Brains wrote:
1. insanely tax riches (both persons and companies)
2. provide a very well funded safety net for poors, so that they can quit working-just-to-piece-the-ends-together and start working to save money and buy their own houses
3. outlaw lobbying
4. outlaw being able to get elected if you have interests in business: sit on a board, have a high position in private companies, have had your complete carreer in business, even - have too many business friends would lead to your non-election in politics, see (3). a separation between politics and business, like we (should) have between church and politics.
that would be some initial things popping into me' brains.
1. BUST - If you insanely tax the rich, you defeat the purpose of having people strive to success. There is no benefit to having higher taxes that normalize your income to some social comfort zone. Raising taxes does not help defeat poverty, especially in America. We prove it time and time again.
2. A well funded safety net for poverty, huh? Do all your suggestions include money? Some actually SAVE money over time:
http://www.isles.org/
Isles is a non-profit I help out with on behalf of my company. They take kids (15-24) who are by demographic and testing headed to jail. They give them a 2 year accelerated education, and construction skills. They teach them them how to refurbish the house they will one day have the chance to buy from the organization. They teach them to be financially responsible, and give them solid community contact for good job references, healthy neighborhoods, and strong feelings of togetherness. This is crucial to Trenton's revival.
In Trenton, there was a huge population of factory workers, who raised their kids to drop out and get a job at the plant. The plants are closed, and the career guidance they got from their parents and grandparents is useless. They are doing the best they can to get Trenton back to being a place people can live safely and enjoy success.
It costs 18,000 per year for a kid to go Isles. If he sticks with the program (which is pretty tough for some of them), total cost of everything, including his wages, which are given to him in allotments he helps decide on, his two years cost the organization about 40,000 dollars. That is 80,000 dollars we pay to get the kid on a path that in the end doesn't cost 24783 dollars a year. If he ends up in prison for five years, we save. And if he goes to prison for five years, he is not going to have much of a chance to ever get out and get clean. Could you imagine what it would like to enjoy this kind of program throughout the country? The prison industry would collapse. Then, people would have jobs, ideas for their own business, guidance on how to succeed, and willingness to work hard for good work. I would say there are at least 3 Million people in jail right now, who would do this easy, and make it through. We would save over 74 billion dollars in prison costs in 5 years with 3 million participants, and if those 3 million are left in prison for 5 years, they have a big chance of staying longer or returning.
And the effect would be felt generational. Most of those kids in prison, would have their sons end up in prison, etc. Most of the people through isles raise families in their OWN community, and their kids grow up to be achievers, going to college instead of prison.
They have a 340% higher sucess rehabilitation rate than the local prison system. In fact many of the heads of departments are "graduates" of the system. IT WORKS!
3. I agree there should be stricter regulation on lobbying, but you can't really outlaw lobbying. It's actually what our own elected officials are doing for us. By allowing people to Incorporate, you have to allow them due representation for the Entity that their common will composes. I would state something like a limit, and a requirement that for every dollar you lobby, you have to provide proof you did 35 cents of charitible contributions, and a nickel's worth of contributions to the economic improvement of an allied nation. 60:40 sounds about right.
4. That is a step back, in my opinion. You need proven businesspersons to effectively maintain the global economy. Having the notion of a seperated politician is just not a good one. ask North Korea, china, or any empire.
