Jump to content


Photo

Propose A Law


  • Please log in to reply
1213 replies to this topic

#1 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 08 March 2005 - 01:13 PM

We all want to rant against this current administration (yeah, ok, even the past administrations). But let us not be blinded by our fury. Let's channel this negative vibes into something positive.

Maybe it is just wishful thinking... but who knows, we might get something here.

------------------

I PROPOSE...

1) Ban little plastic bags

I buy a pack of cigarettes from 7-11, ibabalot pa ng plastic (of course I refuse). Even garbage bags are wrapped in plastic bags! Kung maliliit lang naman na mga items na pwede na ilagay sa kamay o bulsa, bakit pa ipa-plastic? I know, this is but a baby step... but still, it is a baby step in the right direction.

2) Make the producers pay for the disposal of their wastes

Madali lang naman kwentahin yan eh. Sa production stage pa lang, alam na natin na ang mga items na tulad ng diapers and sanitary napkins will be mostly waste (we can even calculate how much). So tax them according to how much it will cost to dispose of the "final-final product".

3) The national budget should not be greater than what the government ACTUALLY COLLECTTED in taxes the previous fiscal year

This will more or less ensure that there will be no budget deficit. Ang hirap e, the government does not know how to live within its own means -- sobrang gastos kahit wala ng makolektang buwis... The government should only spend what it is capable of earning, at wag nang UMUTANG PA! baon na baon na tayo. (Ako, I am not rich, but I have ZERO debt, because I apply this basic principle in my life).

#2 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 08 March 2005 - 04:45 PM

EXACT CHANGE LAW

Remember the time when grocery stores had this policy of giving out candies instead of coins as your change? This was so infuriariting that one time I even tried paying for groceries with the candies I accumulated from them. Hey, if it is legal tender one way, it has to be legal tender the other way.

Anyway, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago asked her intern students (UP law students mostly) to come up with a law as their project. They came up with the "exact change law". It was a small idea that actually became a law. Thus today, it is now illegal for grocery stores (any store for that matter) to give out candies in lieu of your change. Mad Miriam may not know it, but she may have saved me from murdering a grocery store clerk... :P

#3 Jourdan

Jourdan

    nzchick's orc

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4390 posts

Posted 08 March 2005 - 11:33 PM

We all want to rant against this current administration (yeah, ok, even the past  administrations). But let us not be blinded by our fury. Let's channel this negative vibes into something positive.

Maybe it is just wishful thinking... but who knows, we might get something here.

------------------

I PROPOSE...

1) Ban little plastic bags

I buy a pack of cigarettes from 7-11, ibabalot pa ng plastic (of course I refuse). Even garbage bags are wrapped in plastic bags! Kung maliliit lang naman na mga items na pwede na ilagay sa kamay o bulsa, bakit pa ipa-plastic? I know, this is but a baby step... but still, it is a baby step in the right direction.

2) Make the producers pay for the disposal of their wastes

Madali lang naman kwentahin yan eh. Sa production stage pa lang, alam na natin na ang mga items na tulad ng diapers and sanitary napkins will be mostly waste (we can even calculate how much). So tax them according to how much it will cost to dispose of the "final-final product".

3) The national budget should not be greater than what the government ACTUALLY COLLECTTED in taxes the previous fiscal year

This will more or less ensure that there will be no budget deficit. Ang hirap e, the government does not know how to live within its own means -- sobrang gastos kahit wala ng makolektang buwis...  The government should only spend what it is capable of earning, at wag nang UMUTANG PA! baon na baon na tayo.  (Ako, I am not rich, but I have ZERO debt, because I apply this basic principle in my life).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


1. If there's a person who can draft a law specifying how little is "little" and make everyone happy with it, m all for it.

2. there's a law being proposed in the US similar to this one...sana lang u took time to think of the repercussions...obviously, these will add on the production costs as cost-of-goods...essentially these are pass-on costs. so expect higher prices in return...so in the end, consumers will end up paying for ur envisioned "waste" charge...

plus have u thought abt how the "waste" charge will be collected??? ah, u'd like the gov't to handle it...wow, now that's neat. u dislike the gov't so much that u give them another source of funds for their pork by robbing the consumers of their hard-earned cash...pretty neat.

kaibahan sa US and Pinas??? sa US maganda ang social welfare system...so at least, consumers get to enjoy their taxes...sa pinas? go figure...i think u have brains to check that out urself.

3. study budgeting and taxation...for u to come up with such a wild proposal, u obviously need to study these subjects...suffice to say that budget this yr isn't exactly related to income last yr...tsk tsk tsk.

and for ur simple principle...sorry to say that u'r possibly not operating at optimum condition...u may be not maximising ur income simply bec. u constrict and limit urself to operating within ur budget. u see, debt is healthy so long as it earns more than the interest levied on it...taking this at the macro-level, not all deficits are bad...the phil. case is bad simply bec. the deficit has not been for any good use. simple as that.

Edited by Jourdan, 08 March 2005 - 11:42 PM.


#4 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 11:20 AM

In my effort to be trite, I failed to elaborate on the second proposal. This is supposed to discourage the trend nowadays to move into the "disposable" mindset. Make it more expensive... yes, even for the consumers, to make it less attractive. Give incentives for manufacturers who make more "efficient" and more environment friendly packages, to make it more competitive. Isang example lang, places like Jollibee and McDo, even if you dine in, disposable paper plates, spoon and forks pa rin ang gagamitin mo, because it is cheaper (than to hire a minimum wage earner to wash the dishes)... I say make it cheaper for them to use real plates, spoon, and forks (by real I mean, washable and reusable).

As to the National Budget proposal, this is not supposed to be a permanent law. But a moratorium of sorts... until the fiscal crisis is over. Tigilan na muna ang utang. Kung fiscal crisis, MAGTIPID. Government tell us we are in a fiscal crisis... then the following week they go on a trip to god knows where and for what? -- with yaya in tow! The people are willing to tighten their belts... for as long as everyone is tightening their belts.

---------------

Personal Note: I am only willing to discuss issues with you for as long as you refrain from personal attacks. You don't know me, and I don't know you. Let us leave it at that.

#5 black cat

black cat

    Seducer

  • UNREGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2042 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 March 2005 - 11:42 AM

...the phil. case is bad simply bec. the deficit has not been for any good use. simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree.

I would like to propose a Law legalizing prostitution. That way, they should also report their income, hence, be also subjected to taxation. Hehe :P

#6 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 11:49 AM

I agree. 

I would like to propose a Law legalizing prostitution.  That way, they should also report their income,  hence, be also subjected to taxation.  Hehe :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



I am not sure wether you're serious or not... but I am actually FOR this law. The government is NOT your mother... so ano ang paki niya what you want to do with your life (body)... Victimless crime ang prostitution. To make it legal, would make it easier to for the government to monitor (STD AIDS) and regulate the industry. Kesa sa dark alleys nangyayari ang "deals".

#7 bugoy101402

bugoy101402

    Tease

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 09 March 2005 - 01:10 PM

i would like to propose a law a more stringent one that will protect our rights and of course that will protect us from unecessary increases in basic commodities...

i would like to propose an amendment to the constitution specifically the numbers of seats under the legislative section of our law... dami na nila masyado... wala naman ginagawa... that would save us a lot of money...

also a law that will review the spending status of our government... dami gastos ng gobyerno natin wala naman visible output gaano...

#8 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 01:18 PM

bugoy,

I get what you are trying to say. But please try to be a little more specific. Medyo general kasi eh. Limit the congressional seats to how many? Ano ang basehan? 1 congressman per how many constituents? Review the current status of the government -- to what ends? How exactly will the "consumer protection" law work?

#9 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 01:28 PM

CHILD STAR PROTECTION ACT

Medyo relevant ito ngayon dahil sa mga tv shows like starstruck...

Right now the law is to limit the time that an underaged worker can work. This is often abused if not ignored altogether. Once nakakuha na ng permit sa government, nobody even bothers to monitor if the law is being followed.

I SAY...

1) Follow the UAAP/NCAA model. For athletes to continue playing in the UAAP or the NCAA, they MUST maintain a certain grade point average... without failing marks. Also require child stars to enrol in a 'real' school (by that, I mean, NO correspondonce school)... I've nothing against correspondence schools, pero as everyone knows, you learn more from your classmates than from your teachers when you are in school.

2) HOLD A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE STARS INCOME IN ESCROW. Child stars are more often than not subject to abuse by, yes, THEIR PARENTS. Let us make the industry a little less attractive by holding a major portion of the stars income in escrow (until the child becomes of legal age).

#10 bugoy101402

bugoy101402

    Tease

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 09 March 2005 - 02:32 PM

bugoy,

I get what you are trying to say. But  please try to be a little more specific. Medyo general kasi eh. Limit the congressional seats to how many? Ano ang basehan? 1 congressman per how many constituents? Review the current status of the government -- to what ends? How exactly will the "consumer protection" law work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


sa consti kasi based sa population ng constituents nia... so dun magsisimula... kung di ako nagkakamali for every 250K voters one seat... iyon ang ginagamit nating basehan kasi para sa congress... anyway saligang batas natin hango sa american consti...

protect the consumers, mga mamimili sa mapagsamantala... actualy nasa DTI iyon... amendment lang ang ating kailangan... para kasing maluwag pa ang batas eh and about sa oil deregulation law...

#11 Jourdan

Jourdan

    nzchick's orc

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4390 posts

Posted 09 March 2005 - 02:43 PM

In my effort to be trite, I failed to elaborate on the second proposal. This is supposed to discourage the trend nowadays to move into the "disposable" mindset. Make it more expensive... yes, even for the consumers, to make it less attractive. Give incentives for manufacturers who make more "efficient" and more environment friendly packages, to make it more competitive. Isang example lang, places like Jollibee and McDo, even if you dine in, disposable paper plates, spoon and forks pa rin ang gagamitin mo, because it is cheaper (than to hire a minimum wage earner to wash the dishes)... I say make it cheaper for them to use real plates, spoon, and forks (by real I mean, washable and reusable).

As to the National Budget proposal, this is not supposed to be a permanent law. But a moratorium of sorts... until the fiscal crisis is over. Tigilan na muna ang utang. Kung fiscal crisis, MAGTIPID. Government tell us we are in a fiscal crisis... then the following week they go on a trip to god knows where and for what? -- with yaya in tow! The people are willing to tighten their belts... for as long as everyone is tightening their belts.

---------------

Personal Note: I am only willing to discuss issues  with you for as long as you refrain from personal attacks. You don't know me, and I don't know you. Let us leave it at that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


on ur second proposal: where will you get the "incentive" again? or how will u implement an incentive-based pricing mechanism on goods??? are we talking gov't subsidies here again??? u know first world countries can discuss such proposals precisely bec. the buying power of their consuming public is relatively higher plus their govts have made it a point that additional add-ons to product prices for certain noble endeavors such as environmental conservation AT THE VERY LEAST served their intended purposes. here, we don't have that luxury. we are a poor third world country....so before of even thinking how to evelate our compliance to noble environmental regulations, kindly consider whether the public can actually shoulder such cost. remember that any efforts targetting sustainable development should first and foremost be ECONOMICALLY sustainable before u can factor in the environment. m not saying ur proposal is bad...it's not just tailor-fit for our country AT THIS POINT...let us first think of ways to augment our incomes and increase our productivity...if we can throw in a thing or two abt environmental protection, then ok...but let us not dream of the moon when we don't even have a rocketship.

on ur 3rd proposal: what's ur time frame??? again, this yr's budget is not related to last yr's income...secondly, the way out of the fiscal crisis may not only be belt-tightening...it may be just putting to good use whatever budget u have...meaning, if u borrow for such a reason, u better use that fund for such a reason...granted that the gov't need to save BUT targetting ZERO deficit is whimsical...that's like waiting for a toothfairy to save us all. u cannot simply sacrifice delivery of basic services just so u can achieve ZERO deficit...and y would u sacrifice such to achieve zero deficit??? bec. the current tax base cannot admittedly MEET even the basic demands of the population...we have a very very small tax base here...that's why m saying belt-tightening can only do so much. but it is not all-be-all solution.

to get us out of the deficit, u need to GENERATE income while reducing COSTS....so u need to improve taxation and widen ur tax base...maybe by passing a law amending taxation and making it more progressive...secondly, u divest non-performing assets...u eliminate ur budget sinks. thirdly, u carefully streamline gov't agencies...offer redundancy packages to gov't employees and then have DOLE arrange placements for these displaced people. fourthly, u go on a massive campaign to bring in foreign investments..and then keep them by improving infrastructure like roads, telecoms, etc...thru partnerships with the private sector thru BOTs, etc.

--------------------

personal note:

if u don't want personal attacks, then avoid inflammatory posts full of rhetorics...don't make ur arguments as if they are held by the majority WITHOUT the benefits of facts...do not ever take the moral high ground if u don't want me shooting u down just so u'll fall back to earth.

ur personal rants (like "napupuno na ko" gimmicks) do not merit discussion board spaces. there are blogs precisely for that...people of high intellect should know the difference between an argument and rant...the former is essentially founded on FACTS and LOGICAL inter/extrapolations. the latter is childish and generally a product of insecurities and personal failures.

so there...let's be clear on that. i can be civil...yet i can also be brutally honest.

#12 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 03:03 PM

Jourdan,

I live in Sucat Parañaque. I saw the tail-end of Joey Marquez's term and now see the new term of Mayor Jun Bernabe. Sucat was a cesspool before (no exagerration! ask anyone who lives in sucat!) ... today, it is still not heaven, but liveable. Why the change, simple: garbage collection is now "timed", so that you can only take out your garbage at a specific time, when garbage trucks are there to pick it up. You see, it did not cost the municipal government more... just a little creativity... BIG difference.

"The anti-disposable law" can work with a little imagination. Tax the disposables, use the money generated to subsidize the "recyclables"... you get the idea. No additional cost to the government.

Hey, on paper, the "exact change law" wouldn't have worked (because it's hard to monitor wether a "small" law like this is being followed or not)... but it does...

#13 TheGeneral

TheGeneral

    15 years in MTC... not a single EB.

  • (12) Mega Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8823 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Valley Golf & Country Club
  • Interests:Mountain Biking, Basketball, Swimming, Billiards

Posted 09 March 2005 - 03:07 PM

A law that would implement laws. We have so many laws, only a few are implemented.

#14 bugoy101402

bugoy101402

    Tease

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 09 March 2005 - 03:10 PM

law studes siguro kayo???????????????????????????????????????????///

#15 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 03:19 PM

A law that would implement laws. We have so many laws, only a few are implemented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Might as well suspend the law of gravity.... hehehe...



Bugoy,

No, I am not. But I did send a younger sib thru UP law. She's currently employed in the supreme court.

#16 Jourdan

Jourdan

    nzchick's orc

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4390 posts

Posted 10 March 2005 - 10:45 AM

Jourdan,

I live in Sucat Parañaque. I saw the tail-end of Joey Marquez's term and now see the new term of Mayor Jun Bernabe. Sucat was a cesspool before (no exagerration! ask anyone who lives in sucat!) ... today, it is still not heaven, but liveable. Why the change, simple: garbage collection is now "timed", so that you can only take out your garbage at a specific time, when garbage trucks are there to pick it up. You see, it did not cost the municipal government more... just a little creativity... BIG difference.

"The anti-disposable law" can work with a little imagination. Tax the disposables, use the money generated to subsidize the "recyclables"... you get the idea. No additional cost to the government.

Hey, on paper, the "exact change law" wouldn't have worked (because it's hard to monitor wether a "small" law like this is being followed or not)... but it does...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


no additional costs to the gov't? u wish...the gov't will have to set up a new division, hire new employees/auditors to monitor compliance...in this age when the gov't is dying to crub unemployment, ur proposal's like manna from heaven...that'll give them a reason to create another meaningless bureaucracy...all additional burden on the public...ah, deferred burden that is...the kind that does not go away even after ur grandsons have all died...

plus i bet the collected funds will all go to subsidies...

net result: funds going to corruption, a fattened bureaucracy, increased borrowings to finance subsidy...

note that m NOT cynical...m just a realist...so i'd rather do NEW things OUTSIDE the realm of the gov't if i could...while at the same time helping the gov't handle the things she's handling right now. maybe i'll involve her in new endeavors soon...when she's ready to perform. but not now.

and even for the sake of argument that the gov't become suddenly all efficient and absorb the additional job w/o hiring new people, what abt the effects of ur "tax" on the consumers??? another scheme of decreasing further their buying power??? once and for all, m against all consumption tax that does not differentiate between income levels...any tax that's not progressive based on income levels is anti-poor.

#17 mary_antoinette

mary_antoinette

    Chaser

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 10 March 2005 - 11:05 AM

A law that would implement laws. We have so many laws, only a few are implemented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


we don't need another law for this. what we need is the military and the police force to be de-politicized(?). and the justice system, of course.

government servants should be well-compensated so that they'd be able to function well. one of the reasons why graft and corruption is widespread in the system is because people in it cannot support their living with the kind of pay they receive.

#18 Podweed

Podweed

    What, ME worry?

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Location:Nowhere near
  • Interests:Interested in everything.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 11:58 AM

Repeal that "Stupid Lina Law".

#19 Jourdan

Jourdan

    nzchick's orc

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4390 posts

Posted 10 March 2005 - 12:17 PM

Repeal that "Stupid Lina Law".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BRAVO! right on the money podweed...that law is clearly anti-development.

Edited by Jourdan, 10 March 2005 - 12:18 PM.


#20 Jourdan

Jourdan

    nzchick's orc

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4390 posts

Posted 10 March 2005 - 12:28 PM

we don't need another law for this. what we need is the military and the police force to be de-politicized(?). and the justice system, of course.

government servants should be well-compensated so that they'd be able to function well. one of the reasons why graft and corruption is widespread in the system is because people in it cannot support their living with the kind of pay they receive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


i don't agree. things that cause demotivation are different from the ones that motivate people to perform. this is based on extensive research on industrial psychology...low pay is certainly demotivating...but u can't be certain that u can cure incompetency and eliminate bad habits liek graft and corruption simply by rasing pays...

the only true way is to make their jobs MEANINGFUL...EMPOWER those underneath, the career men and women who truly run the gov't...stop the cult of personality that plague the gov't...a department's state of affairs shouldn't rely on the one heading it...this problem arises precisely bec. the career people do not have the ability to project their collective personality...root causes: lack of skills, one-dimensional jobs w/o decision-making aspect...solve these motivational problems and u'll see difference in performance, more accountabilty, heightened responsiveness and dedication all even without pay hikes...

and only after u've seen positive results should u then implement a reward mechanism...pay hikes tied to performance...remember, u should reward GOOD performance...not "bribe" people to stop them from performing badly.

Edited by Jourdan, 10 March 2005 - 12:30 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users