Can I become Prime minister?

[wub]

Big Brother is watching over the Sheeple from it's Black Helicopter piloted by Aliens who also run the Industrial Military Complex CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY, here's American Gladiators...

[Fbac]

If you're asking for ideas it sounds like you have none other than to be pm
which is a perfect credential: intense focus & a lack of commitment to particular policies.

So, presuming you are pragmatic enough to take up whatever ideas will get you there,
it's firstly a matter of accurately polling your electorate,
assessing what are the majority opinions about each issue,
putting these opinions together as a policy despite clashes of dogma,
expressing this policy forthrightly so as to attract attention
at a few thousand social events, including fetes & openings,
inspiring a campaign crew with your charismatic speeches and infinite flexibility
and Bob's your uncle, you'll be elected.

Then all you've got to do is persuade a few hundred other electees to join you and vote for you as there leader.

Maybe it would be easier to arrange a coup.

If you had asked me last week, I would have said I mainly want to get a party in the mainstream with some clever unselfish ways of improving the nations well being. As of today i dont think politics is the solution and am leaning agasint looking at doing some "social movement" to challenge the ideas.

I think arrange a coup will be easier.
Here is a copy of my main post and two policies so far.
Im sure most politicians start out with the right idea and either lose there way or find out that they cant actually make the changes they want.

""""""

So the name of the group is slightly misleading and i apologise there for.

Heres the gist.

I plan to write a book about social mobility but before then i plan to see how far i can get towards becoming prime minister.

I am of the belief that people generally want real change. Not the kind of change obama portrayed.

I have no interest in conspiracy theories and weather intentional or not the rich have been getting richer and the poor, poorer. Inequality has increased and there is significant signs that this is causing distress in the country.

I would like to see a move towards Unselfish capitalism. Taxs used to redistribute wealth, a focus on fixing our social environment rather then the belief that money will fix all.

""""

Policy 1 :: The official secrets act forbids government employees to disclose without permission anything they have learned in the course of there duties. In consequence, public bodies in Britain operate behind a screen of secrecy: their mistakes and mismanagement are largely hidden from the public, to whom they should be accountable.

The reform proposed is to make the way these services are run accessible to the public.
The second reform refers to anyone working within the civil service should use public services where available. If MP's and civil servants were to use Public transport rather then taxis, the National Health Service (NHS) instead of private healthcare and if there children went to public schools rather then private school we would see a marked improvement in these services.

Waste within these services is rife and in response to Andrew's question on tackling the deficit. Money could be reclaimed from this waste. Altho i would very much like to make clear that any money saved in this way be used to re-train those whose jobs were lost as a result of the change.

For more information on this topic of waste in the civil service see Leslie Chapman's book "Your Disobedient Servant" and his follow up book "waste away" referring to his experience in the transport industry.

Chapman became regional director of the southern Region of the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (Property Services Agency) and managed to save 4.5 million (1/3). A determined man he tried to have the other regions emulate his success to no avail.

(There will still be a level of secrecy in vital areas, such as defense)
(Althought we have the freeedom of informations act , we cant ask what we dont know.)

"""

Policy 2: A simplification of the tax system.
Everyone will be expected to pay a tax on their yearly earnings.
Everyone will be entitled to amass a small amount of income before tax.

I have yet to decide on actual figures and would like to hear any thoughts on this subject. Figures at the moment would be Yearly Tax of 30% and no tax till after £10,000 have been earned.

"""

I am aware of the contradiction of, re-distribution of wealth and taxing everyone equally. My belief is that tax should be fair for all and by closing loopholes and focusing our time on getting the billions in tax lost through the clever use of the complicated tax system rather then focusing on the pensioners, benefit thieves and other areas the government currently sees as a viable source of income.




Anyway as stated before I am disillusioned on the current way the political system is played out so my step plan has become such.

-Organize my material in a way that is easy to read.
- Contact academics to advise on my plan and course of action.
- Contact more socially minded "whealthy" people for support.
-Have like minded people volunteer there skills and time.
- Develop website/Online campaign
- Promote


I have been flirting with the idea of a two tier referendum party. As i believe people are more likely to support and help out if they have a level of choice. Tier 1 would be a series of ministers making decisions and Tier 2 would be open up to the public ( with a series of phone centers for anyone without internet).

Tier 1 decisions are of the most important, yet if no agreement can be made it will move down to tier 2, Tier 2 will also be used to see if the population agrees with the changes.

The whole thing should be supported with the notion that "Full information leads to better decisions" , the public should be given all the factors , yet people qualified in probability theory and statistics.

[Pistonsbeneath]

@wub Why the need to give an extreme example?

look at history and the people that get somewhere they never do anything majorly different

[Fbac]

You would never be allowed to get anywhere with politics like that it wouldn't fit into the system

I am hoping that enough people are disillusioned enough with the system that they may be more open to hearing alternate ways of doing things.

No radical change will work,, which is what I liked about Unselfish -Capitalism , in that things still run the same but instead of a company's worth being its share price, its contribution to society will be what its appraised by. Then gradually we could perhaps move away from capitalism towards a new hybrid system of ideas...

[wub]

@wub Why the need to give an extreme example?

Let's not misconstrue facetiousness as an example of anything.

[DRTY]

Policy 2: A simplification of the tax system.
Everyone will be expected to pay a tax on their yearly earnings.
Everyone will be entitled to amass a small amount of income before tax.

I have yet to decide on actual figures and would like to hear any thoughts on this subject. Figures at the moment would be Yearly Tax of 30% and no tax till after £10,000 have been earned.

"""

I am aware of the contradiction of, re-distribution of wealth and taxing everyone equally. My belief is that tax should be fair for all and by closing loopholes and focusing our time on getting the billions in tax lost through the clever use of the complicated tax system rather then focusing on the pensioners, benefit thieves and other areas the government currently sees as a viable source of income.

I've always thought a simpler tax system would work infinitely better... Say a flat rate of 25% after 10k, maybe more. Some would say that'd make rich people pay less... but surely if their tax rate was reduced this much (that's almost a 50% reduction), they're a lot more likely to actually pay it - more people paying less tax = more tax. Corporation tax should be the same as income tax but with a higher threshold. It would attract big business thus creating jobs and more wealth. VAT should also be reduced, that extra 2.5% does make a big difference imo.

Having said all that, I'm completely unaware of their figures so it's all hypothesis.

[Pistonsbeneath]

You would never be allowed to get anywhere with politics like that it wouldn't fit into the system

I am hoping that enough people are disillusioned enough with the system that they may be more open to hearing alternate ways of doing things.

No radical change will work,, which is what I liked about Unselfish -Capitalism , in that things still run the same but instead of a company's worth being its share price, its contribution to society will be what its appraised by. Then gradually we could perhaps move away from capitalism towards a new hybrid system of ideas...

In an ideal world IMHO we need to move away from money and utilize what we have to avoid raping our planet in a non competitive market...it's this race to get the most money that leads to people putting it above all else.

We should trade skills, I can say bake you a cake and you will do something I cannot do in trade, that way the prediction many make that not having money would lead to people being lazy would not come true and would in fact be a step forward for our world.

No radical shake up would happen without the approval of the richest families in the world for obvious reasons.

I could list many factual examples and be ridiculed by Wub but I'm not going to

[wub]

Policy 2: A simplification of the tax system.
Everyone will be expected to pay a tax on their yearly earnings.
Everyone will be entitled to amass a small amount of income before tax.

I have yet to decide on actual figures and would like to hear any thoughts on this subject. Figures at the moment would be Yearly Tax of 30% and no tax till after £10,000 have been earned.

"""

I am aware of the contradiction of, re-distribution of wealth and taxing everyone equally. My belief is that tax should be fair for all and by closing loopholes and focusing our time on getting the billions in tax lost through the clever use of the complicated tax system rather then focusing on the pensioners, benefit thieves and other areas the government currently sees as a viable source of income.

I've always thought a simpler tax system would work infinitely better... Say a flat rate of 25% after 10k, maybe more. Some would say that'd make rich people pay less... but surely if their tax rate was reduced this much (that's almost a 50% reduction), they're a lot more likely to actually pay it - more people paying less tax = more tax. Corporation tax should be the same as income tax but with a higher threshold. It would attract big business thus creating jobs and more wealth. VAT should also be reduced, that extra 2.5% does make a big difference imo.

Having said all that, I'm completely unaware of their figures so it's all hypothesis.

What about inheritance tax?

[DRTY]

Policy 2: A simplification of the tax system.
Everyone will be expected to pay a tax on their yearly earnings.
Everyone will be entitled to amass a small amount of income before tax.

I have yet to decide on actual figures and would like to hear any thoughts on this subject. Figures at the moment would be Yearly Tax of 30% and no tax till after £10,000 have been earned.

"""

I am aware of the contradiction of, re-distribution of wealth and taxing everyone equally. My belief is that tax should be fair for all and by closing loopholes and focusing our time on getting the billions in tax lost through the clever use of the complicated tax system rather then focusing on the pensioners, benefit thieves and other areas the government currently sees as a viable source of income.

I've always thought a simpler tax system would work infinitely better... Say a flat rate of 25% after 10k, maybe more. Some would say that'd make rich people pay less... but surely if their tax rate was reduced this much (that's almost a 50% reduction), they're a lot more likely to actually pay it - more people paying less tax = more tax. Corporation tax should be the same as income tax but with a higher threshold. It would attract big business thus creating jobs and more wealth. VAT should also be reduced, that extra 2.5% does make a big difference imo.

Having said all that, I'm completely unaware of their figures so it's all hypothesis.

What about inheritance tax?

The same... 25% above a threshold. I think that should be a high one though... If there is proof the deceased have paid all their taxes before passing.

[test_recordings]

Check out 'Japanese capitalism', basically there's already mainstream components of unselfish capitalism but in a different name (because the Japanese politicians actually give a shit about their own society and tax the fuck out of corporations so normal people can have lower income tax instead). The founder of Panasonic, Konosuke Matsushita, said his company should derive value from serving society rather than shareholder value.

Recently, the ruling government's finance minister, previously the same government's prime minister before the party got voted out for the first time in about 60 years, met the most powerful business group in the country and told them to pay workers higher wages to being the country out of inflation. They have since responded by raising the amount of the regular bonuses that most Japanese workers receive.

Can you imagine the UK government doing that? It's not for lack of money in the UK economy either, it's just being horded by the rich bastards. The pay gap between a Japanese company's lowest- and highest-paid worker is also much smaller and most executives don't really earn more than 10% of a similar American or European salary (that's still at least $100,000 though).

[Mason]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[wub]

What a wonderful analogy

[DRTY]

where's that from?

[Mason]

some random posted it on facebook a while ago, i copied and pasted it from the first link i got searching 'tax explanation beer' haha http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/20 ... d-in-beer/

[murky21]

thats awesome

[test_recordings]

It doesn't work like that though, because no-one attacks the rich for having a tax reduction proportional to everyone else; people get pissy when the rich have tax deductions that no-one else gets.

Consequently, no-one behaves like the story makes out because poor people don't complain at not having any reduction on not having to pay anything anyway Shittest yarn I've read about economics! People also don't compare things in that way, just look at the percentage shaved and you can clearly see the rich man still gets the proportionally smallest reduction.

The logic in that is made by people as pissed as the characters in the story!

[magma]

Nice example of how tax can be explained by analogies that support whatever policy or agenda you like... very clever indeed. A bit subtler than the usual "household budget" approach to macro-economics, but not really much more useful.

but surely if their tax rate was reduced this much (that's almost a 50% reduction), they're a lot more likely to actually pay it

I wouldn't be so sure. For a lot of self-described 'wealth creators' any level of taxation is unacceptable - they've been mainlining Friedmanite theory for decades which teaches that the act of job and profit creation is the biggest gift you can give back to your country. Phillip Green doesn't just avoid some of his tax, he avoids every last penny... and when challenged, he justifies it by saying that he employs thousands of people in the UK and they all pay tax. In Sir Green's eyes, their jobs are his national contribution.

As much as I'd love to believe you could, I don't think you can encourage wealthy entrepreneurs to pay more tax than they absolutely have to. You've just got to set the rate and force them - I'm not sure how you stop people running their companies out of the Caymans, but it's got to be stopped.

The businesses going abroad issue... I'm really sceptical that would happen in actuality. Even when tax rates were at all time highs as Labour crashed and burned in the mid/late 70s, our business base was decent - people weren't taking their whisky distilleries and car plants abroad (they only did that when the price of foreign labour got cheaper and they had the technology to globalise properly)... it was the workers, not the profiteers that finally caved and started striking - business owners don't just seek profit for profit's sake... there's more to getting up every morning morning and taking on the world in the manner of Richard Branson, Warren Buffet or your local independent Sparky than putting food on the table - as much as anything, they're playing life by their own rules and exercising personal freedom - picking their own challenges and winning at them... they're not about to change their entire lifestyle in order to save a few quid - a lot would gladly lose a few million in a single day on ill-advised deal or trade... convincing the public that large profit margins are the only thing driving progress is a bit of a misleading generalisation, I think. A lot of them even believe it themselves judging by Question Time audiences, but if it was true, why wouldn't the tens of thousands of small traders in this country give up and go and work for The Man when their businesses hit hard times? Why do so many re-mortgage or tighten their belts to keep their venture going? Because there's a lot more satisfaction to be had running a business than just the bottom line. Perhaps more than anything, we need to re-evaluate the concept of "good business" as a society...

[wub]

If that's going into your book you may want to look at your paragraph spacings.

[magma]

I'm trying to stay away from too much politics tbh (first principles only)... it's slipperier than the plastic chairs of a W.I. meeting that gwa's just crashed with an Ann Summers catalogue and a bag of gak.

[DRTY]

are you writing an actual book?