I agree, anything can substain its self whilst been funded by outside means, but if something is good, it would continue anyway, as for asking us to fund the parties, they are asking more of the poor of this country, where on earth are they expected to keep getting their money from.. they don't have life savings and a bottomless pit of money. I would ask, if this was to come into force, was that they take a substantial drop in their income, and live like the rest of us.. After all their wages comes out of our taxes as well, How they have ever been able to justify getting what they get, when after all, they are only doing a job, and not a satisfactory one at that.
Robin Hood clearly had the right idea
2006-10-23 00:25:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
although not perfect, it would be preferable to the current system, where through loans (that do not have to be repaid) the hyper rich can buy the democracy and pervert the cause of Parliamentary Democracy. when politicians represent the people who have bought and paid for them, and not the people that elect them.
We do need a better system still. Perhaps all the money saved by scrapping the ID cards scheme could be put into an anonymous pot and distributed equally amongst the political parties.
2006-10-23 00:40:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by kenhallonthenet 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
if can prevent corruption then its a small price to pay. If somebody loans or donates you millions of pounds every year they will have an unfair influence over a political party, and also if funds are shared out proportionately then it stops the big parties dominating by virtue of being able to spend more on an advertising campaign than others.
2006-10-23 00:26:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I suppose the counter to this is that any free money they might get from donors; is it really free?
I think the problem with giving money from taxes is, is there any fair way to give it? On what basis is the money allocated that will not prevent the growth of other new parties, and will not be focused on the current parties and inhibiting competition.
2006-10-23 00:22:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Barbara Doll to you 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
State funding in countries for political parties such as Germany has carried on for years in order to ensure fairness between parties and ensure that parties did not become corrupt or tied to big business and be accused of pandering to their needs. It is hard for smaller and newer parties to enter the political realm as they do not have the same level of sponsorship as the more established parties.
2006-10-23 01:24:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Legally, morally and ethically wrong and should remain so.
All party campaign donations should be publicly available for scrutiny, not held to be inviolably confidential, should never be tax deductible, and subject to cause/effect analysis to eliminate corruption and preferential "pay for regulation" outcomes.
2006-10-23 00:44:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by malancam55 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
The two parties in power are worried that they will not be in power and they need to do something to exclude others from the process. This would certainly acclomplish that.
2006-10-23 00:27:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by waggy_33 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Do you want a dollar going to presidential fund?
Is that not the question on your tax forms every April?
Now if that dollar is not from the tax payers, where is it from?
2006-10-23 00:17:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It`s wrong, if a political party dosn`t have enough financial support bad luck !
2006-10-23 00:25:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by wolfe_tone43 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
do you mean the political parties, or the piss up parties they have and you secretly help pay the bill! my feelings are the same for both, and i wont spell it out or i will get expelled
2006-10-23 00:31:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by srracvuee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋