NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome to the debate, where all your questions about the NS General election (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418608), and about the various parties standing, can be answered!

This debate is here so that you can ask the parties about their stand on the issues you feel are relevant. This is how it works. Anyone can ask a question, even someone campaigning for a particular party. The question can be a general one, or it can be targetted at a particular party, but in both cases all the parties can reply. There will be one representative sent by each party to answer the questions, no more (so as to avoid chaos).

To keep things from criss-crossing all over the place, there will be no more than five questions per day. So when five people have asked a question each, that's it for the day, to give every party the time to reply.

The threads for the various parties, if you want to look at what they're debating on, or if you'd like to join one, can be found in the first post of this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418608). Not listed there are the the Party of Order (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418844) and the Party of Whatever Works (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418852).

Below will be listed the representatives of the various parties as they answer your questions:
Cult of TInk Party: FairyTInkArisen
Democratic Socialist Party:
Freedom and Progress Party:
Goths, Hippies, and Others Against Stereotyping Types Party:
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents Alliance: Subterranean Mole Men
NS Classic Liberals: Alien Born
NS Libertarian Party: Super-power
Party of Order:
Party of Whatever Works:
ProMonkians Politicised Party Campagning For The Introduction Of Reproductive Red Tape:
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party: DHomme
Troon's Political Party: Swimmingpool
United Democratic Communist Party: Ariddia

Ask away!


= = = =

Today's questions (May 15th):

Question n°1

What are your parties policies with regard to taxation. What is to be taxed, is this to be flat rate or progressive? Is there any taxation? For those without taxation how do you reward those who work for the government? This all boils down to two basic questions: Who pays? and How do they pay?

I'd like to know where everyone stands on religious schools - such as Catholic schools, muslim schools and evangelical schools.

Should they be promoted or banned?

Should they be publicly or privately funded?

(You forgot my Lobster Party, damnit!)

Is there a "green" (environmentalist) party? Cuz they can sign me up for that, me thinks...

I'd like to know where everyone stands on religious schools - such as Catholic schools, muslim schools and evangelical schools.

Should they be promoted or banned?

Should they be publicly or privately funded?

All right, that's question number 1, and I'm answering on behalf of the United Democratic Communist Party.

First, I have to say that the UDCP plans on abolishing a money-based economy, in favour of an economy centred on the principle of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", so your question on funding wouldn't really apply with us. Having said that, if there were still money, we would not put public money into faith schools, or into anything related to religions. There would be full religious tolerance, but also full seperation between the spheres of government and spirituality.

Faith schools under a UDCP system would be neither promoted nor banned: they would simply be allowed. If a particular faith wishes to start a school for its members, so be it. We would, however, strongly encourage parents to send their children to schools in which children of all faiths (as well as agnostics and atheists) would mingle and learn from one another. Also, one of our policies is that philosophy and critical thinking would be taught in all schools, and that would of course apply to any potential faith schools as well. So children attending faith schools would be taught there about other faiths, and would be taught critical thinking in all spheres, including the religious sphere; they would not be taught any faith dogmatically.

Is there a "green" (environmentalist) party? Cuz they can sign me up for that, me thinks...

And that's question number 2 for today.

There is no Green Party per se, but the United Democratic Communist Party has strong environmental issues outlined in its policy, and the environment is one of our priorities. Our environmental policies so far include:

- a more extensive public transport system, and a limit on the use of private cars (or, at least, they would be discouraged)
- cutting back on the wastage of over-production (which is tied in with our socio-economic policies: we would no longer be producing useless goods for the sake of profit and for the creation of artificial wants)
- abandoning fossil fuels in favour of clean, renewable forms of energy: wind, solar, tidal…
- potentially looking into ways of making nuclear power safer, as a supplement; the party is still debating this particular point
- encouraging recycling and sustainable production methods; and, finally,
- adhering to the Kyoto agreement

Hey UDCP guys: what about the environment?

I'd like to know where everyone stands on religious schools - such as Catholic schools, muslim schools and evangelical schools.

Should they be promoted or banned?

Should they be publicly or privately funded?
I'm speaking on behalf of The Cult of Tink Party


Religious schools won't be either promoted or banned. However, they must be privately funded. Publicly funded schools will not be based around any particular religion, the wearing of religious symbols (for any religion) will not be discouraged or banned. The party feels that it is important for children of all religions to mix in order to promote equality and encourage children to learn about other religions

Hey UDCP guys: what about the environment?

See the post just above that one. ;)

See the post just above that one. ;)

Dammit, me and my slow posting :p

So where can I sign up? Although I might be a bit more "environmentalistic" than the things you stated.

Dammit, me and my slow posting :p

So where can I sign up? Although I might be a bit more "environmentalistic" than the things you stated.

Right here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610). Welcome aboard!

Though you may want to wait and hear what some of the other parties have to say first...

Im speaking as an Independent until im accepted into my desired Party!
Chlidren should be thrashed with the Whip if they step out of line!
http://www.ironmaiden.org/images/smilies/eyes.gif

I'd like to know where everyone stands on religious schools - such as Catholic schools, muslim schools and evangelical schools.

Should they be promoted or banned?
They, along with secular private schools, should be promoted as a viable alternative to public schooling.

Should they be publicly or privately funded?
Private, via tuition - the government has a hard enough time maintaining public schools as is.
-This post brought to you on behalf of the NS Libertarian Party

Super-power, please indicate what party you're representing, or it's not very helpful to those asking...

Super-power, please indicate what party you're representing, or it's not very helpful to those asking...
Sry...See edit above

Is there a "green" (environmentalist) party? Cuz they can sign me up for that, me thinks...
the COTP is very concerned about environmental issues, our policies concerning the environment are:

- bus lanes, and free public transport
-compulsory recycling
- additional taxation on industries that pollute, proportionally to the gravity of the pollution they're causing
- phasing out fossil fuel-based energy, in favour of cleaner energies, such as wind power and solar panels
- discouraging companies from wasteful packaging of goods, through additional taxation on packaging
- introducing re-usable plastic bags, and making customers pay for the excessive use of plastic bags

Catholic Schools- We live in holes. No buildings! Believe in whatever you want even if it is stupid. We DO believe in educating our brood in underground solidarity and indoctrinating them with righteous hatred towards surfacers but this is done in by parents.

Environmentalism We are adamantly opposed to environmentalism! Melt the ozone layer, befoul your fields and streams! We will laugh at your plight from our cavernous pits!


Mole and Burrowing Rodents Alliance Uber Alles!

I'd like to know where everyone stands on religious schools - such as Catholic schools, muslim schools and evangelical schools.

Should they be promoted or banned?

Should they be publicly or privately funded?

Speaking as a member of the NS Classic Liberal party, I answer that religion is a matter for individuals and communities of individuals, it is not a matter for the gvernment. The state will ensure basic education for all children, but does not require that all children are educated by the state. If parents should so wish they may enroll children in any school that they see fit. It is their choice.

The state does not enter into the realm of religion, and as such any religious schooling has to be funded entirely by the churches involved or the charging of fees to the students. Therer is no direct government support.

As the state guarantees basic education by means of education vouchers that are redeemable for fixed values from the state, a low income family can have their child attend a fee paying religious school if the school accepts these vouchers. The government does not require that the vouchers be used only in non denominational educational establishments. The acceptance of the voucher is a matter for negotiation between the school and the family.

Is there a "green" (environmentalist) party? Cuz they can sign me up for that, me thinks...

The Classic Liberal party allows individuals to reflect their own personal preferences and interests. While we do not enforce specific pro environment policies, we do prohibit anything that restricts individual rights. This includes the right to enjoy nature. While not being specifically green, we are not opposed to the environmental concerns of many people.

Speaking as a member of the NS Classic Liberal party, I answer that religion is a matter for individuals and communities of individuals, it is not a matter for the gvernment. The state will ensure basic education for all children, but does not require that all children are educated by the state. If parents should so wish they may enroll children in any school that they see fit. It is their choice.

The state does not enter into the realm of religion, and as such any religious schooling has to be funded entirely by the churches involved or the charging of fees to the students. Therer is no direct government support.

As the state guarantees basic education by means of education vouchers that are redeemable for fixed values from the state, a low income family can have their child attend a fee paying religious school if the school accepts these vouchers. The government does not require that the vouchers be used only in non denominational educational establishments. The acceptance of the voucher is a matter for negotiation between the school and the family.

so you say they are fine and are partially state funded through slight of hand?

The Classic Liberal party allows individuals to reflect their own personal preferences and interests. While we do not enforce specific pro environment policies, we do prohibit anything that restricts individual rights. This includes the right to enjoy nature. While not being specifically green, we are not opposed to the environmental concerns of many people.

How, exactly, would you prohibit people from restraining other people's right to enjoy nature?

so you say they are fine and are partially state funded through slight of hand?

The education of our children is to be provided for, but the government has no say as to where that education comes from.

We will provide the vouchers, but it is the personal choice of the individual and his/her family to decide what school they will attend.

The education of our children is to be provided for, but the government has no say as to where that education comes from.

We will provide the vouchers, but it is the personal choice of the individual and his/her family to decide what school they will attend.

funded by the state but with parental choice, righto.

How, exactly, would you prohibit people from restraining other people's right to enjoy nature?

Financial disincentive through the market would persuade polluters. If a crime has been committed and someone has had their rights infringed, it will be settled through private arbitration.

Two questions for the Communist Party:

1. Why no money?

2. Why no private transport?

Two questions for the Communist Party:

1. Why no money?

2. Why no private transport?

one question each to ALL the parties.

don't abuse the question session, take your debate elsewhere

Two questions for the Communist Party:

1. Why no money?

2. Why no private transport?

We feel that a money-based economy, which is intrinsically linked to inequality, the drive to profit, greed, and the impossibility for the poor to fulfil their most basic needs, is contrary to a healthy society in which all can flourish and be assured that their rights and needs are respected. Without the drive for profit, production of goods and services will be aimed at ensuring the well-being of all members of society. Our policies take into account a transitional period during which the people will be able to adapt to a moneyless society.

As for private transport, it will not be banned, merely discouraged. This is mainly out of concern for the environment, and the UDCP will develop an extensive and reliable network of public transport, in order to drastically reduce the need for private transport.

one question each to ALL the parties.

don't abuse the question session, take your debate elsewhere

Technically, a question can be addressed specifically to one party, and every other party can also respond by detailling what their approach is to the policy in question. In this instance, though, I'm not going to put it up as one of the five questions of the day, simply because there wouldn't be much for the other parties to reply to.

one question each to ALL the parties.

don't abuse the question session, take your debate elsewhere

I don't plan on debating it here. I believe the Communist party is the only one that is banning these two things, and noone needs to explain why we should have cars or money.

Technically, a question can be addressed specifically to one party, and every other party can also respond by detailling what their approach is to the policy in question. In this instance, though, I'm not going to put it up as one of the five questions of the day, simply because there wouldn't be much for the other parties to reply to.

it should be in another thread if they want to debate between the two parties about these two issues

it should be in another thread if they want to debate between the two parties about these two issues

Who decided that?

Ariddia being the founder of all this would have a bigger say in it I think.

Also they aren't debating it as far as I can see. VO was asking about the parties policies.

And Arridia, good job on the reponses so far.

Who decided that?

Ariddia being the founder of all this would have a bigger say in it I think.

Also they aren't debating it as far as I can see. VO was asking about the parties policies.

And Arridia, good job on the reponses so far.

Thank you! :)

I was asked, so I answered, but as it isn't really something all the parties can answer I have no intention of debating it in this thread. Just to clarify.

Thank you! :)

I was asked, so I answered, but as it isn't really something all the parties can answer I have no intention of debating it in this thread. Just to clarify.

Good idea, though maybe the Q&A should have some ground rules....

And we open a new thread in connection with debate issues. Since this forum is more Q&A, debate on particular issued, from the predominance of parties opening in the forum, could clog the possibility of reliable Q&A's in this topic.

Thus, this thread would be more for seeking the stance of each parties platform regarding "Issue X" in question.... And Issue X can be debated between parties and individuals in seperate threads, pre-fixed, let's say with "[NSP Debate] - Issue 'X'"... This would allow clear deliniation between Q&A's between persons and parties, and that of debate between involved parties on particular issues...

Well, that's why I've limited it to five questions per day. That way the parties get to answer the questions, and if the person asking wants more detail he/she can ask; likewise if another party wants more details. It shouldn't actually turn into a full debate.

Anyway, only five of the thirteen parties have answered so far, so things are still manageable.

so you say they are fine and are partially state funded through slight of hand?

No. They are not state funded, The child's basic education is state funded, and the state has chosen to use the market to control the expenses of such funding. In order for this to work, the state can not interfere in the choices of the individuals in their purchases. The state does not fund any schools at all, it funds just the education of the child up to a point.

Our concern is that all members of our society receive a basic education. I is not our concern, as a government however, to define or regulate the form that this education should take. We believe in the autonomy of the individual and this includes the possibility of that individual choosing a religious education. We do not sponsor any educational establishment, we merely spopnsor the child.

How, exactly, would you prohibit people from restraining other people's right to enjoy nature?

Anyone who has their right to such enjoyment restrained by any other person or organization can prosecute for restitution of their rights as an individual. This if taken up by many individuals would so constrain the activities that provoked this response as to make them valueless to the agent so acting. In the end the right of the other will be considered prior to the action as infringement of such rights is too expensive. i.e. it will be prohibited by market forces and public response.

The big advantage of this system is that it reflects the interests and demands of the population. If there are a few "eco-nuts" who insist that the existence of roads infringes on their rights, they can take this up in court. If there are only a few such events then the society as a whole does not view this as an infringement and such individuals as do could be counter sued by thousands of road users for infringement on their rights. If however, there are many such "eco-nuts" then road building would constitute an infrigement on their liberty and the road user lobby would lose out. What is, and is not acceptable to the population is determined by the population itself, and not by some antiquated bureaucracy telling the people what is good for them.

I.E. Our policies are as green as the people want to be.

BUMP

Any other questions? ;)

Hey, why is there a Libertarian Party and a Classic Liberal party? Aren't they ideologically the same?

I'd like to know where everyone stands on religious schools - such as Catholic schools, muslim schools and evangelical schools.

Should they be promoted or banned?

Should they be publicly or privately funded?
If I may speak as a member of Troon's Party, I'll answer.

Religious schools are completely allowed, as a matter of religious freedom. They are neither promoted nor banned, they just are allowed to exist. However, they are not entitled to government money, except to pay a certain number of the teachers (as with all schools).

Otherwise, such schools should be privately funded.

I support the Libertarian Party!!!!

OK Let us get this on the move again.

What are your parties policies with regard to taxation. What is to be taxed, is this to be flat rate or progressive? Is there any taxation? For those without taxation how do you reward those who work for the government? This all boils down to two basic questions: Who pays? and How do they pay?

Two questions for the Communist Party:

1. Why no money?

i know i'm not supposed to, but i'm just chyming in with a link here

this, at least in part, explains our anti-money, anti-capitalist stance: http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/problems/capitalism/ and http://www.altruists.org/ideas/society/consumerism/

oh and a quote: "yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions"


and i'll try not to butt in again :D



Anyway, only five of the thirteen parties have answered so far, so things are still manageable.
well, for one, TIN and his Party of Order won't be online till monday/during the week

OK Let us get this on the move again.

What are your parties policies with regard to taxation. What is to be taxed, is this to be flat rate or progressive? Is there any taxation? For those without taxation how do you reward those who work for the government? This all boils down to two basic questions: Who pays? and How do they pay?

All right, this is question #1 for today.

As the United Democratc Communist Party intends to abolish money altogether, as explained previously, there would be no need for a system of taxation.

Bump

As the only member of the revolutionary trotskyist party then i guess I'm the representative.

Under our system (socialism) wages would be paid by the government to the people. Taxes would not be needed as we provide everybody with the basics of life and people can choose what luxuries they want, if any. The money needed to provide everybody with the essentials of life (food, water, elctricity, gas, shelter, clothing) would be paid for through the labour of all people. Essentially the entire community is supporting each other. In our system there is no taxation, the necessities of life are free and people will recieve a certain amount of money (based on how hard they work, how skilled their job is, and so on) for non-essentials.

As the only member of the revolutionary trotskyist party then i guess I'm the representative.

Under our system (socialism) wages would be paid by the government to the people. Taxes would not be needed as we provide everybody with the basics of life and people can choose what luxuries they want, if any. The money needed to provide everybody with the essentials of life (food, water, elctricity, gas, shelter, clothing) would be paid for through the labour of all people. Essentially the entire community is supporting each other. In our system there is no taxation, the necessities of life are free and people will recieve a certain amount of money (based on how hard they work, how skilled their job is, and so on) for non-essentials.

Where will the money for the government to pay wages and 'non-essentials' come from if not through taxes?

Where will the money for the government to pay wages and 'non-essentials' come from if not through taxes?

Selling the products we don't need to other countries. Money raised through the sale of the non-essentials. Essentially all people will be part of our economy, pumping money in and getting money back out.

What are your parties policies with regard to taxation. What is to be taxed, is this to be flat rate or progressive?
Income tax is flat for Troon's party (we need a name change).

Also to be taxed are:

Products (aka VAT/Sales Tax) - excepting medicines, healthy food, and children's clothes

Corporate tax - tax is levied at 12.5% for small companies and at 25% for large corporations

Inheritances above €50,000 to be taxed at ~8%

there's probably something I'm forgetting to tax :D

Bump

All right, this is question #1 for today.

As the United Democratc Communist Party intends to abolish money altogether, as explained previously, there would be no need for a system of taxation.

How do you get things done. How do you pay for imports?

How do you get things done. How do you pay for imports?

As to how we'd get things done, I refer you to my previous reply, from yesterday. As to imports, in a system of international communism, products would be distributed as needed on an international level.

I should add that, for trade with non-communist nations, if any is required, the same general principle could still apply, as we would aim for a fair, mutually beneficial exchange of products.

As to how we'd get things done, I refer you to my previous reply, from yesterday. As to imports, in a system of international communism, products would be distributed as needed on an international level.

I should add that, for trade with non-communist nations, if any is required, the same general principle could still apply, as we would aim for a fair, mutually beneficial exchange of products.

So you would be asking people to vote for you, according to your manifesto, trusting that all other nations in the world that the country deals with will adopt exactly the same system at the same time. I don't think I can see that proposal convincing many people.
International barter presumes that your country actually producxes something that the country you wish to import from wants, and that the levels of exchange are about equal. Again, I don't think many people would be convinced of that being a likely situation.

Thank you for your input; we're working on a more detailed and extensive proposal now regarding that issue.

BTW, if there aren't many people interested in asking questions in this thread, I'll see about turning it into a debate directly between the parties, with voters still free to intervene if they want. It should be a little more active then. ;)

Also, there are a few parties who seem to be defunct. As a reminder to everyone, parties become "official", and therefore able to stand in the election, once they have a formal manifesto (at least ten full lines in length).

Teh BUMP. B-U-M-P. Be you M.P.? You will be a Member of Parliament if you win this election. :p

And with that appallingly lousy pun, for which I am profoundly sorry and contrite, I declare this to now be a debate between parties. Anyone (member of a party or simple voter) can ask a specific question of any party (or still a general question if he/she wishes). And it can turn into a debate between the parties. Hopefully we can revitalise it a little.

Just to let you all know, I'm fixing the election date to in two weeks' time - i.e., June 2nd. It will last four days.

Remember, only parties with a manifesto can stand in the election, so have your manifesto ready by then! I'll be sending a TG to the founder of each party to remind them (except the COTP, which already has its manifesto ready, and the Freedom and Progress Party and the PPPCFTIORRT, which are both clearly defunct).

You can still use this thread for questions and debate. ;)

Some technical questions that could impact on the manifestos.

What model of geographical nation are we trying to be elected in?

Is it a large, culturally varied country (USA style) better suited to federalism
or is it a smaller more coherent country (Holland style).

Do we presume a high level of technological and industrial infrastructure (1st world) or are we still crawling out of feudal serfdom (3rd world) ?

Do we have a large number of land neighbours, and are they of a similar state of development?

Is the territory prone to frequent natural disasters (Indian subcontinent monsson flooding/ Japanese earthquakes) or is it almost immune to such problems (Western Europe/ Brazil)?

How is the population at the moment: ageing or young?
Is there a population bulge making its way up the age categories?
Is there almost universal literacy?
Do we have excessive population growth, is the population stable, or is it in decline?

Do we have clear and obvious enemy states?

Bump for reply

Some technical questions that could impact on the manifestos.

What model of geographical nation are we trying to be elected in?

Is it a large, culturally varied country (USA style) better suited to federalism
or is it a smaller more coherent country (Holland style).

Do we presume a high level of technological and industrial infrastructure (1st world) or are we still crawling out of feudal serfdom (3rd world) ?

Do we have a large number of land neighbours, and are they of a similar state of development?

Is the territory prone to frequent natural disasters (Indian subcontinent monsson flooding/ Japanese earthquakes) or is it almost immune to such problems (Western Europe/ Brazil)?

How is the population at the moment: ageing or young?
Is there a population bulge making its way up the age categories?
Is there almost universal literacy?
Do we have excessive population growth, is the population stable, or is it in decline?

Do we have clear and obvious enemy states?


i believe that this is assuming that this is it's own rich country....

I don't think this question is really important...

OK Let us get this on the move again.

What are your parties policies with regard to taxation. What is to be taxed, is this to be flat rate or progressive? Is there any taxation? For those without taxation how do you reward those who work for the government? This all boils down to two basic questions: Who pays? and How do they pay?

I will quote from my manifesto


Taxation: This is to be abolished altogether. Instead... The government will not pay for anything... Simply because there will be no government.

Does that answer your question?

i believe that this is assuming that this is it's own rich country....

I don't think this question is really important...

These questions are important in the efficient uses of resources.

And as to your response on the taxation question, I assume this means that you are proposing complete political anarchy. No government, no law, no security, no defense, no communal tunnel maintenance, no worm improvement programs etc etc.

These questions are important in the efficient uses of resources.

And as to your response on the taxation question, I assume this means that you are proposing complete political anarchy. No government, no law, no security, no defense, no communal tunnel maintenance, no worm improvement programs etc etc.

There is a tunnel maintenance prgram, but apart form that no.

Check my manifesto (linky in siggy)


Building quality: Party Members are to go down all tunnels and check buildings to see if they meet a reasonable standard. Failure will result in being thrown to the surface and called, 'A surfacer'

There is a tunnel maintenance prgram, but apart form that no.

Check my manifesto (linky in siggy)


Ah. A one party authoritarian state then. What party members say is the law. Well, I won't be voting for that.

But, have you seen the policies!

Actually, you are pretty free...

You only have to not point out party stupidity...

Some technical questions that could impact on the manifestos.

What model of geographical nation are we trying to be elected in?

Is it a large, culturally varied country (USA style) better suited to federalism
or is it a smaller more coherent country (Holland style).

Do we presume a high level of technological and industrial infrastructure (1st world) or are we still crawling out of feudal serfdom (3rd world) ?

Do we have a large number of land neighbours, and are they of a similar state of development?

Is the territory prone to frequent natural disasters (Indian subcontinent monsson flooding/ Japanese earthquakes) or is it almost immune to such problems (Western Europe/ Brazil)?

How is the population at the moment: ageing or young?
Is there a population bulge making its way up the age categories?
Is there almost universal literacy?
Do we have excessive population growth, is the population stable, or is it in decline?

Do we have clear and obvious enemy states?

I can see why it would be important, but we're actually working in the abstract here. You can make assumptions if it really does help you, but other than that the idea is to suggest a manifesto that could apply more or less anywhere. Voters will be from various parts of the world, after all, and need to feel your manifesto is relevant to them.

I can see why it would be important, but we're actually working in the abstract here. You can make assumptions if it really does help you, but other than that the idea is to suggest a manifesto that could apply more or less anywhere. Voters will be from various parts of the world, after all, and need to feel your manifesto is relevant to them.

Fair enough

*Sets fire to opponant's manifestoes'

MY QUESTION

In several countries, the costs of buying a house or the ground to build your house on are very high. This is a result of a lack of space, real estate companies selling them for too much money or speculation.

People want houses of their own. They can't life for ever in the house of their parents or they are homeless.

How will you, parties, make housing cheaper?

:)

MY QUESTION

In several countries, the costs of buying a house or the ground to build your house on are very high. This is a result of a lack of space, real estate companies selling them for too much money or speculation.

People want houses of their own. They can't life for ever in the house of their parents or they are homeless.

How will you, parties, make housing cheaper?

:)

a good question, and MOBRA has the perfect soloution!


Housing: Everybody, by Law will be forced to live underground. It is your responsibility to build your own home and live in it. Refusial to live underground will get you labelled 'A surfacer' and you will forfeit all rights

You will build your own home for free underground!

MY QUESTION

In several countries, the costs of buying a house or the ground to build your house on are very high. This is a result of a lack of space, real estate companies selling them for too much money or speculation.

People want houses of their own. They can't life for ever in the house of their parents or they are homeless.

How will you, parties, make housing cheaper?

:)

Well, the United Democratic Communist Party advocates abolishing money altogether, in favour of a system based upon the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to merit". There is more than enough housing for all, especially given that in an economy which would no longer produce useless goods for the sake of creating artificial wants and generating profit, more energy would be devoted to needs such as housing. Housing will, therefore, be available to all under a UDCP government.

Arridia, you have a TG.

Fair enough

*Sets fire to opponant's manifestoes'

You could have waited till we had actually written something on it.

*removes all buried tresures that might include dictionaries*

You could have waited till we had actually written something on it.

*removes all buried tresures that might include dictionaries*

*Laughs*

Tough. I will win somehow!

can't we get a new question already?

MY QUESTION

In several countries, the costs of buying a house or the ground to build your house on are very high. This is a result of a lack of space, real estate companies selling them for too much money or speculation.

People want houses of their own. They can't life for ever in the house of their parents or they are homeless.

How will you, parties, make housing cheaper?

:)

We will remove all of the taxation on the purchase of your primary home. The cost of buliding will be held in check as there will be open and fair competition in house building. What we will not do is take your hard earned money and use this to house those who are not willing to work themselves.
House builders will be free to provide financing for house purchases. This will enable more houses to be built as the financial investment will no longer be placed in jeopardy or at risk by the potential purchaser's dependance on financial institutions. This will also reduce the cost of housing as only one profit making company is involved in the transaction.

This system will also enable you to find housing to suit your or your families needs and desires. You will not be restricted to regulation little boxes provided at massive overcost by the government. We give you the power to choose.

We will remove all of the taxation on the purchase of your primary home. The cost of buliding will be held in check as there will be open and fair competition in house building. What we will not do is take your hard earned money and use this to house those who are not willing to work themselves.
House builders will be free to provide financing for house purchases. This will enable more houses to be built as the financial investment will no longer be placed in jeopardy or at risk by the potential purchaser's dependance on financial institutions. This will also reduce the cost of housing as only one profit making company is involved in the transaction.

This system will also enable you to find housing to suit your or your families needs and desires. You will not be restricted to regulation little boxes provided at massive overcost by the government. We give you the power to choose.

One thing. were are you going to get the land from?

One thing. were are you going to get the land from?

On top of your tunnels.

Land purchase, for your primary home is tax free. When you buy a property, you buy the land. The initial sale of the land to the developer, or to you if you wish to build your own home, is from the local government. Obviously each local government will price land according to its market value. (Auctions being the direct method preferred, but again this depends on the local authority). If the land is not used or developed in any way inside one year, then there will be a compulsory repurchase of the land by the local authority for 70% of the original price paid. This is to prevent land speculation.

On top of your tunnels.


You wouldn't dare, surfacer!

Last chance for you, the voters (that's all of you!) to ask any questions you may have for the various parties.

I'd like to know where everyone stands on religious schools - such as Catholic schools, muslim schools and evangelical schools.

Should they be promoted or banned?

Should they be publicly or privately funded?
The Party of Whatever Works advocates parents being able to send their children to whatever school they so desire, religious or secular. We don't believe non-secular education should be either promoted or banned by the government, nor do we believe non-secular education should be publicly funded.

Is there a "green" (environmentalist) party? Cuz they can sign me up for that, me thinks...
The Party of Whatever Works advocates governmental "husbandry" of the environment. What this means in practice is that, any time there is a conflict between other demands of the society and possible adverse impact on the environment, our Party will come down on the side of the environment.

Im speaking as an Independent until im accepted into my desired Party!
Chlidren should be thrashed with the Whip if they step out of line!
http://www.ironmaiden.org/images/smilies/eyes.gif
The Party of Whatever Works is opposed to most forms of corporal punishment for children. The only exceptions might be when there is immient danger to the child or to others.

OK Let us get this on the move again.

What are your parties policies with regard to taxation. What is to be taxed, is this to be flat rate or progressive? Is there any taxation? For those without taxation how do you reward those who work for the government? This all boils down to two basic questions: Who pays? and How do they pay?
I think the issues plank number five from the Platform of The Party of Whatever Works explains our position on this:

5. Taxes. We advocate the total elimination of all deductions and exemptions, the taxation of every dollar of income for all individuals and organizations ( without exception! ), and the establishment of a fixed percentage for this taxation regardless of income, above a fixed minimum income level. We advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period ( and "sunset law" provisions for all programs remaining ), and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income.

Please let me know if you have other questions. We firmly believe that complete openness and forthrightness is vital to a workable government.

MY QUESTION

In several countries, the costs of buying a house or the ground to build your house on are very high. This is a result of a lack of space, real estate companies selling them for too much money or speculation.

People want houses of their own. They can't life for ever in the house of their parents or they are homeless.

How will you, parties, make housing cheaper?

:)
The Party of Whatever Works prefers to allow the cost of most goods and services to "float" in order to settle on a price which reflects both supply and demand. There are several exceptions to this, one of which is the problem of the ever-rising cost of real estate in a growing population.

Over the long term, we advocate strong governmental support for birth control, strict limitations on immigration and governmental encouragement of technological advances to raise the general income level for all who seek a higher standard of living.

For the short term, we feel the best approach is to base real estate taxes on a proportional scale based on the acreage of property used by private landowners, thus discouraging unbridled "land development."

Should these measures prove ineffective, more drastic measures may be taken, including an upper limit on the number of acres which may be devoted to single family dwellings.

... and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income.

Please let me know if you have other questions. We firmly believe that complete openness and forthrightness is vital to a workable government.

Does this mean that those who sit aback and do nothing useful or contributory receieve a salary from the government equal to a hard working manual labourer?
It sounds like it.

If it is the case, then why would anyone work in menial jobs?