries. having a single political body governing Europe makes me feel uneasy, looking at the US, Russia and China I'm not really sure being part of a superstate is all that attractive

 

 

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.

 

lots of things are progressive and scientific, that doesn't necessarily mean its ethically or morally right.

For instance, We know quite alot about how the body fares in freezing water. Of course we know most of this from experiments in which people were placed in Vats of uncomfortably cooled water, until they died of hypothermia. those who survived were sometimes dissected while they were still alive, just to see what was going on inside.

 

the information may have informed techniques that have saved many more lives than they cost, so logically, scientifically and in the name of progress I would 100% endorse them. of course, I wouldn't endorse these, because I feel (and I presume you are with me on this) that the experiments were immoral and unethical.

 

By allowing scientific experiments to be performed on humans (albeit at an extremely early stage of development) desensitises the issue about testing on animals. this could be why they are opposed to it, if they have animal rights activist type people in their ranks.

there is also the issue of what is a human, and at what point does a being gain "human rights".

[Haver]

ok, the huge flaw is gone. I still disagree though. it removes freedom. If I die tomorrow I would like my money to go to my family, not to the government. the government has done nothing to earn that money.

As far as education is concerned, I don't see it. we have free education upto A-levels, then at uni, although I disagree with the current system, it is basically fair (although I feel the loan and grants should be universal and not income assesed)

 

you get out of life what you want, and yes we should have systems to mobilise people and open up experiences, but I believe penalising people for having saved and caring for their family is the wrong way to go.

 

The 100 per cent inheritance tax goes into a huge pot, which is divided and shared out amongst new citizens. Your children will get a fair share, as will the children who have no parents, or parents that never managed to acquire assets.

 

Here is a thought experiment. Assume that we are in a waiting room. We're yet to be born. You have no idea where you will be born or who your parents will be. You could be an orphan in Uganda, or the son of a rich noble in Europe.

 

You have two options.

 

A) You will live in a system where wealth is transferred across generations. If you are born into a rich family you will have lots. If you are born into a poor family you will have nothing.

 

B) You will live in a system where wealth is divided at death, and every fresh generation has a fresh and fair start.

 

It is an incredible risk to choose option A. I think most people would choose option B. So try not to just think about yourself, think about the world at large, and the range of experiences.

 

Free education is a feature of the modern world and I'm glad we have at least this element of a UBI theory. But it stands that there are still divergences. Rich schools are better and more funded than poor schools. Private schools provide a better eduation, meaning that they are more attractive employees, which violates fair starts. It is also true that some people have to leave school early, cannot attend at all for various reasons (watch The Wire for some great examples), do not have the facilities to help their education (books, internet) or don't have access in poorer countries. So we can still work on it. UBI would hopefully solve some of the issues that mean kids don't make it to school.

 

I can't help but think you are missing the general idea.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Haver

[Pestneb]

The 100 per cent inheritance tax goes into a huge pot, which is divided and shared out amongst new citizens. Your children will get a fair share, as will the children who have no parents, or parents that never managed to acquire assets.

 

Here is a thought experiment. Assume that we are in a waiting room. We're yet to be born. You have no idea where you will be born or who your parents will be. You could be an orphan in Uganda, or the son of a rich noble in Europe.

 

You have two options.

 

A) You will live in a system where wealth is transferred across generations. If you are born into a rich family you will have lots. If you are born into a poor family you will have nothing.

 

B) You will live in a system where wealth is divided at death, and every fresh generation has a fresh and fair start.

 

It is an incredible risk to choose option A. I think most people would choose option B. So try not to just think about yourself, think about the world at large, and the range of experiences.

 

Free education is a feature of the modern world and I'm glad we have at least this element of a UBI theory. But it stands that there are still divergences. Rich schools are better and more funded than poor schools. Private schools provide a better eduation, meaning that they are more attractive employees, which violates fair starts. It is also true that some people have to leave school early, cannot attend at all for various reasons (watch The Wire for some great examples), or don't have access in poorer countries. So we can still work on it.

 

I can't help but think you are missing the general idea.

 

the general idea is very one dimensional and seems to be under the illusion that money solves all.

under a system such as the proposed one, I would have been deprived of many the most enriching experiences in my life.

 

I understand the general idea, but feel the issues ought to be facilitated, not solved by governments.

when governments take control their nature becomes rather more master than servant, and that is not a position I would feel comfortable with.

I believe social security should come from society, not the government.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Pestneb

[Haver]

You are completely missing the thought behind the idea, but taking your post as something to move the conversation forward, consider

 

a) why are some kids 'foolish'? is it their fault? what is the role of luck in being successful/unsuccessful/productive/unproductive? what is the role of capital in the production of 'foolish' kids? how would more money affect their and their parents lives?

 

b) government isn't dictacting how capital should be distributed. we're talking about what is just i.e. how can we make citizens's lives better.

[Pestneb]

You are completely missing the thought behind the idea, but taking your post as something to move the conversation forward, consider

 

a) why are some kids 'foolish'? is it their fault? what is the role of luck in being successful/unsuccessful/productive/unproductive? what is the role of capital in the production of 'foolish' kids? how would more money affect their and their parents lives?

 

b) government isn't dictacting how capital should be distributed. we're talking about what is just i.e. how can we make citizens's lives better.

 

a)I was poor. there are a plethora of possible reasons. But I don't think money would have solved them - yes chance may have played a role in them being that way, but we are all aware of the term "spoilt brat" - money can sometimes be the cause, not the lack of money.

 

b) its not just to take money someone has earned to give it to someone else without their permission. which is basically what 100% inheritance tax would be. its not "just" as you call it, it just appeals to those who lust for money.

If I were to take £10 from your wallet and run off it would be theft. If I told you I had decided to give that money to a tramp, in the form of a meal, that wouldn't justify my theft. you earned the money you have the right to choose how it is spent. Just because someone is dead that doesn't nullify their right to their monies. also, what would be done with family heirlooms? auctioned off? sold back to the family?

 

also it encourages reckless spending (something that got us into this credit crunch). why? the same way splitting the bill does. if you buy little, to lower the communal bill you end up paying for everyone else's meal. if you buy the most, everyone else pays for your meal. basically the good guys actually end up losing out, while the greedy (the ones you appear to think will be hit hardest) don't.

[Haver]

In terms of a), you're not getting to the root of the issue again. Whether you're intelligent/unintelligent or prone to bad behaviour is a question of luck. You do not get to decide whether you 1) have the capacity to be intelligent 2) enjoy the correct culture/family life to be intelligent. So the logical thought is that if you have those gifts, you have not earned them, and if you don't have those gifts, you don't deserve to be punished. If you are unintelligent and prone to bad behaviour it is not always your fault, in fact it is likely not your fault. It is usually the result of the family you were born into, the nature of your brain, the culture/nation you were raised in.

 

Basic income guarentees a sustained flow of capital NO MATTER how lucky you are, whether you are born intelligent or not, whether you were born to educated parents or not, or born into a nourishing culture or not. It also stands that the barriers to education can often be solved by more capital. Many children don't go to school because they have to work. Many do not have the correct environment to learn in. Raising the quality of life for all, removing poverty through basic income for all, creates an environment that children CAN learn it. It means the children of today will create a better atmosphere for their children.

 

It is true that rich kids can be just as obnoxious as poor ones, but that suggests these behavioural problems are independent of capital issues. Obnoxious poor kids are often that way because of their home lives, and these home lives can be improved by removing poverty.

 

In terms of b), again we are talking about being deserving. You were able to earn that money because you were lucky and enjoyed certain gifts. Others don't have those gifts, and weren't able to earn that money. Others were born into circumstances that were not so conducive. Everyone, including you, should have a fair start. The transfer of intergenerational wealth, to undeserving sons and daughters, violates the fair starts principle.

 

It doesn't encourage reckless spending at all. That's just psychological hoodickery. Everyone gets a fair chunk of the pot, and you are free to earn more than that and enjoy a higher standard of living. If you spend all your UBI, then that is your decision. If you decide to spend all your money before you die, this is also fine, it is your decision. The problem is that the intergenerational wealth maintains a gap between the rich and the poor, the lucky and the unlucky, and this is not fair. Everyone should have a fair start, and 'real freedom' to enjoy their lives.

 

EDIT: The idea of giving your cash away without your permission is a false one. The thought is that everyone in this society would agree that fair starts for EVERYONE, no matter how LUCKY you are, is just. If you think that life should be determined by brute luck, then you would not be welcome.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Haver

[chairdriver]

I voted Green.

 

Stunned by the amount of people that seemed to have voted Green.

 

 

Yes, let's save the earth! We're good.

[Dan_Dare]

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 voted Green.

 

Stunned by the amount of people that seemed to have voted Green.

 

 

Yes, let's save the earth! We're good.

 

Epic Fail.

[chairdriver]

Epic Fail.

 

But at the end of the day, I hate all the other parties more, so I'm over it.

 

 

I hate my parents' logic "The tories are going to win in this constituency anyway, so that's who we're voting for."

 

Really pointless...

[Gizmo]

It seems as if voting for the Greens has become some sort of badge of honour, a kind of "all the main parties are shit! i'll vote green, because they are small and want to save teh planet" which is what we've all been programmed to believe.

[chairdriver]

It seems as if voting for the Greens has become some sort of badge of honour, a kind of "all the main parties are shit! i'll vote green, because they are small and want to save teh planet" which is what we've all been programmed to believe.

 

 

The same can be said of any party.

 

When does any party ever actually fulfill the promises in their manifesto?

 

Scotland voted for SNP last elections, and we're no closer to being independent at all...

[Haver]

Or it could be that the Greens are genuinely progressive and that is what is appealing. I'm curious to know more about the stance on stem cell research.

[Pestneb]

In terms of a), you're not getting to the root of the issue again. Whether you're intelligent/unintelligent or prone to bad behaviour is a question of luck. You do not get to decide whether you 1) have the capacity to be intelligent 2) enjoy the correct culture/family life to be intelligent. So the logical thought is that if you have those gifts, you have not earned them, and if you don't have those gifts, you don't deserve to be punished. If you are unintelligent and prone to bad behaviour it is not always your fault, in fact it is likely not your fault. It is usually the result of the family you were born into, the nature of your brain, the culture/nation you were raised in.

This clashes greatly with my view of life in general. It leaves everything to fate essentially. To place it in context, to take this thought process to its conclusion.

 

Someone you care for greatly is murdered. You, believing “ the logical thought is that if you have those gifts, you have not earned them, and if you don't have those gifts, you don't deserve to be punished. If you are unintelligent and prone to bad behaviour it is not always your fault, in fact it is likely not your fault. It is usually the result of the family you were born into, the nature of your brain, the culture/nation you were raised in.†it is likely not the fault of the murderer, its the family they were born into, nature of their brain and culture.

Therefore you accept their death and see no benefit in the police catching the murderer and imprisoning him, as they don't deserve being punished for bad luck.

 

Another issue with this line of thought, is how does money alter culture and family life? How does it alter the capacity to be intelligent? If money is such a strong factor, I ought to be fairly unintelligent, which as far as I am able to ascertain thus far in my life, I am not. Theorising that I would be more intelligent had my parents been richer in my early life is an interesting proposition, but I don't really see it myself, particularly when you consider the considerable riches would be diluted to such an extent by the large number of significantly poorer people.

 

 

 

 

Basic income guarentees a sustained flow of capital NO MATTER how lucky you are, whether you are born intelligent or not, whether you were born to educated parents or not, or born into a nourishing culture or not. It also stands that the barriers to education can often be solved by more capital. Many children don't go to school because they have to work. Many do not have the correct environment to learn in. Raising the quality of life for all, removing poverty through basic income for all, creates an environment that children CAN learn it. It means the children of today will create a better atmosphere for their children.

I strongly dispute your link to education and money. Its the teacher who controls the quality of education, not the resources. An excellent teacher doesn't teach facts, but encourages a desire to learn in their pupils and this is a skill no amount of money can improve.

Speaking in terms of UK, there is no real barrier to education at school level that I have seen. When people don't continue education through to 18 it is more often the case they don't want to than they can't afford to. In fact, I have never come across someone who genuinely could not afford to go to school upto 18, although I will be open to the possibility that some may either genuinely believe that is the case for them, or actually be in such a position.

 

 

It is true that rich kids can be just as obnoxious as poor ones, but that suggests these behavioural problems are independent of capital issues. Obnoxious poor kids are often that way because of their home lives, and these home lives can be improved by removing poverty.

I dispute that, unless you can provide a direct link between capital and behavioural issues. Capital is a lazy and I would assert it would also prove to be an ineffective solution. Also by admitting those WITH capital still have behavioural issues you admit yourself capital is not an effective solution.

In terms of b), again we are talking about being deserving. You were able to earn that money because you were lucky and enjoyed certain gifts. Others don't have those gifts, and weren't able to earn that money. Others were born into circumstances that were not so conducive. Everyone, including you, should have a fair start. The transfer of intergenerational wealth, to undeserving sons and daughters, violates the fair starts principle.

Ability is separate from actually doing. Returning to education, perhaps all children should receive A* in their exams, since those who don't work hard due to their unlucky dispositions and those lack the ability to understand/learn a specific subject ought to have a fair start to their career. Since we can agree surely that those who were lucky enough to actually attain an A* under the current system undoubtably get an underserved head start when applying to jobs. This violates the fair starts principle.

Indeed, we should extend this to degree's as well, scrapping classification and providing guaranteed first class degree's to any students who apply to a course at uni.

 

It doesn't encourage reckless spending at all. That's just psychological hoodickery. Everyone gets a fair chunk of the pot, and you are free to earn more than that and enjoy a higher standard of living. If you spend all your UBI, then that is your decision. If you decide to spend all your money before you die, this is also fine, it is your decision. The problem is that the intergenerational wealth maintains a gap between the rich and the poor, the lucky and the unlucky, and this is not fair. Everyone should have a fair start, and 'real freedom' to enjoy their lives.

Trust me it does encourage reckless spending . If we split the bill I spend twice as much as I normally would, generally because I have learnt everyone else does, and I'm fed up of paying for everyone else to eat. I have a fair bit in savings, to support me in later life. If I was aware that should I say get hit by a car tomorrow, all that money would go to the government I would not have those savings. In fact, were I in debt, would the inheritance pot not then take the hit also? So as I approach the end of my life, I could benefit my family by taking out huge loans, lavishing them with presents, leaving my self crippled by debt, but then when I quick the bucket the rest of the population take the hit, no?

EDIT: The idea of giving your cash away without your permission is a false one. The thought is that everyone in this society would agree that fair starts for EVERYONE, no matter how LUCKY you are, is just. If you think that life should be determined by brute luck, then you would not be welcome.

 

Nice policy there – you don't like us stealing your money piss off.

But welcome or not, I personally would leave the country If those policies came into force.

A possible problem however, much of this countries prosperity comes from the rich who tend to consider that they do deserve the riches they have obtained over their life. If enough of them leave the economy could be left in a fairly weak state.

My problem isn't with sharing wealth and improving social mobility, but the frankly brutish and inelegant fashion proposed to do this. it is not at all democratic and is inconsiderate of the individual. If I were to die tomorrow I would like to know that I could leave some money behind for my family, rather than a token sum taken from a random pot that dictates who qualifies to receive money. tbh, Even if the pot provided my family with more money than I could leave them, I still wouldn't like it, as its more personal when its your own money. I got £0 from my grandparents, but got a few bits and bobs. its all crap, possibly worth £15. even if your system proposed giving me £10k inheritance I would still prefer what I received, because it is far more personal and real.

[Gizmo]

I read that as: they want to ban stem cell research, but don't make a point of campaigning with that because they know it will be unpopular.

[Haver]

snip

 

You're not arguing against UBI ideas. I don't know what you're arguing against. But here are a number of points.

 

a) Life is a game of chance. You do not have control over whether you are born into a wealthy family or not. UBI supporters think everyone should have a fair shot at life, even if you are unlucky enough to be born poor or unintelligent. This is not to say there are no poor and intelligent people - there are plenty. But it stands that being poor and being unintelligent are huge restrictions to acquiring capital and education (often when together), and relieving global poverty would solve many of these issues.

 

If you think that everyone has complete control over their lives, then you are delusional. If you are poor you are often not 'really free'. You are restrained by the need for capital.

 

b) In your example, yes, I would accept that the murderer's decision to kill me is based on factors relating to their heritage/education etc. Ofc there are the factors of bad decision making and so on, but the origins of a person are a huge factor in their lives. It can hurt to think that, because it takes away the emphasis on the individual, but it is nonetheless true. It is doubtful that an unintelligent beggar would have killed me for cash if he was a rich aristocrat, no?

 

This is the thought behind rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. i.e. let's not just lock up/kill murderers, let's look at WHY people commit murders.

 

c) Money does not directly affect your capacity for intelligence. It is also true that poor people can be intelligent. It is the luck of the draw. HOWEVER, living in poverty has a huge impact on childhoods and education. In some countries, there is no free education. Thankfully we have it in the UK. But even with free education, living in poverty has an impact. Some kids don't go to school because they have to work for their parents. Some kids need to work to feed themselves, because their parents are nowhere to be found or chasing the rock. Some kids don't live in cultures that are comfortable with learning. Some kids don't have the resources they need. Some kids will be more worried about the shooting going on outside their window than their math homework. Some will be moving from house to house, motel to motel regularly. Living in poverty is not a conducive environment for learning. Getting rid of poverty allows kids to take advantage of their free education.

 

c) are you seriously suggesting that you get the same level of education in inner city schools as compared to suburban/countryside schools? Come on. Is it a coincidence that kids in inner city schools tend to be more badly behaved, to do less well? You're kidding yourself.

 

In the case of the UK, everyone has access to education from 0-21 if they have the brains. This is great. However, UBI is concerned with a couple things. One, there are many kids in the U.K. who live in relative poverty and do not live in environments conducive to learning. There are also kids that feel the need to leave at 16 and start working. Truancy is a huge problem, especially in the inner cities. Relieving poverty would have a huge impact on making home lives conducive to learning and reducing truancy.

 

We are also concerned with those less intelligent. It is the luck of the draw that they are this way, and we want to make sure they can still be truly free.

 

d) On behavioural issues. You seriously believe there is no link between the behaviour of inner city kids and poverty? It just so happens that all the naughty kids are poor? Come off it.

 

It stands that kids can have problems even in the presence of capital. That doesn't mean all the problems are absent of it. It stands that you get a lot less trouble in a private school than an inner city school. This is obvious. And the reasons are obvious. Just basics.

 

You are far more likely to be well behaved if you have a full belly, if you have parents who have had some education and also have a full belly, if you have guardians period, if you do not fear for your life whenever you step outside, if you can see a brighter future for yourself, if you get a good start at school in your early years in a conducive environment etc etc

 

e) On grade scores, it is true that the ones who do well have been blessed with a capacity to do well. The solution isn't to give everyone good scores. We still want to discover who is talented. The solution is to provide a safety net for those less fortunate.

 

Let's be clear. Success is a combination of luck and hard work. The less intelligent/poor can be successful. The intelligent can be unsuccessful. But it stands that being unlucky in the 'natural lottery' of life is a HUGE BARRIER. We want to make sure brute luck doesn't decide someones life. Everyone should have a fair start.

 

f) You are free to spend your money like that. However, in an enlightened society the kind of selfishness you talk about is reduced. People consider themselves and the money they have received their entire lives and its benefits. They consider their children. The fact that some human beings are selfish does not tar everyone and it does not tar UBI.

 

"A possible problem however, much of this countries prosperity comes from the rich who tend to consider that they do deserve the riches they have obtained over their life"

 

Again, you're missing the point. They have their riches because they enjoy gifts. In a just, fair society, wealth is redistributed so that everyone gets a fair start, and can enjoy real freedom, even if they do not have those gifts.

 

Again, we're not concerned with selfish people, or how some people would react to this society. We're concerned with what is right from the point of view of justice.

 

g) It would be democratic. It would be act of Parliament. There's nothing brutish about it.

 

Please again consider the example I gave a few posts up. You do not know who you are, how much money you have, which country you live in, which services you have access to.

 

Would you choose a system where you are rewarded for being lucky, or a system where everyone is guarenteed a minimum whether they are lucky or not?

Edited June 5, 2009 by Haver

[EEVILMURRAY]

I voted Conservative, just for the sake of I know the candidate who keeps coming into the pub where I work. I think he has a gambling addiction, so I might rat him out to the press if he gets elected.

so...wut. UKIP are a bunch of xenophobes.

I voted for them for fun.

[Zechs Merquise]

I voted, even if you don't agree with any party you should go and spoil your ballot paper - that way you show you are not just sitting at home ignoring it.

[Wesley]

But at the end of the day, I hate all the other parties more, so I'm over it.

 

 

I hate my parents' logic "The tories are going to win in this constituency anyway, so that's who we're voting for."

 

Really pointless...

 

You could argue that by voting for them you're ensuring a strong local council which would be beneficial in these times.

[Pestneb]

True, I have digressed. Basically my argument against UBI is that its a punitive action against those who have contributed to society, to provide an undeserved reward to the masses. Because it is rewarded undiscerningly, its effect will be unnoticable.

 

To make an analogy, consider a 100 metre race. If we start 10 metres in front of the start line, and finish 10 metres after the finish line, will we have run a lesser distance? no.

 

 

You attribute a lot of social ills solely to capital. But essentially the UBI plan will only remove the rich from the equation. Essentially this says that societies ills stem from the poor envying the rich.

 

Essentially this policy stems from envy for riches. Its the same thing that makes people support the 40% tax. But think of it this way.

 

If someone who earns £10k a year pays around £2k tax

someone who earns £100k a year would pay £20k tax.

 

This is ALREADY UNFAIR. The chances are, on average, that both will use services their taxes pay for an equal amount. Its similar to going into a supermarket, and being told you have to pay twice as much for the loaf of bread you want, because you earn twice as much.

This discrepancy is generally accepted however, as otherwise low earners would have to be taxed an prohibitive amount of money that would essentially be pinned into poverty.

Equally, holding this system alongside our current 0 tax below £x would encourage working to the limit and doing no more, both negative stances.

 

However, with the 40% tax of £50k, that person earning £100k has to pay £40k tax. Why? As punishment for daring to earn alot, and contribute to society?

 

Now, I'm not affected by the 40% tax, but I feel its unjust. And in the same way I feel inheritance tax is unjust.

 

Our EARNINGS are just that – we have EARNT them.

Your own words : “Let's be clear. Success is a combination of luck and hard work “

its the hard work that means we deserve our money. Friends and family members contribute massively to our lives – at a rate estimated to be equivalent to £50k worth of salary a year in terms of well being. Their contribution to our lives is massive and esteeming and honouring them in our inheritance is a nice final act. Inheritances DO dwindle if those inheriting fail to demonstrate similar abilities to accrue wealth as the predecessors, and many stately homes are sold as a result of this, so I don't see UBI as a necessary equalising system.

 

You speak of an idealistic world that would accept UBI. I postulate in such a world UBI would be redundant, as philanthropy would be prevalent enough.

UBI is only necessary in a system were there is enough of a reluctance from the general population to require “philanthropy†to be enforced. This is more worthy of a totalitarian state than a democratic one.

 

“They have their riches because they enjoy gifts. In a just, fair society, wealth is redistributed so that everyone gets a fair start, and can enjoy real freedom, even if they do not have those gifts. “

 

I presume you have communistic leanings?

Imo, redistribution of wealth is theft, simple as. What I consider as just is that people enjoy the fruit of their labour.

I believe in difference. Different people different potentials, different paths, different rewards.

Philanthropy should take place sure, but I don't think the government should need to enforce it.

[navarre]

I voted BNP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really, I put my votes towards the Liberal Democrats. Despite being a bit of a Euroskeptic myself, the Liberal Democrats have the best policies out of all the parties. And besides, if we do become part of some sort of 'Eurostate', at least we'd be the most powerful nation on Earth.

 

so...wut. UKIP are a bunch of xenophobes.

 

They're still a million times better than the BNP, and at least some of their policies make sense. I can understand why some their concerns abour Europe are felt by them.

 

Scotland voted for SNP last elections, and we're no closer to being independent at all...

 

Oh no, not the SNP...

 

I actually can't believe why anyone in their right minds would vote for the SNP. Or the BNP for that matter.

[Gizmo]

SNP got in because it was a vote against Labour, and they were the only alternative. The same reason the Tories are winning all the councils today. In Scotland, the Tories aren't big enough to win, and the Lib Dems aren't big enough to win anywhere. So people voted SNP just because they wanted rid of Labour. Thats why the number of smaller party seats went down (Greens had 7, which fell to just 1) at the last election, as people moved their second vote (Scottish Parliament uses the AMS) to SNP, instead of a small party, to try and get rid of Labour. In the end, it succeeded, but only just, and now we are stuck with a useless minority government that can't get anything passed without huge compromise.

[Haver]

You can't handle the idea, your brain won't let you process it. I don't think you understand the core concept (who you are at birth is completely a matter of luck, therefore the assets you acquire are at least in part a result of luck - some people, many many people, do not share that luck). Or you're not reading it through. We'll leave it there.

 

(If you want some links to help you better understand, I can provide them.)

Edited June 5, 2009 by Haver

[Pestneb]

You think wrong, I understand the core concept perfectly well.

I just think UIB fails to solve the problem it has created.

 

UIB only targets capital. This is fine if you are look at the issue from that stand point alone. However if you look at the wider picture you will see this fails to address:

 

The character of said persons parents

The society and culture they are born into.

The traits of the child

 

Despite mentioning education, you focused on formal education, without explaining fully how UIB would affect formal education in a way that is unique to normal taxation.

You also failed to explain how UIB would affect the non formal education a person would receive.

 

so websites that explain how UIB would deal with the parental and personal character, how it would cause social change (rather than just presuming that as group M have a capital of £X, if we give group N a capital of £X they will behave as clones of the M) and websites concerning formal and informal education would all be much appreciated.

 

Thanks.