Multiple Voting Rights.
It seems to me that everyone having a vote is hardly fair when some people contribute more to society than others.  Surely the people who put in most should have the biggest say.

I believe that everyone should have one vote. 

But then extra votes could be earned.  Any pair of parents who have brought up their children without the intervention of the police or social workers should be entitled to another.

Let us give extra votes to first aiders, and to special constables, to people who do voluntary work for charity, and to those selfless individuals who organise scout/guide groups, become lifeguards at swimming pools, or is a crew member for the RNLI.

Poets should get an extra vote, by acclimation of those who enjoy their poetry.   Anyone who has published a novel, or sold paintings, or other art forms should get an extra vote.  Working musicians, amateur choristers, local dramatic societies should all count to qualifying for extra votes.

Now, it would be foolish to suggest that successful businessmen should have extra votes for the size of their business, because comparison with the old days of buying favour would be made.  But why not give extra votes to people in the ratio of the number of people they employ, or perhaps create jobs for?

In fact the only way you would _not_ qualify for extra votes is by working 9 to 5 (we all have to do that) or vegging in front of the television.

Some people would accumulate several votes, maybe half a dozen.  I think it would make for a fairer society and encourage people to do more for each other.

                                                         Bob Harvey  

Top

Petrol Tax
Since the upper income tax level of 40% was calculated, salaries in that
bracket have increased almost unchecked. If you don't believe this, start
reading the FT.

Think of it. The Thatcher government enabled companies to fire workforces
almost at will, and many thousands were laid off. The new workforces were,
and still are a fraction of the originals and those who were re-hired were
offered a lower salary and had to work harder. Did the reduced payroll cost
reduce prices? Definitely not. If anything they increased. Moreover imports
from those countries abroad whose workers are paid a handful of rice per day
also increased.

Where did the difference go? Correct in one - into the pockets of management
and company owners. It's rather ironic that not only did management gain an
increase in income, but because their tax level had been reduced, the
ordinary man in the street had to pay higher rates. In a few words, those in
the higher income bracket received a double rise in pay, while those in the
lower income bracket were hit twice with a lower income and higher rates.

Because of this, I strongly feel that the higher paid should have to pay at
least another five per cent in income tax to offset a reduction in petrol
tax.

Jim Bell


Top