[KPres]

Everybody has some money. It's a matter of whether you're willing to live beneath your means in order to increase. A wisely invested $50 returns the same % as a wisely invested $5 million.

[Wolfman]

You may want to look at a break down of the Forbes 400.

[KPres]

They've lost tons of money recently, meaning they'd have less power in the next election under my meritocracy. Isn't that what you want?

[Wolfman]

That is not at all what I was referring to. About 50% of the people in the Forbes 400 had enough of an inheretence to qualify for the Forbes 400. The majority of the rest increased there net worth a small amount. There is very little movement between income groups. You'd be rewarding people for being lucky enough to be born to rich families.

[KPres]

You're not paying attention. A poor man who doubles his wealth gets the same credit as a rich man who doubles his wealth.

[Wolfman]

You're not paying attention. It doesn't matter, because a rich man is more likely to double his money then a poor man.

[KPres]

Of course, rich people tend to make better financial decisions. That deserves credit in a meritocracy.

[Wolfman]

No, rich people have more money to work with then poor people. Again, crony/nepotism based system.

[KPres]

You apparently don't understand what a percentage-based system is.

[Wolfman]

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/ ... ons_F1.pdf

No, you don't understand that there is very little economic mobility across generations because rich people have more money to invest.

[KPres]

Your cause and effect is backwards. That correlation has little to do with the amount of money you have and everything to do with culture values that respect character traits that increase weath, such as responsibility and delayed gratification. The rich tend to value those things, the poor tend not to. The wealthy gain wealth quicker than the poor for the same reason that intelligent people acquire knowledge faster that stupid people. All of this needs to be accounted for in your meritocracy.

[Wolfman]

Thats interesting.... then why the hell does Paris Hilton have money?

Edit: For that matter, why not provide some proof for that claim?

[KPres]

Paris Hilton will no doubt lose money over her lifetime, or at least acquire it a slower pace than her father did.

And if Paris Hilton is your best example of a shitty rich person, then I'll consider my argument won, because I can walk through any poor neighborhood and find tons and tons of people who behave far worse than her. She parties too much, but she's not strung out on crack or meth.

[KPres]

Edit: For that matter, why not provide some proof for that claim?

The burden of proof is on you, since it's your position that character traits and cultural values have no effect on the generation of wealth, which is contrary to common sense.

edit: Do you really doubt I could produce evidence if I cared to that wealthy people engage in risky and dangerous behavior less frequently than poor people?

[Wolfman]

Based on SAMHSA's 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 18% of youths age 12 to 17 (4.6 million) lived in families with annual incomes of less than $20,000 per year, 35% (8.8 million) in families with incomes between $20,000 to $49,999, 19% (4.8 million) in families with incomes between $50,000 to $74,999, and 27.6% in families with incomes of $75,000 or more.

Not a whole lot of difference there bucko.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/youthInco ... Income.cfm

The burden of proof is on you, since it's your position that character traits and cultural value have no effect on the generation of wealth, which is contrary to common sense

The burden of proof lies with you. You're trying to proof that those are bigger indicators of wealth generation.

[William_H_Dougherty]

By your chart, Wolfman, I would have more "points" than 90% of the posters on this forum.

I would hope that would illustrate why it is flawed, as I sincerely value all your opinions and, because of a few pieces of paper and extra years spent in a classroom, think my opinion is any more valid than anybody elses.

Money is also a stupid way of determining "points". It would essentially lead to an entrenched upper class electing politicians who would do everything in their power to keep the rich rich (hey, sounds like the US now!).

No, the answer is one vote, one person and minimal resposibilities for our elected officials.

- WHD

[Cartertonian]

Way to go, WHD!

I missed this thread, first time round (it's that damn non-functioning search function!)

Minimum age to run for any political office set at 40
-Politician must be native to the region they represent, or have been a resident for a minimum of 15 consecutive years.
-Anyone with a law degree immediately barred from running for office (outside of the judicial branch).
-Must have a degree or equivalent experience related to anything they manage.
-Political parties banned.
-Private campaign financing banned.

Minimum age to run for any political office set at 40Absolutely!!! Away with you, all you babes-in-arms, return to suckling at the teat.

Politician must be native to the region they represent, or have been a resident for a minimum of 15 consecutive years.
15 years is too long, make it 5 and it would get my vote. (declared self-interest - I led an itinerant lifestyle as a child, due to my dad's job, and I continue to do so due to mine - why should that exclude me from politics?)

Anyone with a law degree immediately barred from running for office Silly. Government IS essentially the legislature - the law-makers. There is intrinsic benefit in having people who understand how laws are drafted, ratified, implimented and applied within one's legislature.

Must have a degree or equivalent experience related to anything they manage. ...In apparent contrast to the previous point, whilst it is a beguiling notion to entrust the former judge with the justice department, the former soldier with defence, the former doctor (or nurse... ) with health, etc, it is worth bearing in mind that ministers are effectively chairpersons of committees that decide what their departments are going to do. I used to be chair of governors at our local school, but I knew fuck all about primary school education. The point was that I had people who did advising me, but could bring complete (or at least significant) objectivity to the decision-making process precisely because I didn't know about - and therefore was unbiased by - what goes on in education. The only difficulty arises when a minister is given absolute executive power and may therefore ignore the advice he is given. That can be obviated by sensible governance measures.

Political parties banned.

Private campaign financing banned Private campaign financing heavily regulated. Politics ought not to be about who can raise the most money.

Make it so!

[Cookie Monster]

Meritocracy, another way of saying the ruling class must have been privileged for their merit.

[Cartertonian]

So the very idea of 'merit' is objectionable to you?

[Kricket0960]

The problem with "meritocracy" is that there's no perfect way to assign merit.

Kind of reminds me of the quote, "if you want to know how the company's doing, ask the janitor."