Darth Vader Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 As I said, if you use catchy slogans to set policy there's no need to think the policy through and it can misfire. If you gave 99% of the people in the world (or even in the UK, for that matter) a 99% pay rise, you would be accused (quite properly) of 'making the rich richer and the poor poorer'. A man earning £100,000 pa before the pay rise would get £199,000 pa afterwards and one earning £10,000 pa would get £19,900. Congratulations! - You've just widened the gap between rich and poor. No he/she hasn't! They've lessened it. By doubling what the person at the bottom gets and keeping static the peeople in the top 1%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Education - Quality for all. No private schools, then, for starters, the politicians would be more interested in raising the standards and putting investment in to state schools, instead of being disinterested as they have no 'stake'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 No he/she hasn't! They've lessened it. By doubling what the person at the bottom gets and keeping static the peeople in the top 1%. The difference between £10,000 and £100,000 is £90,000 The difference between £19,900 and £199,000 is £179,100. What makes you think that a gap of £179,100 is less than a gap of £99,000? You have raised the median income - slightly - but have increased the gap between rich and poor. In 2009, if you were earning less than £118,027 you were below the top 1%, so - using mjscuba's figures - somebody earning £100,000 a year would have been entitled to the 99% pay rise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Education - Quality for all. No private schools, then, for starters, the politicians would be more interested in raising the standards and putting investment in to state schools, instead of being disinterested as they have no 'stake'. How would removing private education improve state schools? (Do you have any plans to impose other restrictions on how people spend their money?) State Education is funded by taxes. Most parents pay taxes. Under the present system, some parents pay taxes and have their children educated by the state. Other parents pay those same taxes but choose to pay a second time to have their children educated. If all children go to state schools the amount of money each school gets per child is likely to decrease. - Unless of course the taxpayers pay more. In the late 1960s, the Labour party tried to abolish private schools (other than for their own children, of course;)) They didn't manage to do that, but they did manage to abolish the 11+, scrapped most of the grammar schools and denied educational opportunities to those whose parents weren't able to afford to pay for their children to be educated in schools which offered more academic challenge. If the government was to decline to make special provision for those children who had learning difficulties and who achieve less than they might in a mainstream class, there would be an outcry. The government makes no provision for children at the other end of the scale - who also have special educational needs - but nothing is said about that. Some private schools are better than some state schools - and then again, there are state schools which out-perform private schools. I've seen plenty of comments (on this forum and elsewhere) about how 'The education system is failing our children. That may be so - but let's not forget that in the UK, Education is a 3-way joint venture between the school staff, the parents and the children. There are , no doubt, some schools with poor leadership and poor-quality teachers, but that isn't necessarily confined to state schools. If any school (state or private) has any poor-quality staff members, then surely it's up to the governors to get rid of those people? Given that funding for state schools is provided by a capitation fee - so much for each pupil - and given that the qualification requirements for teachers are the same throughout England and Wales, if a school, or a number of schools in an area is under-performing, is it necessarily the teachers - who have the same qualifications as other teachers elsewhere - who are failing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It's not going to work on an internet forum. Maybe a different kind of website could be used where people suggest policies & they're voted on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Parliament online? - The buggers seem to spend very little time there, so perhaps that would be an alternative? I grew up in a very small community - about 1500 people. We had real democracy - and it worked, because the community was small enough for everybody's voice to be heard. The government system was 'the States of Deliberation' - a group of elected legislators - headed by a President (also elected) - who had a casting vote (which was traditionally used in favour of the status quo [or whatever other group was in the top 10 at the time ] The legislators came up with their 'cunning plan' which was published. A week or so later, those legislators appeared before the people at a 'People's meeting', argued their case and were sometimes beaten down. The legislators were aware that they were expected to serve the people (not the other way around) and if they got it wrong, they were fired. It worked. Then we had massive immigration. The immigrants took over and screwed it up. Bloody Englishmen!:hihi: But things which change can change twice ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 There is already the uk government petitions site, we should use that more, http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/ Maybe a more independent site to share political ideas & vote them up or down would be useful though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The difference between £10,000 and £100,000 is £90,000 The difference between £19,900 and £199,000 is £179,100. What makes you think that a gap of £179,100 is less than a gap of £99,000? You have raised the median income - slightly - but have increased the gap between rich and poor. In 2009, if you were earning less than £118,027 you were below the top 1%, so - using mjscuba's figures - somebody earning £100,000 a year would have been entitled to the 99% pay rise The gap between the bottom 1% the top 1% be lessened, would it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Given that - under mj.scuba'S original proposal, the top 1% would've bee topped, they wouldn't exist. Considering the survivors, the gap prior to the pay raise would've been £99,000. After the pay raise, the gap would be £179,100. £179,100 is not less than £99,000, so no, you have not reduced the gap between rich and poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Given that - under mj.scuba'S original proposal, the top 1% would've bee topped, they wouldn't exist. Considering the survivors, the gap prior to the pay raise would've been £99,000. After the pay raise, the gap would be £179,100. £179,100 is not less than £99,000, so no, you have not reduced the gap between rich and poor. Don't know how I missed the 'sent to the gallows' bit! I suppose, in that case, it would depend on how the deceased 1%'s assets were shared also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.