elections

[wu_trax]

would you vote for a party you find absolutly disgusting, just because it probably would make the government form a coalition you think would be best?
some background: maybe you know, Schröder more or less gave up, so that we are going to have elections in autumn. now we have this new party (the 'left party', which sounds about as stupid as their entire program), basicly that is the same party as the one that ruled the former GDR (and build the wall, a notion i would pretty much support right now, as long as they build it at the same place, not around the whole country).
that party is doing pretty good right now (one would think people learn, but no ...). anyway, if this party would do relativly good, it would be very likely that neither of the two big party with their usual coalition partners would get enough votes to form a government, having the desired effect that they would have to form a "big coalition" between the two of them.
what would you do? as i said that party lives pretty far away from reality, so what they say in the parliament wouldnt matter too much for anyone with half a brain. but what if something goes wrong and they win the election or form a coaltion with the SPD? i would feel horrible for the next four years

[Deepflow]

i see tactical voting has got out of hand in Germany

[Marilyn Manson]

Why don't you just vote for Merkel? Everyone else will.

[Deepflow]

is Merkel the crazy lady?

[Marilyn Manson]

I don't really see why she's crazy. Aside from being a German, of course.

[Deepflow]

Is that not enough?

I'm assuming she is the one that everyone was comparing to Thatcher a while back (i read an ARTICLE about it, arent i clever?). Which would make her fairly crazy, as things go.

[Marilyn Manson]

I think the comparisons to Thatcher only really plausibly extend to the fact that she's a woman and she's in politics.

[Deepflow]

Isnt she planning to move the german economy to the "right" though?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

Isnt she planning to move the german economy to the "right" though?

yes, something like that. thats why they need to get into a coaltion with the spd, not with a small party that is even further right.
as for the comparison with Thatcher, MM is right.

[Deepflow]

but thats pretty much the only noteworthy thing thatcher did (gogosimplification), so if she seems to want to do it as well, surely that is some kind of comparison?

[wu_trax]

its not going to be that far right. she would be voted out of power long before then. besides, i dont think she has the economical qualifications to even know where far right is. Thatcher had some style, i doubt Merkel has any, i even doubt she can keep her party under control after winning.

[Deepflow]

so could she be described as a wannabe thatcher?

[wu_trax]

yes, that sounds right.

[Deepflow]

ace, now i know where we are.

anyway, back on topic, what exactly does the "left" party stand for?

[wu_trax]

'lynch the rich'?
edit to elaborate: they want higher taxes for the rich, taxes on property (in my opinion a really horrible idea, how can you tax something by its worth, not by the money that is earned with it?), force everyone into the public healthcare system (which would mean even less competition than we already have), minimum wages, minimum pensions, and so on. i guess thats enough to get the idea.

[DukePaul]

'lynch the right'?

[dda]

Vote for the candidate you favor. There are too many things that can go wrong trying it the other way.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

taxes on property (in my opinion a really horrible idea, how can you tax something by its worth, not by the money that is earned with it?)

1. Taxes on income / profit affect poorer people more since a poor person who earns £10,000 per annum pays the same taxes as someone who has ten million in the bank but also earns £10,000.

2. Taxes on income or profit act as an incentive against economic activity.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

1. Taxes on income / profit affect poorer people more since a poor person who earns £10,000 per annum pays the same taxes as someone who has ten million in the bank but also earns £10,000.

that rich person still has to pay taxes for the interest he makes with that 10,000,000. if buiness is bad enough to make him earn only 10,000 a year with that money, do you really want to punish him further and take away some of his capital?

2. Taxes on income or profit act as an incentive against economic activity.

depends on what you spend that tax money on.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if buiness is bad enough to make him earn only 10,000 a year with that money, do you really want to punish him further and take away some of his capital?

Yes. Think of it as an incentive not to be shit. And more directly, it encourages pushing resources towards more profitable enterprises (i.e. producing more "value"). Right now we have large amounts of resources (e.g. land) in very low productivity activities. This is not something we should want to continue.

depends on what you spend that tax money on.

Not really - I'm presuming in these cases an equal amount of taxation in either case. At the moment I am punished if I make more profit / increase my income. Even if the government uses the money to increase economic activity generally (which they could do with any sort of tax revenue) then the disincentive is still there.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes. Think of it as an incentive not to be shit. And more directly, it encourages pushing resources towards more profitable enterprises (i.e. producing more "value"). Right now we have large amounts of resources (e.g. land) in very low productivity activities. This is not something we should want to continue.

it punishes investments (the more your company is worth, the more taxes you have to pay and you dont even have to be sucesfull for that). you get even punished for buying your own house.

Not really - I'm presuming in these cases an equal amount of taxation in either case. At the moment I am punished if I make more profit / increase my income. Even if the government uses the money to increase economic activity generally (which they could do with any sort of tax revenue) then the disincentive is still there.

unless you allow taxations of more than 100% you still have more money though.

[Nusselt]

If you do get this merkel wench in for gods sake make sure you stab her in the back and kick her out as soon as you can.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

it punishes investments (the more your company is worth, the more taxes you have to pay and you dont even have to be sucesfull for that).

It depends on what type of property you're talking about.

I'd want* nimble small companies with high levels of profit to pay less taxes than lumbering large corporations with low levels of profit. Larger companies are using more resources to achieve less. If you tax profit (in this context) you're merely punishing success.

you get even punished for buying your own house.

Owner occupation isn't a particularly amazing tenure to encourage.

unless you allow taxations of more than 100% you still have more money though.

This doesn't make any sense. Why would being taxed a proportion of your income lead to having more money? If you're saying "Well, the government can use tax revenues to boost the economy" well then they can do that anyway under ANY type of tax, so that's not an advance of income/profit taxes.

* = Well obviously I don't "want" any of this, but within the context of the state/economy we have today.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It depends on what type of property you're talking about.

I'd want* nimble small companies with high levels of profit to pay less taxes than lumbering large corporations with low levels of profit. Larger companies are using more resources to achieve less. If you tax profit (in this context) you're merely punishing success.

if a company is really doing that bad, someone is going to buy it, take it apart and then sell the individual pices. happens all the time. that ensure efficeny, without any state envolvment. besides, the owners of such companies (or other investments) always want the mqaximum profit they can get (unless you tax them by more than 100%, in that case it obviously doesnt make sense anymore)

Owner occupation isn't a particularly amazing tenure to encourage.

do you rather want the poor to be exploided by the evil capital once more, because it doesnt make sense for them to buy a house?

This doesn't make any sense. Why would being taxed a proportion of your income lead to having more money? If you're saying "Well, the government can use tax revenues to boost the economy" well then they can do that anyway under ANY type of tax, so that's not an advance of income/profit taxes.

* = Well obviously I don't "want" any of this, but within the context of the state/economy we have today.

it makes perfect sense. you have a job that pays 10,000 whatever a year, you get a job offer for 20,000 a year. even with a progressive taxation youd still have more money with the 20,000-per-year-job that with your old one, wouldnt you?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if a company is really doing that bad, someone is going to buy it, take it apart and then sell the individual pices. happens all the time.

Yeah, so?

And not all tax-paying entities want to make lots of profit - I work for an organisation which makes no profit at all for instance.

that ensure efficeny, without any state envolvment.

No, there are still a LOT of inefficient uses of land/property, etc

do you rather want the poor to be exploided by the evil capital once more, because it doesnt make sense for them to buy a house?

That has very little to do with anything, as they're exploited (in the narrowest sense) in either case. I live in a country with a lot higher rates of owner occupation than your country, and our housing system is pretty dire (from most angles).

it makes perfect sense. you have a job that pays 10,000 whatever a year, you get a job offer for 20,000 a year. even with a progressive taxation youd still have more money with the 20,000-per-year-job that with your old one, wouldnt you?

Yes, but that's true for any taxation system. The point is now, that if you want to increase the amount of hours you work (say) you'll end up paying disproportionately more tax. So a lot of individuals don't bother.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, so?

And not all tax-paying entities want to make lots of profit - I work for an organisation which makes no profit at all for instance.

and you want them to? what does this organisation do?

No, there are still a LOT of inefficient uses of land/property, etc

there always is some.

That has very little to do with anything, as they're exploited (in the narrowest sense) in either case. I live in a country with a lot higher rates of owner occupation than your country, and our housing system is pretty dire (from most angles).

why in any case?

Yes, but that's true for any taxation system. The point is now, that if you want to increase the amount of hours you work (say) you'll end up paying disproportionately more tax. So a lot of individuals don't bother.

in that case they value their free time higher than the extra money they would make. and no, it isnt true for taxes on assets (thats the correct translation of what im talking about, i just looked it up, i dont think that makes any difference, does it?)), because that is in no way related to what you do with your money. you can make a crappy investment, loose 90% of your money and youd still have to pay taxes on the 10% you managed to keep. its kind of a head tax for money.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and you want them to? what does this organisation do?

"Want" is a strong word as I've already said - I don't want capitalism to exist. But in general I think not being taxed in this sense is a strong incentive to do nothing.

And the organisation provides housing.

why in any case?

Because the vast majority of owner occupiers end up being "exploited" by their mortgage companies and whichever maintenance company does repairs, etc. Not to mention the freeholders in the case of the large amount of flat owners, etc.

in that case they value their free time higher than the extra money they would make.

Yes. They've made a cost benefit analysis. If someone said to me "Hey D, for £100 per week, would you like to work another 10 hours?". I might say yes if I thought I'd get that £100, instead I know after the various income/profit taxes I'd get closer to £50 so I probably wouldn't bother.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes. Think of it as an incentive not to be shit.

so someone is shit because of something they were born with? (in this case money)

it's not easy to see how you differ from old school racists or fuedal lords.

except of course that you don't wash your trousers

how much luckier i am to take a purely meritocratic view of shitness.

those who earn the title shit by what they do in life... and of course, the posts they make.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

so someone is shit because of something they were born with?

Erm...I didn't mean to say that people with money were shit. I was referring to wu_traxs point about :

if buiness is bad enough to make him earn only 10,000 a year with that money, do you really want to punish him further and take away some of his capital?

I apologise if my phrasing was that poor that you thought I meant something else. When I said "shit" I meant of course "shit at business" in line with wu_trax's point about business being bad (or bad at business you might say).

Of course if you want to believe that I'm saying anyone born with money is "shit" then feel free.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"Want" is a strong word as I've already said - I don't want capitalism to exist. But in general I think not being taxed in this sense is a strong incentive to do nothing.

And the organisation provides housing.

as long as the taxation isnt too high the extra money you make is a strong incentive. for captial its always stronger than the extra taxes you have to pay.

Because the vast majority of owner occupiers end up being "exploited" by their mortgage companies and whichever maintenance company does repairs, etc. Not to mention the freeholders in the case of the large amount of flat owners, etc.

well, at least you have something on your own when you paid back that mortgage. just any example anyway.

Yes. They've made a cost benefit analysis. If someone said to me "Hey D, for £100 per week, would you like to work another 10 hours?". I might say yes if I thought I'd get that £100, instead I know after the various income/profit taxes I'd get closer to £50 so I probably wouldn't bother.

thats just an extra cost for making those 50£ (kind of like not taking a better paid job for which you would have to drive 150km a day, because its not worth it because of the fuel prices)
taxes on assetes are fundamentally different. (see edit above)

[Judge]

I believe that Germany has Proportional Representation as a voting system, with the single transferable vote system.

Whereby a voter makes selections ie: 1st 2nd 3rd choice and that if your first choice fails then your vote is transfered to the 2nd and so on.

Well here is how to bugger up the system, make only ONE choice, that way the vote becomes a first past the post system by default, and the effect (if everyone or a significant number do it) is to skew the result in the favour of the first choice candidates/parties and deny the second and third place choices the transfered vote.

[wu_trax]

i cant make much sense of what you wrote, but i try to explain our voting system anyway:
you have two votes. the first vote is for one specific candidate (in other words you vote for one seat in the parliament). the 2nd vote is the proportional vote that later is used to decide which party gets how many seats. if you win more seats with the 1st vote than with the 2nd one, new seats are added to the parliament. for a party to become a faction in the new parliament it needs to either win 3 direct seats or 5% of the 2nd votes. if they win 3 direct seats and, lets say, 4% of the 2nd votes they get 4% of the total seats. if they only win two seats they get only these two seats.
that should be more or less it. if this looks biased towards big parties, yes it is. its a crappy system, i dont fully understand what we need the first vote for at all.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

that should be more or less it. if this looks biased towards big parties, yes it is. its a crappy system, i dont fully understand what we need the first vote for at all.

Wasn't the bias deliberately to exclude smaller "extreme" parties. I thought you'd approve of that sort of thing?

[wu_trax]

we can ban extremist parties, its a bit tricky and i think it has never been done in practise, but still, in theory its possible other than that parites still need 5% of the total vote, which excludes all those weird people we dont want in politics.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Judge

I believe that Germany has Proportional Representation as a voting system, with the single transferable vote system.

Nope, Germany uses the Additional Member system, although I personally think that STV is by far superior (multiple member constituencies <3 ).

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Wasn't the bias deliberately to exclude smaller "extreme" parties. I thought you'd approve of that sort of thing?

I suppose that that type of thing is seen as a slippery slope, given the past actions of one of Germany's political parties. The 5% threshold has always seemed to me (as an outsider) fairly reasonable.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

that should be more or less it. if this looks biased towards big parties, yes it is. its a crappy system, i dont fully understand what we need the first vote for at all.

What I think you're advocating is a List system of electing your Bundestag members, where everyone votes for only for a party. The problem with the List system is that it forms very weak governments, for example in Israel, where the ruling coalition can be taken down at any time by one minor party leaving the coalition. The haggling that comes with coalitions is particularly bad in legislatures created by the List system, and so there is less progress made, especially at critical times.

Moreover, there are considerable benefits in actually voting for a candidate. In the UK (where we have the opposite, the First Past the Post/Plurality system), the MP is expected to represent his/her constituents and look after their needs. With a List system, the people are often very detached from politicians, whereas at least in the UK, people have their own representative in Parliament. Not that they always take advantage of it.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by furball

Nope, Germany uses the Additional Member system, .

Thanks

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by furball

The 5% threshold has always seemed to me (as an outsider) fairly reasonable.

Since one of the main advantages of PR is that "every vote counts" (well, sort of) the 5% thing seems rather unjust.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Since one of the main advantages of PR is that "every vote counts" (well, sort of) the 5% thing seems rather unjust.

we tried that, it didnt work.

[wu_trax]

What I think you're advocating is a List system of electing your Bundestag members, where everyone votes for only for a party. The problem with the List system is that it forms very weak governments, for example in Israel, where the ruling coalition can be taken down at any time by one minor party leaving the coalition. The haggling that comes with coalitions is particularly bad in legislatures created by the List system, and so there is less progress made, especially at critical times.

Moreover, there are considerable benefits in actually voting for a candidate. In the UK (where we have the opposite, the First Past the Post/Plurality system), the MP is expected to represent his/her constituents and look after their needs. With a List system, the people are often very detached from politicians, whereas at least in the UK, people have their own representative in Parliament. Not that they always take advantage of it.

ok, good point, although i believe that any coalition with more than two parties is unstable, no matter what system. your direct vote has its advatages, but you pratically eliminate all small parites. Without the greens for example we wouldnt stop using nuclear power within the next few decades (that was actually a pretty stupid decision with kyoto and stuff, but the public supports it, so ...)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

we tried that, it didnt work.

I don't think that's a particular fair analysis though. Abolishing the threshold would hardly bring around rampant extremism by itself, would it?

[wu_trax]

no, i didnt want to say that. it's just that governments during the weimarer republic weren't very stable.

[Deepflow]

I think (I HOPE) the general stability of the world is slightly greater than it was post ww1 though.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Since one of the main advantages of PR is that "every vote counts" (well, sort of) the 5% thing seems rather unjust.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't think that's a particular fair analysis though. Abolishing the threshold would hardly bring around rampant extremism by itself, would it?

However, it creates the opportunity. Germany has had a problem with extremism, including the rise in Neo-Nazism in the 1990s. Since the Nazi Party happened in Germany, there's more chance of idiots being drawn to them than in other countries.

I would prefer it if no parties were banned. However, people espousing extreme beliefs such as those associated with Nazism do not deserve a place in politics, especially when they encourage violence against particular social/racial groups (e.g. anti-Semitism).

Therefore I can accept the need for the 5% threshold in Germany, even though I would not like to see it here. Proportional systems by their very nature give a chance to extreme parties, whereas ours does not.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

ok, good point, although i believe that any coalition with more than two parties is unstable, no matter what system. your direct vote has its advatages, but you pratically eliminate all small parites. Without the greens for example we wouldnt stop using nuclear power within the next few decades (that was actually a pretty stupid decision with kyoto and stuff, but the public supports it, so ...)

Our system has many flaws as well, I'm not looking to defend it. In the ideal world, we would adopt STV. However, it'll never happen since to change the system, a party has to get elected under FPTP. They will want to stay in office, and changing to a more proportional system would almost guarantee that they would lose a degree of power, even if they did not lose office. Everyone's forgotten that New Labour's 1997 manifesto promised electoral reform.


Oh and by the way, I'd like to adopt 50%+ nuclear power

[Texan]

I thought you were an SPD guy, Wu.

[Curufinwe]

How can one possibly want a coalition between the two big parties??? This is the worst thing possible that could happen. I'd rather have a couple of years under the new leftist party and have them ruin the country quickly. With a coalition of the big parties the ruining will be slower and extremist parties on the left and right will profit from this. It would be years of comprimise on the smallest possible level while what is needed it a real change.
I also wonder why you call the FDP more right than the CDU? Some of their economic proposals are more neoliberal but other than that their program is not too bad. Especially regarding personal freedom and rights I would rather have the FDP in the coalition as a combination of Beckstein / Schily were basically everybody is suspicious and a possible terrorist.

[wu_trax]

i was talking economically right. with the smallest possible compromises at least something would happen. but if cdu+fdp wins, i tell you what will happen. the pds will win some states in the east, the spd will win back some states in the west and in 2-3 years we will have the same mess we have had for the last 10-15 years. a bundestag controlled by one party and a budesrat controlled by the opposition.

[Curufinwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i was talking economically right. with the smallest possible compromises at least something would happen. but if cdu+fdp wins, i tell you what will happen. the pds will win some states in the east, the spd will win back some states in the west and in 2-3 years we will have the same mess we have had for the last 10-15 years. a bundestag controlled by one party and a budesrat controlled by the opposition.

You are probably right that the window of opportunity to make changes for a CDU/FDP government is only about 1-2 years. But this is better than the 15 of deadlock we had, which were in fact already a coalition between the two big parties. Look what it brought us:
- reforms aiming to bring to unemployment -> 0% success
- health care -> still paying the same as before, well at least it is not yet more as before
- pension system -> don't want to think about it

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Curufinwe

You are probably right that the window of opportunity to make changes for a CDU/FDP government is only about 1-2 years. But this is better than the 15 of deadlock we had, which were in fact already a coalition between the two big parties. Look what it brought us:
- reforms aiming to bring to unemployment -> 0% success
- health care -> still paying the same as before, well at least it is not yet more as before
- pension system -> don't want to think about it

you cant fix the whole system in a few years. the epnsion system is going to collapse and there isnt much that can be done about that. same with healthcare, although a lower unemployment rate might help.
as for the unemployment: our main problem is the domestic demand, and you certainly dont fix that by scaring people into saving even more of their money. im afraid CDU/FDP are going to overshot it when they run the country alone.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

you cant fix the whole system in a few years. the epnsion system is going to collapse and there isnt much that can be done about that. same with healthcare, although a lower unemployment rate might help.
as for the unemployment: our main problem is the domestic demand, and you certainly dont fix that by scaring people into saving even more of their money. im afraid CDU/FDP are going to overshot it when they run the country alone.

Did you ever consider sending all of the foreigners living off of the social system back to their home countries? Maybe also have German people do the work instead of bringing in labor from other countries.

[wu_trax]

the few asyluum seekers we still allow in? i dont think that would make much of a difference. or the unemployed turks and whoever else came here in the 60s? i dont think that would be fair, besides theyd still have a right on their money, no matter where they live.
personally id allow more imigration instead of less. thats the only way i see right now for a quickfix of our demographic problems.