The welfare state

**Brian d marge** · 21st June 2011, 22:05

Originally Posted by Winston001

None of which answers the core postulation that 21st century capitalism is concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands. I do not support that.

[B

¡Viva la Revolución!
[/B]

Would you like to walk the "road to Serfdom " with me ......it may not have the answers but it will kill a rainy Sunday morning

Stephen

**Clockwork** · 22nd June 2011, 08:23

Originally Posted by SPman

Corporate..

democracies..

The 2 concepts are mutually exclusive!

Of course they aren't. Shareholder's get to vote...... sometimes.

Just like national politics really.

**oneofsix** · 22nd June 2011, 08:29

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Of course they aren't. Shareholder's get to vote...... sometimes.

Just like national politics really.

getting a vote doesn't make it a democracy. Is it true that they even had the vote in the USSR but of course you could only vote Communist? Anyhow there are many governance structures where there is a vote but not democracy and shareholders are an example as it isn't a vote per person but a vote per share. The US even defined NZ as a Plutocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy) and we still get to vote.

**Ocean1** · 22nd June 2011, 14:08

What about 2 votes for each full time job.

One for the employee and one for the employer.

Fair, innit?

**mashman** · 22nd June 2011, 16:02

Originally Posted by Ocean1

What about 2 votes for each full time job.

One for the employee and one for the employer.

Fair, innit?

Technically I can be an employee, as well as an Employer of one or MANY more companies etc...
But as an employee I could have a maximum of 2 votes. 1 for being a human being, and one for being in a fulltime job... so that would mean that a group(s) of people, I mean Employers, that are "responsible" for millions of jobs at a time, would get millions of votes? (kinda what happens atm imho)

How would you define employer?

aaaaand that's a No from me on the fair bit.

**Winston001** · 22nd June 2011, 18:02

Originally Posted by oneofsix

The US even defined NZ as a Plutocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy) and we still get to vote.

Say wut????

**Ocean1** · 22nd June 2011, 18:23

Originally Posted by mashman

Technically I can be an employee, as well as an Employer of one or MANY more companies etc...

What?

Originally Posted by mashman

But as an employee I could have a maximum of 2 votes. 1 for being a human being, and one for being in a fulltime job...

One. Unless you've got two full time jobs.

Originally Posted by mashman

... so that would mean that a group(s) of people, I mean Employers, that are "responsible" for millions of jobs at a time, would get millions of votes?

Correct, directly proportionate to the number of taxable full time positions they maintain.

Originally Posted by mashman

How would you define employer?

The same way IRD does.

Originally Posted by mashman

aaaaand that's a No from me on the fair bit.

Right. God forbid those providing the revenue should decide where it's spent. That'd be totally unfair.

**mashman** · 22nd June 2011, 19:29

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Right. God forbid those providing the revenue should decide where it's spent. That'd be totally unfair.

they already do (not the pollies, and neither give a shit)... look at the state of the place.

**Ocean1** · 22nd June 2011, 19:45

Originally Posted by mashman

they already do (not the pollies, and neither give a shit)... look at the state of the place.

Last time I looked companies don't get a vote.

And yet a sizeable minority who contribute fuck all get to vote themselves a new lolly scramble every three years.

That's why the place is a fiscal train wreck.

**jaffaonajappa** · 22nd June 2011, 20:06

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Last time I looked companies don't get a vote.

So the corporates manage to donate large $$ to the major political parties in exchange for some dialogue and etc?
I actually wonder if the corporates really are getting more than an ordinary say in what goes on. Id say they would....

**Ocean1** · 22nd June 2011, 20:19

Originally Posted by jaffaonajappa

So the corporates manage to donate large $$ to the major political parties in exchange for some dialogue and etc?
I actually wonder if the corporates really are getting more than an ordinary say in what goes on. Id say they would....

*Shrugs* You wouldn't know.

And that's a point, you should. So do away with donations all together. Fixed.

Next?

**jaffaonajappa** · 22nd June 2011, 20:29

Originally Posted by Ocean1

*Shrugs* You wouldn't know.

And that's a point, you should. So do away with donations all together. Fixed.

Next?

Only if ya happy with a Tory govt for the next gazillion years

**mashman** · 22nd June 2011, 20:37

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Last time I looked companies don't get a vote.

And yet a sizeable minority who contribute fuck all get to vote themselves a new lolly scramble every three years.

That's why the place is a fiscal train wreck.

True. Tis all just a conspiracy theory

No it's not. It's because people give a shit about the fact that some people don't work (boofuckinhoo). Because it means less money in their pocket. Tis pathetic.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

And that's a point, you should. So do away with donations all together. Fixed.

Next?

I'd settle for that (like it would ever stop).

**98tls** · 22nd June 2011, 20:41

Originally Posted by mashman

settle

Never say that word.

**Ocean1** · 22nd June 2011, 20:44

Originally Posted by jaffaonajappa

Only if ya happy with a Tory govt for the next gazillion years

Wrong label for NZ. But if the govt has to win the votes of those who's resources they're spending then yes, every party's focus would need to shift to have a chance.

Originally Posted by mashman

I'd settle for that (like it would ever stop).

Why not? Party funding is already pretty transparent, just allocate a fair election budget and make 'em account for it. Easy.