neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 16, 2023 16:07:25 GMT
If we weren't all here agreeing that the election process was useless, we'd be spending all our time agreeing that the PCC posts themselves are a total waste of time. Although they wouldn't be if they were operational. That's the the main problem.
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 16, 2023 18:09:28 GMT
I have very little time for the electorate and would reduce the franchise substantially. However it should be pointed out the electorate is very rarely offered a high quality candidate. Nobody who calls for reducing the franchise should be treated with respect unless the range of people they want to deny the vote to includes themselves. Even then, they should be ignored, but ignored more respectfully than is otherwise the case. And why is that? What is inherently ridiculous about believing that other people should be denied the vote? I see no reason why the intelligent, hardworking and productive should be governed according to the wishes of the stupid, idle and unproductive. As a bare minimum I would restrict the franchise to those who are net tax contributors with some possible exceptions for those who serve the nation in valuable ways.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 16, 2023 18:12:31 GMT
Nobody who calls for reducing the franchise should be treated with respect unless the range of people they want to deny the vote to includes themselves. Even then, they should be ignored, but ignored more respectfully than is otherwise the case. And why is that? What is inherently ridiculous about believing that other people should be denied the vote? I see no reason why the intelligent, hardworking and productive should be governed according to the wishes of the stupid, idle and unproductive. As a bare minimum I would restrict the franchise to those who are net tax contributors with some possible exceptions for those who serve the nation in valuable ways. How many individuals are net contributors, personally? It can't be more than a few thousand at any one time given how few people are responsible for the bulk of, eg, income tax where the top 10% are responsible for just under two thirds of receipts and presumably a similar chunk of VAT.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Aug 16, 2023 18:59:45 GMT
And why is that? What is inherently ridiculous about believing that other people should be denied the vote? I see no reason why the intelligent, hardworking and productive should be governed according to the wishes of the stupid, idle and unproductive. As a bare minimum I would restrict the franchise to those who are net tax contributors with some possible exceptions for those who serve the nation in valuable ways. How many individuals are net contributors, personally? It can't be more than a few thousand at any one time given how few people are responsible for the bulk of, eg, income tax where the top 10% are responsible for just under two thirds of receipts and presumably a similar chunk of VAT. Depends how you define net contributor. The work done by the Centre for Policy Studies about 12 years ago indicated that roughly the top two quintiles were net contributors. I think you'd have to have a somewhat odd definition to have it just be "a few thousand" as there are about 300,000 in the top 1% of taxpayers with an income in excess of 160,000. I also think you'll find that VAT doesn't have the same distribution because of the effects of the increased personal allowances on income tax and the nature of VAT spending. Obviously slightly out of date, but Figure 5 in this IFS report shows different patterns.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 16, 2023 19:06:54 GMT
That registration to be individual, personal, at registration office, demonstrating fluency in English and basic essential knowledge.what we have here is vetting. And since vetting can only be done by the establishment since whoever has the power and authority to do the vetting is by definition the establishment, what you are arguing for is a new and different establishment. Well. Of course it is my dear. There can be no vacuum. The government always wins the election. Short of actual anarchy the establishment will always be in charge won't they? I am not an establishment person and I do not support democracy so I am arguing for better decisions by fewer, better people. I really don't give a stuff about the system at all, I just want a much smaller and much better electorate.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Aug 16, 2023 19:50:06 GMT
This is what is technically known as loser talk. At what age should a person be permitted to vote? To operate a chainsaw? To drive an HGV? Hold a firearms certificate? Sit on a jury? Do time in HMP Shotts? Serve in Afghanistan? Co-star in Teens First Anal? 18 across the board. If society as a whole decides that there should be age restrictions on certain things (which I think is reasonable, young children shouldn’t be driving HGVs, serving on a jury or starring in porn), then I don’t see any good reason why there shouldn’t be a single across-the-board age at which all age-related restrictions are lifted. There are legitimate arguments about what that age should be (I think 18 is appropriate), but a mish-mash of different ages at which things become permissible seems unnecessary to me.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 16, 2023 20:01:49 GMT
How many individuals are net contributors, personally? It can't be more than a few thousand at any one time given how few people are responsible for the bulk of, eg, income tax where the top 10% are responsible for just under two thirds of receipts and presumably a similar chunk of VAT. Depends how you define net contributor. The work done by the Centre for Policy Studies about 12 years ago indicated that roughly the top two quintiles were net contributors. I think you'd have to have a somewhat odd definition to have it just be "a few thousand" as there are about 300,000 in the top 1% of taxpayers with an income in excess of 160,000. I also think you'll find that VAT doesn't have the same distribution because of the effects of the increased personal allowances on income tax and the nature of VAT spending. Obviously slightly out of date, but Figure 5 in this IFS report shows different patterns. As you say, it depends on how you define 'net contributor.' The number of individuals who have paid in more than the value of taxpayer funded, state provided services received over their lifetime to the measurement point must be very low. I'm not sure how else net contributor could be defined. Of the 300,000 people you refer to, a majority will have received some form of healthcare and some form of education (probably to an advanced level) provided by the state in addition to road and infrastructure use, and may very well be expensive to keep well (or indeed alive) once they get past 65. Even if they do pay more in, in total, than they have ever got out, in total, they won't reach that until later in life, at which point they start getting a direct cash transfer from the taxpayer which partly resets the clock. And if any of them work or have worked in the public sector then net contribution goes out of the window. I stick by my assertion that the number of lifetime absolute net contributors is low.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Aug 16, 2023 20:59:13 GMT
Depends how you define net contributor. The work done by the Centre for Policy Studies about 12 years ago indicated that roughly the top two quintiles were net contributors. I think you'd have to have a somewhat odd definition to have it just be "a few thousand" as there are about 300,000 in the top 1% of taxpayers with an income in excess of 160,000. I also think you'll find that VAT doesn't have the same distribution because of the effects of the increased personal allowances on income tax and the nature of VAT spending. Obviously slightly out of date, but Figure 5 in this IFS report shows different patterns. As you say, it depends on how you define 'net contributor.' The number of individuals who have paid in more than the value of taxpayer funded, state provided services received over their lifetime to the measurement point must be very low. I'm not sure how else net contributor could be defined. Of the 300,000 people you refer to, a majority will have received some form of healthcare and some form of education (probably to an advanced level) provided by the state in addition to road and infrastructure use, and may very well be expensive to keep well (or indeed alive) once they get past 65. Even if they do pay more in, in total, than they have ever got out, in total, they won't reach that until later in life, at which point they start getting a direct cash transfer from the taxpayer which partly resets the clock. And if any of them work or have worked in the public sector then net contribution goes out of the window. I stick by my assertion that the number of lifetime absolute net contributors is low. As you cannot judge how long someone will live or what demands or not they will make on the state in future, you can only truly determine net contribution by that method at the point of the settlement of their estate. You could keep cumulative figures or determine it at the end of each financial year for that year but your method is not very useful for, say, determining the franchise. Also, surely not just the public sector, but those in receipt of money from the public sector and what level of malus do you apply to that? I'll stand my assertion that the definition is important and add to it that your definition has significant defects as well.
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 16, 2023 21:25:34 GMT
Depends how you define net contributor. The work done by the Centre for Policy Studies about 12 years ago indicated that roughly the top two quintiles were net contributors. I think you'd have to have a somewhat odd definition to have it just be "a few thousand" as there are about 300,000 in the top 1% of taxpayers with an income in excess of 160,000. I also think you'll find that VAT doesn't have the same distribution because of the effects of the increased personal allowances on income tax and the nature of VAT spending. Obviously slightly out of date, but Figure 5 in this IFS report shows different patterns. As you say, it depends on how you define 'net contributor.' The number of individuals who have paid in more than the value of taxpayer funded, state provided services received over their lifetime to the measurement point must be very low. I'm not sure how else net contributor could be defined. Of the 300,000 people you refer to, a majority will have received some form of healthcare and some form of education (probably to an advanced level) provided by the state in addition to road and infrastructure use, and may very well be expensive to keep well (or indeed alive) once they get past 65. Even if they do pay more in, in total, than they have ever got out, in total, they won't reach that until later in life, at which point they start getting a direct cash transfer from the taxpayer which partly resets the clock. And if any of them work or have worked in the public sector then net contribution goes out of the window. I stick by my assertion that the number of lifetime absolute net contributors is low. I certainly wouldn't use infrastructure spending or anything like that in the calculation or salary, pension contributions, etc of public sector employees, that is remuneration for work not a benefit from the state. Something relatively simple like tax paid offset against welfare, healthcare and education (not your own but that of your children).
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Aug 16, 2023 22:29:16 GMT
As you say, it depends on how you define 'net contributor.' The number of individuals who have paid in more than the value of taxpayer funded, state provided services received over their lifetime to the measurement point must be very low. I'm not sure how else net contributor could be defined. Of the 300,000 people you refer to, a majority will have received some form of healthcare and some form of education (probably to an advanced level) provided by the state in addition to road and infrastructure use, and may very well be expensive to keep well (or indeed alive) once they get past 65. Even if they do pay more in, in total, than they have ever got out, in total, they won't reach that until later in life, at which point they start getting a direct cash transfer from the taxpayer which partly resets the clock. And if any of them work or have worked in the public sector then net contribution goes out of the window. I stick by my assertion that the number of lifetime absolute net contributors is low. I certainly wouldn't use infrastructure spending or anything like that in the calculation or salary, pension contributions, etc of public sector employees, that is remuneration for work not a benefit from the state. Something relatively simple like tax paid offset against welfare, healthcare and education (not your own but that of your children). Sounds like an advantage to the childless, which I am not opposed to. Or am I misinterpreting you??
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,725
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 16, 2023 22:42:36 GMT
At what age should a person be permitted to vote? To operate a chainsaw? To drive an HGV? Hold a firearms certificate? Sit on a jury? Do time in HMP Shotts? Serve in Afghanistan? Co-star in Teens First Anal? 18 across the board. If society as a whole decides that there should be age restrictions on certain things (which I think is reasonable, young children shouldn’t be driving HGVs, serving on a jury or starring in porn), then I don’t see any good reason why there shouldn’t be a single across-the-board age at which all age-related restrictions are lifted. There are legitimate arguments about what that age should be (I think 18 is appropriate), but a mish-mash of different ages at which things become permissible seems unnecessary to me. It shouldn't be tied to age, it should be tied to legal adulthood. If you want 16-year-olds to vote, you do it by making them adults, and having to suffer adulthood such as being banged up in HMP Shotts and being shott at in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Aug 16, 2023 23:07:35 GMT
18 across the board. If society as a whole decides that there should be age restrictions on certain things (which I think is reasonable, young children shouldn’t be driving HGVs, serving on a jury or starring in porn), then I don’t see any good reason why there shouldn’t be a single across-the-board age at which all age-related restrictions are lifted. There are legitimate arguments about what that age should be (I think 18 is appropriate), but a mish-mash of different ages at which things become permissible seems unnecessary to me. It shouldn't be tied to age, it should be tied to legal adulthood. If you want 16-year-olds to vote, you do it by making them adults, and having to suffer adulthood such as being banged up in HMP Shotts and being shott at in Afghanistan. Well sure, this is my exact point… legal adulthood should be at a particular age. But that is unavoidably tied to age, no?? That age could be 5, or 12, or 16, 18, 21, 25, whatever, my only point is that we should have a consistent age for everything. It makes no sense that can drive at 17 but can’t hire a car to drive until you’re 23. Edit: on further consideration, perhaps you are saying that legal adulthood should straddle a multitude of ages?? But I disagree with that. Legal adulthood shouldn’t occur segmentally. One should gain all the “advantages/privileges” of adulthood all at once, not over a period of 5+ years.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,725
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 17, 2023 3:33:06 GMT
It shouldn't be tied to age, it should be tied to legal adulthood. If you want 16-year-olds to vote, you do it by making them adults, and having to suffer adulthood such as being banged up in HMP Shotts and being shott at in Afghanistan. Well sure, this is my exact point… legal adulthood should be at a particular age. But that is unavoidably tied to age, no?? That age could be 5, or 12, or 16, 18, 21, 25, whatever, my only point is that we should have a consistent age for everything. It makes no sense that can drive at 17 but can’t hire a car to drive until you’re 23. Edit: on further consideration, perhaps you are saying that legal adulthood should straddle a multitude of ages?? But I disagree with that. Legal adulthood shouldn’t occur segmentally. One should gain all the “advantages/privileges” of adulthood all at once, not over a period of 5+ years. No, I favour a simple single age-based criteria for adulthood. If you have been alive for a set amount of time, you are an adult, no other consideration, and such adulthood should be extremely difficult to remove. What that age is I'm open to be persuaded, but it should be simply exactly an age. Not "age, or this subset of underage, or this subset of passing a test, or this subset of something else." Amount of time alive, full stop.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Aug 17, 2023 4:24:56 GMT
Well sure, this is my exact point… legal adulthood should be at a particular age. But that is unavoidably tied to age, no?? That age could be 5, or 12, or 16, 18, 21, 25, whatever, my only point is that we should have a consistent age for everything. It makes no sense that can drive at 17 but can’t hire a car to drive until you’re 23. Edit: on further consideration, perhaps you are saying that legal adulthood should straddle a multitude of ages?? But I disagree with that. Legal adulthood shouldn’t occur segmentally. One should gain all the “advantages/privileges” of adulthood all at once, not over a period of 5+ years. No, I favour a simple single age-based criteria for adulthood. If you have been alive for a set amount of time, you are an adult, no other consideration, and such adulthood should be extremely difficult to remove. What that age is I'm open to be persuaded, but it should be simply exactly an age. Not "age, or this subset of underage, or this subset of passing a test, or this subset of something else." Amount of time alive, full stop. In that case I am in total agreement with you, am I not?? 100%. Pick an age and let that be the age for everything… people reach that age and then just get on with life. Preferably 18. But whenever. Let society pick an age and then go with it.
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 18, 2023 17:22:45 GMT
There are legitimate arguments about what that age should be (I think 18 is appropriate), but a mish-mash of different ages at which things become permissible seems unnecessary to me. Indeed and the mish-mash is not by accident, it is wilful. It is rival claimants pitching contradictory arguments to suit their own short-term sectional interests
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Aug 18, 2023 19:32:15 GMT
On Only Connect last night, both teams of three struggled to decide how many MPs there were at Westminster, ball-parking at 300. Having had to explain what a constituency is to colleagues before now, I think it's always worth remembering that the general public is not like us.
My niece purportedly studied politics at uni and doesn't know how many MPs there are!
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Aug 18, 2023 19:32:59 GMT
No, I favour a simple single age-based criteria for adulthood. If you have been alive for a set amount of time, you are an adult, no other consideration, and such adulthood should be extremely difficult to remove. What that age is I'm open to be persuaded, but it should be simply exactly an age. Not "age, or this subset of underage, or this subset of passing a test, or this subset of something else." Amount of time alive, full stop. In that case I am in total agreement with you, am I not?? 100%. Pick an age and let that be the age for everything… people reach that age and then just get on with life. Preferably 18. But whenever. Let society pick an age and then go with it.
Yes! Claim the State Pension from the age of 18!
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 18, 2023 19:45:32 GMT
Having had to explain what a constituency is to colleagues before now, I think it's always worth remembering that the general public is not like us.
My niece purportedly studied politics at uni and doesn't know how many MPs there are!
I remember one of our sabbatical officers in my second year at uni didn't know who her MP was or which constituency she lived in (well beyond simply 'Bolton'). She was studying politics iirc.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 18, 2023 20:05:15 GMT
Having studied politics at both A Level and as part of my degree, the comments above don't suprise me in the least. It did seem to me that the girls in particular knew bugger all about the subject and had hardly any interest in it. Given this is the small subset of the female population who had actually chosen to study the thing at a reasonably high level, it may give some indication to certain handwringers as to why there are so few female posters here and that it has fuck all to do with some of us saying 'fuck all' too much..
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 18, 2023 20:16:50 GMT
My politics class too was populated by blokes who knew a bit about it (mostly lefties and Yessers obviously) and women who did not have a fucking clue. And had no wish whatsoever to acquire a fucking clue.
But who on specific issues, such as climate change, or the monarchy, or Israel/Palestine, had firm and fixed opinions unsupported by any actual knowledge but invariably nicer than mine.
|
|