Tax Rebellion in the UK.

[Trik'Stari]

Oh, do politicians in the UK shy away from openly protecting their corporate benefactors from taxation? Wow, that must be nice. There's no attempt at such illusion here. We call that being "business friendly" or "fiscally conservative," and we think it's a positive. That wins elections here.

I just call it what it is. Corruption.

 

Media is a tough one... public scrutiny can put an end to that.  Imagine 80% of the population ridiculing and mocking debates put forward by FOX or MSNBC.  An informed populous can affect how policy is discussed, and if done right will force debates to be insightful (to get a true look at a candidate) and relevant (how to improve things, not stagnate them or make them worse).

 

There has to be some management of who gets to debate on a national level.  Getting the corporate money out means those meeting the requirement for national debates have done so with public donations as their campaign backbone... and/or like you said:  worked their way up through the local debates. 

 

I mean come on, who is Hilary going to office for?  The 1M people that donated $10 each, or the two or three corporations giving her hundreds of millions.  Works for almost every candidate running for party leader in the USA right now.  That corporate money has to come out. 

 

How the fuck is a corporation a person because money is treated like it is equal to the the spoken word?  That is just so ass-backward.

Controlling who gets to debate at the national level, would be done by requiring people to win debates at the local level and up. Like I said, a tournament. You start in a local debate, if you win that you move to state, then regional, then national. The national debate should end up with at least 1 person from every single state. At least for the presidential election.

 

As for how corporations are considered a "person". Simple answer: Lawyers - making bullshit arguments sound legitimate for decades.

 

 

closest thing to the original definition of dictator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

 

True, but that was still ultimately a "representative government" in the end. We will need a dictator to set up a true democracy, and then abdicate his power completely, if we ever want to have a true democracy.

[stconquest]

As you guys have mentioned, this is not easy work.  Taking corruption out of policy when it is so beneficial and readily available to the policy makers.  Getting people to wake up to it is hard.  People are busy, too busy to even think about these things.

 

We just got a corporate shill out of our highest office.  Guess how long it took us to kick him out... 12 fucking years.

 

Now we have a relatively unknown quantity in office, could be a good change.  Only time will tell.

[ZestyJalapeno]

When is the E.U. referendum again?  

[Puddleuk]

Sums up tax system here perfectly.

 

[Trik'Stari]

Sums up tax system here perfectly.

 

-snip

That's pretty much how all taxes work. Government wants your money, whether or not you are rich or poor, they just want your f**kin money.

 

I'd prefer to cut taxes, and require businesses to pay their employees a fat chunk out of that precious profit margin. Give the money to the people, not to the government, because the government will just waste it on stupid shit like they always do.

[CoolaxGaming]

That's pretty much how all taxes work. Government wants your money, whether or not you are rich or poor, they just want your f**kin money.

 

I'd prefer to cut taxes, and require businesses to pay their employees a fat chunk out of that precious profit margin. Give the money to the people, not to the government, because the government will just waste it on stupid shit like they always do.

To be fair, the US Gov. does have like a multi-trillion dollar debt, they do need cash...

Giving the people a lot of power, would just cause a lot of issues. Not saying I support a dictatorship or something, but the current system of a democratic republic is the best it can get.

 

The problem with taking money out of politics in the US is that with out current system of "debates" (they're not really debates) and whatnot, only the rich will be able to run for office.

 

We need to completely revamp the entire system. All public forums, publicly funded, with anyone being able to take part in a series of debates, and then have multiple sets of votes based on those debates. Kind of like a tournament. (local debates. State level debates, then regional and national debates etc.) And then bar the media from advertising or monetizing during those debates, if they decide to cover them.

 

Also, no more political parties. No more organizations that can wield influence and money on a national level.

 

Again, we need TRUE DEMOCRACY. Over the generations, "representative" governments have proven that they don't work, and can't be trusted.

Anyone?

Would you like someone who has a criminal record to be given power in the government? This the same stuff as everyone gathering in one place and everyone deciding on everything. If everyone takes part, nothing can be done. Why would the media cover the debate, no matter how important, if they get no profit from it? 

The representive government prevents rule by the mob, and rule by the majority.

Changing anything makes the whole system worse

[Trik'Stari]

To be fair, the US Gov. does have like a multi-trillion dollar debt, they do need cash...

Giving the people a lot of power, would just cause a lot of issues. Not saying I support a dictatorship or something, but the current system of a democratic republic is the best it can get.

 

Anyone?

Would you like someone who has a criminal record to be given power in the government? This the same stuff as everyone gathering in one place and everyone deciding on everything. If everyone takes part, nothing can be done. Why would the media cover the debate, no matter how important, if they get no profit from it? 

The representive government prevents rule by the mob, and rule by the majority.

Changing anything makes the whole system worse

We can't really know that any of that is true, considering it''s never been done before. There's never been a truly democratic government before.

 

And why would the media cover the debates without profit? Probably because it would be mandatory, as a function of keeping their licenses that allow them to make all that profit the rest of the time they aren't covering the debates. Profit based news reporting leads to bias, and manipulation. And hell, with the debates being as big as I have in mind, they'd only need to send a couple of camera people and sound people. Would be no need for jackass talking heads to inject their opinions into the national consciousness.

 

The system we have, isn't working. It's lead us to corruption, and stupidity, and if it continues it will be our undoing.