Skip to comments.Fair shares for everyone
Posted on 12/01/2012 7:30:13 PM PST by combat_boots
A group in the Midlands are pooling their income and distributing it according to needs. Andrea Smith reports Share
Part-time management consultant Guy Simmons earns £322 a week - yet every time he needs a new shirt for work, he has to get the agreement of five other people.
Guy, 52, is a member of an East Midlands group called Snowball, which opposes capitalism and consumerism. The five adult members and one child pool every penny of their income, redistributing it according to need.
Youth worker Katy Wright, 36, says: "Really, we are a little welfare state, but we are people-sized. People can see in their own lives that sharing resources works."
The group - called Snowball because they hoped that it would - grew out of the London squatters' movement in the 1970s. Now more than 20 years old, it is one of about half-a-dozen formal, income-sharing pools in Britain.
Each has its own system. Snowball meets fortnightly. Everyone declares his or her income and requirements for cash. The first call on the kitty is for cash for food, rent and household bills. Added to this, each adult receives £17.50 pocket money a week. The youngest member, 11-year-old Hertha Taverner-Wood, receives a pound for every year of her age.
Requests are then made for childcare costs or non-NHS medical treatment, for example. These are usually agreed without question. Next people ask for cash for expenditure such as clothing - often second-hand - or conference fees.
This category of outgoings is more open to debate, but disagreements are rare as each member tries to be mindful of the others in making requests. Perhaps it is this openness that has deterred free-loaders. Wright explains: "Basically, people self-select."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
“Race, class and opportunity: John A. Powell
October 4, 2009
A very good 4 part series on race, class and opportunity done by the Real News Network. Part 1 is below.
John A. Powell: Professor and Williams Chair in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University and Executive Director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, john powell is an internationally recognized authority in the areas of civil rights, civil liberties, and issues relating to race, ethnicity, poverty, and the law. He was previously national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, founder and director of the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota, and a co-founder of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council. He formerly taught at law schools including Harvard and Columbia University. Professor powell serves on the board of several national organizations. He holds a J.D. from the University of California Berkeley, and a B.A. from Stanford University.”
No doubt, part of the ‘national standards’ inherent in Race to the Top funding: itself, an unfunded mandate that makes W’s K-16 initiative a piker.
“February 22, 2011
Domini, Other Investors, and Civil Society Organizations Call on Multinationals to Pay Fair Share of Taxes
Following a December meeting at Yale University, a coalition of financial and civil society organizations, including Domini Social Investments, issued a statement calling for a country-by-country financial reporting standard for multinational corporations. The conference was organized by Global Financial Integrity (GFI), a non-governmental organization focused on curtailing the cross-border flow of illegal money.
According to GFI, “Tax dodging by multinational companies costs developing countries over a hundred billion dollars every year more than the entire global aid budget at a time when the global crisis is prompting severe cuts in states’ budgets around the world and millions of children are denied a basic education.” Working with GFI and other conference participants, we helped to draft the New Haven Declaration on Corporate Financial Transparency, which was endorsed by a coalition of civil society and investor organizations. The Declaration also formed the basis for a letter to the European Commission.
The statement’s signatories “recognize that although one of the first responsibilities of business to society is to pay its fair share of taxes, aggressive and ‘creative’ global tax strategies have become commonplace among multinational corporations, resulting in significant tax losses to both developed and developing countries.” The statement notes that “approximately $100 billion in tax revenues leaves developing economies each year due to trade-related price manipulation by corporations.” Signatories agreed to support appropriate public policies in this area, and to commit to monitoring corporate activity and raising these concerns with corporate management.
Read the New Haven Declaration on Corporate Financial Transparency, and the letter to the European Commission (December 21, 2010), supporting a country-by-country reporting standard.
Domini’s Global Investment Standards seek “fair tax dealings” and openness in corporate government relations.”
“Disparate Impact - Education Law
Actions that negatively affect individuals in particular groups as defined by race, color, religion, sex, or national origin are referred to as having a disparate or disproportionate impact. The concept of disparate impact flows from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the large amount of litigation it fostered. Much of the litigation surrounding disparate impact is based on statistical proof of the discriminatory effects of employment practices.
In Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the purpose of Title VII was to remove unnecessary barriers that inadvertently discriminated on the basis of impermissible classifications. In Griggs, the Court held that facially neutral employment practices may be included under Title VII if they led to the disproportionate representation of individuals based on race, ethnicity, or gender. The Court also ruled that actions that had an adverse effect on employees in protected classes, even if there was no intent to harm certain groups, was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet, in 1976 the Court held in Washington v. Davis, a dispute over the hiring of police officers, that discriminatory intent must also be proven in order for a plaintiff or plaintiffs to prove a constitutional violation.
Under the law of disparate impact, parties claiming that comparable or similar actions have led to an unconstitutional discriminatory effect must show that the actions disproportionately caused them harm. As such, a discriminatory effect within a disparate impact case stems from what is referred to as facially neutral policy. This simply means that there was no overt, deliberate intent to discriminate in a policy, but the policys implementation had a discriminatory effect on individuals based on race, ethnicity, or gender.
Disparate impact cases are based on statistical data that demonstrate the extent to which the implemented neutral policy negatively impacted a particular demographic group, E. W. Shoben has pointed out. The results of this negative impact are referred to as adverse impact. Adverse impact is a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions that may disadvantage members of a particular racial, ethnic, or gender group, Shoben notes. A selection rate for any group that is less than 80% is deemed adverse impact.
Insofar as disparate impact analysis is not a heavily used theory of discrimination, many questions remain unanswered. For example, it is unclear how disparate impact theory can be used to help institutions, whether in K12 or higher education settings, to prevent or deter adverse impact on protected groups. Further, even though disparate impact theory has not been applied often to K12 or higher education, it does reveal great promise for addressing discrimination and inequities in the educational arena, both for employees and students.
See also Affirmative Action; Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and Equal Educational Opportunities; Title VII”
“Disparate impact analysis calculator”
I don’t see anything wrong with this if it’s all volunteer, which the socialism we have to deal with isn’t. And by ‘all volunteer’ I’m not including children born into this system. I expect it would turn many people away from socialism, having to deal with its reality on a small, appreciable, personal scale. But from their name it seems this particular group of socialists isn’t really content with socialism just being in their immediate circle either.
Sure communism has failed every time it has been tried but this time it will work.
I don’t see anything wrong with this even it it’s not volunteer. As long as the umbrella is based on the mother (XX only) and father (XY only), and their children. I’d even build an entire civilization based on this paradigm, with very few exceptions.
This is retarded.
Twentieth Motors Kibbutzim in small.
Do you really think having to get permission from other people to buy a shirt makes any sense at all??
also check with the pilgrims.
Preaching to the choir here......
The wording makes me wonder, though. Perhaps the ridiculousness of these concepts is really what 0bama is pushing.
Lavish, garish excess for him and extraordinary grayness and poverty for everyone else.
Three-year baccalaureates to train people to perform like circus monkeys: technicians. But REAL education, REAL thought, REAL research? Nope.
Exactly. They cut that plan out, quick.
“I dont see anything wrong with this even it its not volunteer. As long as the umbrella is based on the mother (XX only) and father (XY only), and their children. Id even build an entire civilization based on this paradigm, with very few exceptions.”
Haha, well... yes.
Should I have added, ‘part of being an adult, part of being in a free society, is taking responsibility for mistakes in choices made’?
Murder in a Commune?
I need a lot. Please send ASAP.
Pilgrim productivity suffered until each man was allowed to reap the rewards of his own private enterprise.
This would probably work for me and my friends, but if we were forced to accept people like my layabout nephew or my friend’s druggy sister-in-law, the bad side of communalism would soon show. Purges and gulags and mass graves.
“an East Midlands group called Snowball, which opposes capitalism and consumerism”
Maybe someone should explain to these pinheads that the only reason aren’t resorting to cannibalism is because they’re smack in the middle of capitalism.
Snowballs chance in..heck
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.