Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    OK what do you people feel about true meritocracy - I made this up myself so I'll have to tell you what it is obvioulsly:
    A meritocracy (we live in one now) is meant to be where individuals are given more power (in the form of money and possesions in most cases) on the bases of their merits (literal translation from Latin is power given on merit or something like that). However the problem with our current system is that people can simply inherit money, real estate and in some cases political power (The House of Lords, Royal Familey - though decling now). This undermines the very fabrique and fundamentals driving the meritocracy.

    Therefore my propersision is that we do away with inheritance and instead all money on death goes to the government - this would then allow for lower income tax, VAT, etc and the money would be pumped back into society in the form of benefits, discounts for students, etc (perhaps even just devide all the money up equaly and give it to the population - to give equality). Obviously to prevent people from just gifting money to their relations before their death the government would have to monitor such personal finances.

    Economicaly if this could be done it would give a tremendus boost to the economy (or so some economists have told me). This is due to the increased competition and everyone having to work for a living.

    Its sort of a marrage between comunism and capitalism. In my view it combines the fairness and equality of communism with the economical benefits of capitalsim.

    The question then is this: what do you think of this system of government (yes I know its idealist) - please don't discuss the feasibilities of it on their own (solutions are welcome though).

    P.S - this probably isn't very well written due to me being tired. :rolleyes:
    P.P.S - critisism without reason is not welcome - please back up your ideas and don't just flame this - remember people said democracy would never work.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I like it!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    I like it!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It would act as a disincentive for parents to strive to earn to their potential (each according to their ability implies everyone works to their full ability) and to save, something that is vital for the economy. A nice idea in concept but would result in too many people in a welfare trap and others doing the minimum required with low prospects. Also possibly plays down the connection between generations - surely part of a parents role is to provide for their offspring? And where do you draw the line - can parents not use the money they have earned meritocratically to give their children a better life whilst they are still alive?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Therefore my propersision is that we do away with inheritance and instead all money on death goes to the government - this would then allow for lower income tax, VAT, etc and the money would be pumped back into society in the form of benefits, discounts for students, etc (perhaps even just devide all the money up equaly and give it to the population - to give equality). Obviously to prevent people from just gifting money to their relations before their death the government would have to monitor such personal finances.
    .
    This woudl only reasult in two things.

    One: People would be MUCH less likely to save money rather than spending it on themselves and their children during their life.

    Two:It would mean that the government would monitor and interfere with our private lives to a much greater degree.

    Really, would you want to live in a country where you were not able to help your children? A rather natural insticnt among humans is to try to protect and help ones offspring as much as possible. Trying to undermine this instinct to such a degree as you propose is undoubtly going to cause severe distress and fears among the parents of the world. I know for certain I would vote against any such proposition.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    It would act as a disincentive for parents to strive to earn to their potential (each according to their ability implies everyone works to their full ability) and to save, something that is vital for the economy. A nice idea in concept but would result in too many people in a welfare trap and others doing the minimum required with low prospects. Also possibly plays down the connection between generations - surely part of a parents role is to provide for their offspring? And where do you draw the line - can parents not use the money they have earned meritocratically to give their children a better life whilst they are still alive?
    Yeh I was thinking of that - I still have to iron out a few point before the revolution. I would outlaaw privitised education though - the basics is that all people are to be born equal (I don't care what the American constitution would have you beleave because people arn't born equal).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm no econonmist so you must bear with me here:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    It would act as a disincentive for parents to strive to earn to their potential (each according to their ability implies everyone works to their full ability)
    ok
    and to save, something that is vital for the economy.
    how?
    A nice idea in concept but would result in too many people in a welfare trap and others doing the minimum required with low prospects.
    how?
    Also possibly plays down the connection between generations - surely part of a parents role is to provide for their offspring? And where do you draw the line - can parents not use the money they have earned meritocratically to give their children a better life whilst they are still alive?
    Good point. How parents spend their money on their children would have to be tightly regulated. Equality would have to be enforced, and then the concept of meritocracy starts to drift away, as parents are not allowed to give their children a better start in life.

    Perhaps then true meritocracy is not compatible with complete egalitarianism.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Yeh I was thinking of that - I still have to iron out a few point before the revolution. I would outlaaw privitised education though - the basics is that all people are to be born equal (I don't care what the American constitution would have you beleave because people arn't born equal).
    I presume therefore that this measure would enable all children to grow up as equal as possible.

    How about the child is taken from the parents at birth and the parents killed? No, that's ridiculous. As is the idea that parents cannot benefit their children as they see fit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    This woudl only reasult in two things.

    One: People would be MUCH less likely to save money rather than spending it on themselves and their children during their life.

    Two:It would mean that the government would monitor and interfere with our private lives to a much greater degree.

    Really, would you want to live in a country where you were not able to help your children? A rather natural insticnt among humans is to try to protect and help ones offspring as much as possible. Trying to undermine this instinct to such a degree as you propose is undoubtly going to cause severe distress and fears among the parents of the world. I know for certain I would vote against any such proposition.
    I thought people spending their money boosted the economy (I'm not sure not being an economist myself).
    Point two - we would perhaps make it so that computers do the bulk of the work and humans just look into suspicious activity. BTW - Echelon could be monitoring you right now anyway.

    The protection and help given by their parents to their children would have to be done by the government - like I said its not ironed out yet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    I presume therefore that this measure would enable all children to grow up as equal as possible.

    How about the child is taken from the parents at birth and the parents killed? No, that's ridiculous. As is the idea that parents cannot benefit their children as they see fit.
    Yes but its only as ridiculus as parents being able to give their children head starts is unfair.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    I thought people spending their money boosted the economy (I'm not sure not being an economist myself).
    If people spend too much prices rise. Then wages must rise to meet those higher prices, so money becomes worth less; this is the process of inflation. Stopping people spending by encouraging them to save/hoard (via the use of interest rates) slows down the process of inflation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Its sort of a marrage between comunism and capitalism. In my view it combines the fairness and equality of communism with the economical benefits of capitalsim.
    Comunism is not fair. Capitalism is not economically benefitial. The difference between communism and capitalism lies in teh distribution of power. Communists want power and economical resources to be with those who are able to persuade others to support them (whether they are right or not) whereas capitalists wants power to be with those who are good at keeping resources within their controll. Basicly communists will always argue that they are more "fair" than capitalists. And capitalists will tend to argue that communists restrict peoples freedom of self-determination. Both of these arguments are partially true, what is important to remember however is that just as communism does not guarantee fairness, capitalism does not automatically give you freedom. Fairness and freedom are rights that has to be maintained by humans with good intentions. It doesnt matter if a person is a communist or a capitalist, he can be a complete ass in any case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Yeh I was thinking of that - I still have to iron out a few point before the revolution. I would outlaaw privitised education though - the basics is that all people are to be born equal (I don't care what the American constitution would have you beleave because people arn't born equal).
    I agree, but i would go further and nationalise all major infrastructures.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Therefore my propersision is that we do away with inheritance and instead all money on death goes to the government
    If I was to know that upon my death all my savings would go to the government I'd quit uni, not bother with an intensive, demanding well-paid job, and do minimum wage-level work.

    Do you think people work so hard to get a good income purely to increase their own wellbeing? For many a fundamental reason is to improve the socioeconomic prospects for their children, and their children's children.

    Though I appreciate that your system would remove the injustice in society that some people have to work so much harder and be less well off than lazier ones who've had the fortune of inheritance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    I thought people spending their money boosted the economy (I'm not sure not being an economist myself).
    Point two - we would perhaps make it so that computers do the bulk of the work and humans just look into suspicious activity. BTW - Echelon could be monitoring you right now anyway.

    The protection and help given by their parents to their children would have to be done by the government - like I said its not ironed out yet.
    I dont trust the government with a single penny. No matter what the socialists will tell you, the government is just another institution with its corrupt leaders and fishy retirement plans, just as Microsoft or Marks & Spencer. The tiny difference is that people in government have to considder public opinion (to some degree) when they are making decisions. I would NEVER leave my children to the mercy of public opinion merely because some people have not yet not undesrtood that "fair" is a subjective word that depends greatly on your point of view. Hitler was elected by a German majority. Public opinion prevented wommen from voting for a long time. The bottom line is that I dont trust the masses to take me into consideration when everyone try to grab the largest piece of teh cake.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    I agree, but i would go further and nationalise all major infrastructures.
    When your at it, why not let the government decide what peopel are to eat for dinner at a centrally planned time every thursday evening? After that we can start drawing up teh guidelines for what peopel should dream at night. All of this is of course to be done democratically where the candidate that somehow manage to get a majority of votes get to chose how everyone else shall live their lives....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's a nice idea in theory, but economically and socially it wouldn't work, in my opinion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    When your at it, why not let the government decide what peopel are to eat for dinner at a centrally planned time every thursday evening? After that we can start drawing up teh guidelines for what peopel should dream at night. All of this is of course to be done democratically where the candidate that somehow manage to get a majority of votes get to chose how everyone else shall live their lives....
    That’s taking it to the extreme, i feel there are many benefits to the nationalisation of major infrastructures, it helps not to put shareholders before safety in many areas e.g. railways, privatisation is a load of crap.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BazTheMoney)
    It's a nice idea in theory, but economically and socially it wouldn't work, in my opinion
    Its a horrific idea in theory. I hate it when people go about saying Commuinism is good in theory but doesnt work in practice. The simple idea is that people who do very well and manage to use their resources in a well planned manner are not rewarded for it, but stripped from what they have acomplished only to have it redistributed among all those who have achieved nothing. Of course we should help the most poor people, but I have no sympathy with the slogan Work according to ability, receive according to need. Heres the definition of a little thing called economics, you may ponder about it for a while:

    Economics is the study of how limited resources can be distributed to meet unlimited wants!

    Communism would work, if and only if it was the resources, and not the wants that were unlimited. Unfortunately in reality it is the opposite way around.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    That’s taking it to the extreme, i feel there are many benefits to the nationalisation of major infrastructures, it helps not to put shareholders before safety in many areas e.g. railways, privatisation is a load of crap.
    There are also many benefits of privatisation. A mixed and balanced economy is the best way to go. When peopel talk about prohibiting private schools I really get sort of pissed off...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.