Um, this hub needs a lot of work!

1. 69

   Sue Adamsposted 9 years ago

   No offense meant Tess, I'm only trying to figure out why, from a moderator's point of view, this brilliant article may not be featured. So here are 3 points to consider:
   
   1. You may want to delete this entire italic section:
   "My reasoning is that because, one way or another, they earned that money on the backs of others, they should pay most of it back in tax, i.e. 90%. To my mind, anyone who earns under $500,000 per year shouldn’t pay tax at all, anyone who earns between $500,000 and $2 million a year should pay 10% of gross (no exceptions),etc. I would design a tax table like this...
   
   $1 - $500,000 per annum – no tax
   
   $501,000 to $2 million – 10% tax rate on gross income. No deductions.
   
   $2 million to $10 million – 25% tax on gross. No deductions.
   
   $11 million to to $50 million – 60% tax on gross. No deductions.
   
   Above $51 million per annum - 90% tax on gross. No deductions.
   
   In addition, there is a tax on all goods sold, with the exception of good, drink, and homes under a certain price. The more expensive/luxurious the product, the more tax is paid. This means that people with more money will pay most of the tax, and that is the way it should be.
   
   If their income hadn’t been derived on the backs of others, then others would have more and they would have less. Capitalism is a system of unequal exchange in which workers are paid less than they are worth and owners are paid more than they are worth."
   
   Why delete the entire section?
   Because by stating backed up facts only, rather than your personal opinion / manifesto,  your article makes a strong enough case to show the vast injustices of privatisation. Plus, it is long enough without it.
   ______________________________________________
   
   2. Over-use of brackets?
   At the end of this paragraph, you could maybe  use bullet points instead of brackets.
   
   "The goals of business and government differ
   
   ..... At basic levels, this would include their safety (preventing invasion and crime), an infrastructure that worked for everybody (roads, bridges, public transport), essential communication (phones, radio, internet), education, medical, etc."
   
   Change to:
   ..... At basic levels, this would include their safety
   . preventing invasion and crime
   An infrastructure that worked for everybody
   . roads
   . bridges
   . public transport
   Essential communication
   . phones
   . radio
   .  internet
   Education
   Health
   . medical
   . pharmaceutical
   . research etc.
   ______________________________________________
   
   3. Check your Poll
   phrases 3, 4, and 5 -  "policy" should be "police".

   replyreport
2. 69

   Sue Adamsposted 9 years ago

   Hi Tess,
   You and I share common ground. I didn't say that the article was too long. I meant that it was long enough to afford losing the personal manifesto. I too feel inclined to do that as shown in this extract from
   
   http://hubpages.com/politics/is-the-eur … o-collapse
   
   "Are Governments Duped by Business or Accomplices?
   
   It is now blatantly clear that the powers of the global financial system are elevated far beyond governments. The electorate has been duped into voting for puppets trained and paid by gambling addicts  who have but one single goal: to make more money. Such people have lost all notion of what government functions are:
   
   A government is elected to administer:
   1. infrastructure
   2. education
   3. good health for its citizens
   4. social services for the poor
   5. justice & security
   6. stringent and enforced laws for banks and multinationals
   
   
   
   A government is NOT elected to meddle in
   borrowing
   private businesses
   the stock market
   arms deals
   acts of war
   the media"
   
   As it is so close to your ideas, I would be interested in your critique of that article, Tess.
   
   As for opinions, it's hard to refrain. I now believe that it is journalistically more correct to try and stick to facts. That way, the audience may arrive at their own opinion (hopefully similar to the author's) . I.e. lead the reader into formulating thoughts similar to yours. Leave room for thought.
   
   But that's just my "opinion"

   replyreport
   1. 0

      TessSchlesingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      GDPR Deleted
      1. 69

         Sue Adamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for your feedback. I'll work on it.

         replyreport