Politicians, can we do without???

What is a politicians job? Wikipedia says that what a politician does is influencing the public policy and decision making. This is correct, that is exactly what a politician does. I think that already right here we are at a very questionable point.
There are immediately two dilemma's:
1-Why isn't a politician not limited to just executing what the public wants? No influence needed.
2- How, with whom and why is this politician influencing? (It's the best for the people? Personal gain? Both? Or mostly personal gain? And what is in it for the person he tries to influence?)

The biggest problem I have with politicians is that they represent a small group of people that has absolute power over everything and we have to hope that they will equally distribute our wealth and basic needs of life. I don't think that works very well at this moment of writing. The impression I get from websites concerning politicians leaves a lot to desire. It makes you wonder if people go into politics because they want to do something for their country and the people or if they just want to fill their pockets. Mind you, we are talking here about democratic countries with a system enabling people to elect someone to be their leader. Well a sort of a leader, this person may well turn out to be a representative, more ore less used as a marionette by ,very rich, others, pulling the strings from behind the curtains, of course. (Names like the Bilderberg Group jump to mind but I'm not stating that this group controls any government. I dare say that at least they have a "certain" influence...)

Every head of state who came to power, even by election (And elections are not a synonym for: honestly obtaining the most votes or representing the choice of the people.) is in  my humble opinion, out on personal gain. And the people chosen by the head of state to help him, do not strike me as the people who first think what the best interests are for the people, especially if, for example, it would be best that their salaries would be lowered and that they would have to give up their privileges, I doubt very much that a lot of people, actually being part of the government, still would do the job. What would happen if a government would held accountable for everything that is paid out of the big, piggy bank called taxes?

And don't think about government as something that just rules your country, you will have to see it larger than that. Besides of the government and the staff residing nationally there is also the international staff. Ambassadors and such. 
For example, England (Read England, not the UK.) has roughly 200 embassies and consulates spread out all over the world.
In an embassy of an average size you will find a consular section, a visa section, a commercial section, a cultural section a political section and sometimes a department for the army, navy and air force. Say that on average there are at least 3 people working in every department (It's rather low counting but don't worry, it will still be expensive enough for the taxpayer.) So that is an average 18 people x 200 = 3600 people

Now these 3600 people need a place to stay. That's paid by the taxpayer. And again, let's keep prices on the low: 500 a month x 3600  x 12 = 21.600.000 per year.

An ambassador needs transport and that means a car. A luxury car because you are transporting heads of states, kings, queens, princes and prime ministers. So also a car that can drive fast, and has excessive acceleration power, it has to have space, enough head space for ladies to sit comfortably and keeping their hats on,  special tyres for extra grip, the car has to be more or less fire resistant and bullet proof. And of course all the obligatory gadgets like radio, telephone, navigator, cruise control, fridge, etc. etc. A fair estimation would be somewhere around 125.000 per car x 200 = 25.000.000 Let's say that these cars last 5 years that comes to 5.000.000 per year so we have now 21.600.000 + 5.000.000 = 26.600.000 per year. 
And an embassy has not only this one car of course at least two other cars and a van are needed. Say for the three cars this costs an average of 30.000 per year x 200 = 6.000.000 + the 26.600.000 we already had, brings us on 32.600.000 per year.

In an embassy you find: computers, servers, phones, faxes etc, a cold-room, a safe or two, an alarm system, offices, waiting rooms, meeting rooms, bath rooms and that all has to be decorated, furnished and kept tidy and clean. This represents your country, remember, so it has to be comfortable, it has to make a good impression, it has to be safe, and  look and smell nice. Costs per year, I'll be optimistic and say 1.000.000 a year x 200 brings us to a total of 232.600.000 per year. 

And nobody has done the tiniest bit of work because we haven't paid anyone yet.
Here we go and keep in mind this is all kept on the very low side. From the average 18 people present, imagine there are 14 "ordinary" office people and they earn 1000 per month. So 14 x 12 x 1000 x 200 = 33.600.000 for the ordinary office employees.
That leaves us with 4 people per embassy left.
Estimate 3 diplomats at 2000 (Don't laugh.) a month. 3 x 12 x 2000 x 200 = 14.400.000 a year for diplomats. 
Are we left with  an ambassador per embassy for 3000 per month. (Again, don't laugh,) 1 x 12 x 3000 x 200 = 7.200.000 for the ambassadors.

And than, on average, an embassy employs local people from the country where they are, somebody who knows the laying of the land, the local customs, the shops, the entertainment places, somebody you can send to do some shopping, to do some gardening, the odd paint job etc. (And this also shows that you are willing to let the local peeps make some money, too. Good will, and that sort of terms.) How about on average 3 per embassy for 500 per month? 3 x 12 x 500 x 200 = 3.600.000 for the local employees.
33.600.000 + 14.400.000 + 7.200.000 + 3.600.000 = 58.800.000
58.800.000 + 232.600.000 = 291.400.000 per year. 

Don't forget things like: gifts, business lunches, dinners, international house moving companies, taxis, over night trips, clothes, courses to learn the local language, promotional evenings, first aid courses, hotel costs, expenses for family members of the staff, and but that is depending on how far away you are, the free trip to the homeland once a year. And I almost forgot: entertainment for the staff.
Let's put this all together and say this costs again 1.000.000 per embassy, per year, so that is another 200.000.000 per year + the other 291.400.000 brings us to almost half a billion per year to keep 3600 people at work.
And I dare say that I have estimated very, very low.

We have now talked about the cost of the political part that doesn't take place in your country. You pay your taxes and almost half a billion of it is used and you can't check what it is all about unless you go to an embassy in a country and ask to visit the embassy, have a little trip in the ambassadors car, check out a house or two of some staff members and see that you get invited for a party. ( It is highly unlikely that you will be able to do this but yet you have paid for it.) 
On top of that these at the embassy working people, send by their government have the rights to buy certain things tax free: cars, cigarettes, alcohol, tools, entertaining equipment, computers, food, etc... So not only is a large part of their daily life costs paid by the taxpayer, they contribute less to society on top of that because they pay less or no v.a.t.

Now what would your average government cost? More than you will ever know. It will be impossible to track down the costs of a government and it's civil servants. You can not simply ask how much the employees of a government do cost a country and receive an honest answer. (You wonder why? I'll show you later.) You are asking the people who make the rules, the regulations... well, the law of a country, to be open and honest about their incomes and privileges.(Why do they have to have these privileges in the first place?) I have serious doubts that there'll be a civil servant (Who earns more than 3000.-  a month.) willing to give you an answer. 
There are several reasons for that: 
Reason 01, Reason 02, Reason 03, and I can go on and on and on.

Here is another reason why you won't be able to find out how expensive a government is.

This video clip is exposing people in the european parlement who are abusing the sytem. The costs of this European Parliament are about 1.500.000.000 Euros per year, paid by the taxpayers of 27 countries. (Roughly 55,5 million per country per year and it seems not to be enough.) In the beginning of the video clip you see how the journalists are put outside the building, so if you want to investigate how much a government costs the taxpayer, honestly asking questions is apparently not the way to obtain answers about the wheeling and dealing with your tax money.
In the video is explained how the people, who represent your country, in this European Parliament abuse on the payment regulations.
Bear in mind that these politicians have already a basic wages packet of about 84.000 Euros per year.

Here are quotes from the video:
These people are already (as they say in the video) the most expensive people in their line of work.(01.13 min) On top of their wages they receive per year: 7339 Euros, whether they are present in parliament or not. (01.19 min) (I can't help but wonder why they need to be paid that money if they aren't there and otherwise, why they are paid that money at all, does the 84.000 not suffice?) 
Plus a tax free indemnity per year of 3980 Euros. 
(For what? And they still do not have to be there to receive that.) 
And on top of that, when they are in session and present in the parliament they receive an extra of 284 Euros per day. And they are there in session about at least 1 day per month (1.38 min) so 12 x 284 =  3408 Euros. Makes a nice sum of 7339 + 3980 + 3408 = 14.727 Euros on top of their wages, per minister in the European parliament.
Something is wrong with the presentations and responsibilities and that is kept a secret from the voting public. (01.55 min).And that is why it is bad to come here and ask for explanations. (02.00 min)
It appears that for years, every Friday morning, certain ministers of parliament arrive here at 07.00 am to register on the presence lists and than disappear. (2.05 min). 
Are you here to register to cash in on the daily presence money? That's none of your business? (02.23 min).
At the floor where you can register yourself a queue has formed of people with suitcases awaiting their turn.(02.31) 
From the 02.40 min you see ministers running away from the camera, or ministers coming up with excuses as, we have worked all night ( but that still does not allow you to go register yourself and leave!!!) or try to hide from the camera in the lift. 
So when journalists inquire about this stealing, the security and the Secretary-General order the journalists to leave the building.(05.38 min.)
When it concerns money, our elected representatives have their own priorities and the freedom of the press has to step down. (06.01 min.)

Please, dear reader, do realise that these people decide how much tax money is to be used for their wages, these people make the deals with oil companies and cigarette companies on the prices of their goods and how much tax will be taken from it and that is all paid by the ordinary hard working people, who make just a few hundred more than minimum wages, people like yourselves. This, dear ordinary people, is how your elected representatives in the European Parliament behave, stealing and abusing the laws that they have created and these laws should be the same for everybody. This video clip dates from 26 - 10 - 2011 and yet there are not even 40.000 viewers. It means ignorance is bliss and your elected government counts on that and continues to steal from you.

So what does this mean? It means that we can not trust humans gathered in small groups being responsible for the worlds well being. It means that we have to replace this system of governing because it is not fair and it enables too many elected people to abuse the system and steal money from hard working people. 
On top of that, the amount of rules and regulations are too abundant in numbers. It's impossible to keep control on it, so you are asking for people to abuse this system. This governing system also enables this small group of people to ignore the needs of the many and help themselves and their associates to lucrative contracts and payouts. Again all of this is paid by the ordinary working man/woman.

What to do? 
We have to unite and create a different system. A system that will make governments obsolete. And we can do that. How, you wonder. Actually, it is not that difficult to do. We need to use open source software to replace any form of governing and make this software accessible by everybody who wants to contribute something, following the principles of Github. Have a look at this video of Mr. Clay Shirky.

This is the way to go about it. Here we have the opportunity to create a system that will not understand greed, can't be blackmailed and uses the same rules and regulations for everybody. It won't understand things like religion, titles like, king, queen, pope, diplomatic immunity or anything that will enable anybody to get away with anything criminal because they have some title or rank. Everybody will be considered the same and equal. It will be transparent because everybody will have access and everybody can see what has been done. 
On top of that, this is the ultimate way to go for a democracy because there isn't a small (yes, yes, elected) group of people anymore, deciding what, where, when and how but it will be everybody connected individually forming just one group. This does not mean that we do not need people to execute tasks as civil servants are doing now but it will make it impossible to commit fraud because we have access to all the information. 

As an enormous group we can create the rules and as a group we will be able to control this. It means that issues like racism will become obsolete because the majority will be against it. It means that people becoming rich because the products are fabricated in a country where the wages are lower and the laws concerning work regulations are unclear or non existent will become obsolete because the majority will be against it. Poverty will disappear because the majority will be against it. Equality for all will happen because it is what the majority wants. 
The result can be something like a website where you can look up all the rules and regulations that you are concerned with and try to change them the way you see fit. If the majority of people agree with you or propose something exactly the same as you do, a new regulation, punishment, rule, law or reward is in place and effective. Thanks to you.
However, rich people, state leaders, top politicians and their parties will be against this. They will try to prove by all means that this is wrong because they will lose power and money and as they have control over the army there is a strong chance that the end of this evolution will be violent. In the end, it doesn't matter. Thousands of people have already started to work on this. The only way to block this now is to take away the internet and who knows... If you wake up one day and the internet is gone, you know what to expect...

Things that can be done in order for a government to function better: 

Instead of trying to point out what is wrong with the opposition they could try and work together instead against each other.

Every proposition has to be proven right. Telling what is wrong with any proposition of the opposition without proving that it is wrong and not offering another proposition without proving that it is better should be punishable by fines of 40 % of monthly wages.

Any form of stealing by government employees should be fined by returning 70% of the total amount of his/hers earned wages while having a civil servant job and handing over 70% of his/hers possessions. If these possesions are put in the name of the spouse/partner or children, they still have to be handed over. And of course banned for life of any managerial position or office job. After all, you are abusing the trust of the people.

Promising things in the election campaign and not fulfilling these promises should be punishable by a 500% fine of the earned wages. ( So if you earn 1000 you will have to pay 5000.)

All privileges abolished. One standard salary. With that salary government members will have to pay for every cost they make or everything they buy. 60.000 a year would do nicely, it will not get them incredibly rich so they stay in touch with the real costs of things but they still earn more than enough to survive.

Diplomatic immunity is to be abolished. This only serves to do things secretly and we want things to be clear, open and understandable.

All politicians have to travel with public transport and pay for it themselves. They are not allowed to travel in any other way. This will help to keep them in touch with the poor peoples way of travelling and at the same time it is a nice way of controlling how good things function in the country they govern.

And these are just a few of the improvements that can be made. Of course when the recent governing system finally will be replaced by people controlled software, we will wonder, why we haven't done this earlier. All of a sudden we will be able to spend our creativity and intelligence towards real progress... and to overcome the ultimate problem...How to let our species survive if our planet would cease to be hospitable for the human race?

Religion is for yourself...

I suppose that this must have started because of the need to explain things without having a fundamental understanding or proof. I also think that any form of religion or believe can, will and shall be used at the time when necessary to create radical "solutions" .And than it will be taken to a point that enables members or adherents to feel that they are allowed to kill, torture and pillage. All in the name of an imaginary friend. Billions are spent to construct statues in all forms and sizes and are put in the most impossible places, billions are spent to create buildings of worship filled with ornaments, decorations and material to worship, following specific rituals and rites. Again, all in the name of an imaginary friend.

All religions, are based on sacred texts, scriptures or personal revelation.

Sacred texts and scriptures, contain stories upon which the rules and dogma's of a religion are based or contain directly these rules, regulations and dogma's. The oldest are to contain stories that were told and noted for perhaps a first time somewhere between 2150 and 2000 before common era. (BCE is used to stay on neutral ground and not to offend other religions. This is also known as BC, Before Christ.)

The stories that are written in these sacred texts and scripts, were told by... humans. And they were written by... yes, humans, again. The exact same species that is capable today of wiping out the entire human existence, simply by pressing on a button. The exact same species that tries to rule over less powerful and less materialistically developed humans with the help of all means it can lay its hands on. Rules and regulations, frontiers and barriers, lies and make believe and if all of that doesn't work, this exact same species will not hesitate to use weapons to kill in order to reach the target aimed for.

Concerning these personal revelations, how can one possibly judge this? The use of LSD can make that people have visions, as can certain mushroom types. How "true" is a revelation? How much is "real" and how much is, perhaps even unconsciously, added to give the story a more believable sound? And how much is added or left out so that the story gets better for personal gain? Starting from more admiration from fellow "believers" up to more respect from superiors on the hierarchic, religious, ladder, obtaining more influential power, or perhaps even obtaining material possessions and getting your followers to eliminate people who think differently or are opposite.

History has shown (I wanted to write learned but we haven't really learned from our history, we have  improved scientifically, yes, but learned from our mistakes, no, not so much.) that adhering to a religion that demands that the follower accepts the existence of a god, leads to war and terrorism due to misinterpretation and (mostly) personal interpretation of the sacred texts and scriptures. This creates a so called holy war and all criminal actions are deemed right because they're committed in the name of (any) god.

The only thing that can be considered right and we can trace this back in one form or another in about every religion are these five statements:

Do not kill. - Do not commit adultery. - Do not steal. - Do not lie. - Do not covet.

These are the only useful points to find in any religion that worships a deity. The rest is a mixture of stories, dogma's, rules and regulations based on those stories that over time were interpreted as was seen fit and has created the religions as they are interpreted today.

From the point of view that we are intelligent, human beings with the possibility to deduct certain reactions we can calculate that if we don't live by these Do not-rules, sooner or later it will bite us in the ass.

From the point of view that we are animals and still behave like that, obviously these five statements do not work but it is interesting to see that with these statements, somewhere in the history of human beings was realised that we are not obliged to behave like animals but can be superior. And that is fine, only I don't have that much trust in my fellow human being so here are my laws concerning religion:

Religion can only be practiced, by adults. 

(To avoid that children get indoctrinated.)

Religion can only be adhered to by voluntary choice.

(No peer pressure.)

Religion can only be practiced in the privacy of your own home.

(Those who are not interested in your believes do not have to be bothered with it.)

All buildings created to worship are to be opened and used for the benefit of every human being.

(Why having big empty buildings for most of the time while so much people have no roof over their head?)

Promoting, sponsoring or advertising any religion is prohibited.

(Those who are not interested in your believes do not have to be bothered with it.)

Exhibitionism of any religion is prohibited.

(You have made your choice, it is personal, don't bother others with it.)

No public funds are to be spend on any form of religion.

(Why should others have to pay for your personal believes?)

I, personally think that religion is a dangerous thing. I understand that the five Do nots are good. All the other aspects of religions make me wonder why so many people (more than half of our planets population) adhere to a religion.
The not believers are a minority and they will go to hell is believed by more than half of the believers in a deity.With that way of reasoning it is not a surprise that the scientific evolution goes anything but fast and is still deliberately refused and not accepted. As long as people believe like this, without any proof or scientific confirmation, it will be impossible for every human to develop him or herself in the way that is best for that person individually, at the condition that this never interferes in a negative way with the lives of other people. And without that there will never be world peace...

Weapons are only used against ourselves...

Guns.

What if all fire arms would be prohibited?
I know that quite a few arm dealers and weapon makers will be out of a job but I think that the majority of the population would not really care about that. Oh and quite a large number of people in the army would have to try and learn to do something else. (Help people instead of shooting them is something that jumps to mind).
And oh, yes, I forgot that a number of gun toting inhabitants of our planet would probably feel extremely vulnerable. But if we do ban guns entirely there is a chance that this heck of a list stops growing.
The bit that surprises me the most is when after those killings people wonder how this could have happened. Well those wondering and not understanding people are lucky right now, I can and will explain how this can happen. The thing to remember is that in all those gun killings the basic principle is the same:
You aim the gun at the target and you pull the trigger. There you go, that's how it's happening. Yes I hear you say, but how can somebody shoot that sweet 3 year old little girl/boy? Well: you aim the gun at the target (in this case a 3 year old little girl/boy) and you pull the trigger. There you go, that's how it's happening.Was that in thick black sentence not clear enough? Let me help you:
You aim the gun at the target and you pull the trigger!!! 
There you are, you should start to grasp the idea by now.
You see the thing with guns is, as long as you don't get the death penalty if you do posses a gun, these things will continue to happen. Yes, I said death penalty, I'm a simple person, my logic is simple, if you posses a gun, you are a potential killer.
What do you think guns are for? Knitting? Car repairs? Unplugging the toilet?
When weapons are available to anybody, there will always be somebody who will pull the trigger and the only reason that this person will pull the trigger is because he/she had the possibility to do so. So you have to make sure that nobody wants to have a fire arm.


Explosives. 
We don't need explosives. I know that this may sound strange to you but we honestly do not need explosives.We can live and will survive without them. Yes, more things will have to be taken care of manually and that will lead to the creation of more work, isn't that wonderful?
When I talk about explosives, I mean everything that goes boom: dynamite, torpedo's, nuclear devices, hand grenades, missiles etc. etc.
In order to make you see why I think we can live without the on-purpose-created-devices-that-go-boom-and-kill, I've done some research on events that happened with explosives. Not to prove from a scientific point what we are capable of but more to show what we are inflicting on our fellow humans.

Atomic Bombs - (info taken from wikipedia)
The result of throwing two man made bombs came down to this:
Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefecture health department estimated that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. 

On the question how many a-bombs there are in the world today, wiki-answers came up with an estimation of 70.000 nuclear bombs. Now let's keep things on the low side and lets calculate:
70.000 bombs x 60.000 people killed per bomb = 4.200.000.000 people dead.
The estimated population today is almost 7.100.000.000
Well look at that: with very little effort we can reduce the population to less than half. And mind you this would be the result of the first two to four months. Surely if we place our bombs well we can do better than that? Let's aim for oil fields, gas fields and electricity dams.
Other strategic points*that will help to cause dead and destruction are the next ones:

St Helens, USA - Surtsey, Iceland -  Ring Of Fire in the Pacific Ocean - Paricutin, Mexico - Pinatubo, Philippines - Krakatoa. Indonesia 

These places are volcano's and edges of techtonic plates. There are a few more but these are, at the moment of writing this story, the most dangerous ones. If we drop on each of these points ten nuclear bombs we may be able to start something with such disastrous results as: 

Volcanic eruptions, earth quakes, radiation, ash clouds (also radio active these clouds, it's just a bonus, sit back and appreciate it), tsunami's, complete standstill of all electric devices and most mechanical devices, destruction of all agricultural land, poisoning drinking water and killing off all sorts of animals that we could have eaten, well... 

I think we have a winner here. And the best part is: There are still 69.940 bombs left. The eventual survivors will surely appreciate this and use them well... 

Here you can see what the result is after humans were exposed to a nuclear explosion, the story, where I found these images is irrelevant (well at least it shows that man kind is still stupid) but some of the pictures may give you an idea of how civilised we really are...

* And to give you an idea of what happens to Earth when one volcano erupts, here's some info on that topic as well. It will show you that I am not exaggerating with my strategic points story.

Non atomic bombs.
Humans don't always want to kill vast amounts of people or destroy their living area's for years to come. No sometimes all they want is just kill some people, knock down a building or two and get on with their daily routine.
So different bombs are needed. And as people are beings with a very destructive nature they have developed ways of creating explosives for all sorts of occasions. I'm not going to tell you how you can make or get your hands on these bombs. If you are an enthusiast, you will have to do your own research on that one. I've made a list of devices that go boom and kill but there is also a very particular way of killing people and that  is with the so called car bombs. It's also one of the most popular ways of killing because you can make the explosion almost as big as you want and detonate whenever you want and  from where ever you want as you do not have to be there yourself. The great advantage of a car bomb is that the explosives are totally out of sight but can be brought very close to the target. I know, it's useless in the jungle or at sea because it's not easy to get a car there but it does a great job in cities and villages. Have a look at this. In 1920 they were already doing a car bombing with a result of 38 deaths. This literally must have paved the way and certainly became an inspiration for others.

Swords, knives and all sorts of weaponry like this made from metal (scissors, machetes) etc.should not be allowed to be carried on a person when this person leaves the house/home terrain. A simple detector build at every entrance/exit of every building can give a warning sign. Finding yourself in public area's with this kind of weaponry on you should result in a fine of forty percent of your income during two years or a year in prison. After all you still are a potential killer while carrying this sort of weaponry with you and there simply is no need for it.
How do you get your cutlery at home? Your cutlery  should be delivered. A special service is to be set up and deliver these kind of utensils at your home and bring them inside. All knives and cutting utensils will have a serial number and a chip so that they can be counted for and tracked when this may be necessary.

In any case: all weaponry should be prohibited except riffles to hunt.

The one and only fire arm that should be allowed, to be used by a specific, designated group of people, are rifles used by hunters. Hunters have to reside in area's where hunting can be done. Even hunters can not bring their rifles in a public area except those designated for hunting. These hunters have to be single, between 30 and 45 years old, teetotal and not wear glasses or lenses. The rifles have to be activated with the help of an eye scan. So no rifle can be fired by anybody else but the rightful user. If you don't fulfill these criteria, you can not be a hunter and therefor not use a rifle.
Every other fire arm but such a hunting rifle is only created to kill people and should result in obtaining the death penalty for possession.

Money because everything is for sale.

In our "civilised" world this is what it's all about. Money, it used to represent possessions, gold, jewelry, houses etc. That was in the, let's call it, more honest times. Things have changed...If you don't have money you will be seen as somebody who lets everybody else do all the work. People  who have benefits are often considered by people who have to work to pay the bills, as people who profit from the system. A system that is run by the people who have the most money. A lot of the working people, who are complaining about the benefit receiving people, are forgetting that but here's a wake up call. Those people with the most money, tell people who do not have so much money what to do. In our "civilised" world everything belongs to the rich people and everyone is kept under control by the rich people. The governments, the army and the bits of land that make that we don't have to swim all the time, the rich people control and have it all. A whole system is created around the rich people that enables them to stay rich. One of the things that are part of that system is money.
I think that it should be wise to rule world wide that banks become companies that are not allowed to make benefits and it's staff members will be paid the same way as civil servants are. And than create laws stating that you are not allowed to posses more things that amount to a total value of 2.5 million. (houses, cars, jewelry, factories, land, animals etc). I also think that you should not posses more money in your bank account than 1 million and that you can not earn more money than 250.000 a year.  If you earn more money than 250.000, the double amount of what you have earned extra should be taken from you and given where it's needed. I think that if you are unable to survive (anywhere at all) at this day of writing, (15-12-2012) while making 250.000 a year, sorry but in my humble opinion, you're an asshole.
This way of making money will create a more balanced way of living. You don't have to work that much and other people can work for those who have reached their maximum earning level for that year. Prices will stay fixed and basically, people will learn that material possessions aren't that important.
After all, once you're dead, how much money do you need?
I stumbled a few weeks ago on this video clip and I think it is time that you see this and learn from it.
Here is one important message: Don't ever use credit cards. The reason is: credit cards are not there to make your life easier. It's the opposite!!! Credit cards are there to make the rich people richer but this time they hardly provide a service for it. What it comes down to is this:
When a purchase is made, the credit card user agrees to pay the card issuer. (So you do not pay the person of whom you buy something or get a service from).
The cardholder indicates consent to pay by signing a receipt with a record of the card details and indicating the amount to be paid or by entering a personal identification number (PIN). Also, many merchants now accept verbal authorizations via telephone and electronic authorization using the Internet. Each month, the credit card user is sent a statement indicating the purchases undertaken with the card, any outstanding fees, and the total amount owed. After receiving the statement, the cardholder may dispute any charges that he or she thinks are incorrect, which limits cardholder liability for unauthorized use of a credit card to $50.

The cardholder must pay a defined minimum portion of the amount owed by a due date, or may choose to pay a higher amount up to the entire amount owed which may be greater than the amount billed.

(So if you want to pay more into your account than you actually have to because you want to reduce the amount of money you owe them, you are fined, you are punished for giving money back to the bank.)

Every bank wants you to stay in debt with them as long as they can hold on to you.

The credit issuer charges interest on the unpaid balance if the billed amount is not paid in full (typically at a much higher rate than most other forms of debt).

The result of that leads to you getting further in debt on the standard amount of borrowed money. So the monthly payments (also called interest) that you have to pay (without reducing the amount of money you actually owe the bank) are getting bigger. So it will be even more difficult to pay of the initial amount of borrowed money and that is what the banks are hoping for.

In addition, if the credit card user fails to make at least the minimum payment by the due date, the issuer may impose a "late fee" and/or other penalties on the user. To help mitigate this, some financial institutions can arrange for automatic payments to be deducted from the user's bank accounts, thus avoiding such penalties altogether as long as the cardholder has sufficient funds.

The only way to get out of this is to get a loan from another bank, pay of the entire amount of money, plus the fines and stay with the other bank and pay everything, little by little, the same amount of money every month and an interest percentage that stays the same all the time.
But it is not always easy to find a bank that will help you with this.

If you want to save yourself money, get paid in cash and pay all your bills in cash. It will make banks obsolete. Nobody can oblige you to have a bank account. You will have to endure stories about how convenient it is and that the companies that you need to pay money to do not work that way and they will try with all their might to refuse you etc but... you can, if you desire so, pay everything in cash and get paid from the company you work for in cash. There is no law that obliges you to have a bank account.

Or you can do some severe research and find out which bank is the "best" for the customer.

Maybe this website or otherwise this one will help.
Other sites that may be useful are Yahoo Finance and MSN Money

A hero in jail... Bradley Manning.

Here is proof that the American Government- and the Army-bureaucracy (or bureaucrazy if you want) are going to unbelievable lengths to insist that the wrong doing is by the person who made it known and visible for the whole world to see, that a crime has been committed. At this moment of my writing, there are just over 32,500 people worldwide who have seen this film. It is about a hideous crime, which had as only result that the person who released the film and has shown the world that a crime has been committed, is in prison. Not the people who committed this crime or those who gave the orders. Oh no, they hide behind their own created rules and regulations. The name of this person in jail is Bradley Manning. He's only 23 years old and by doing what he did, he showed more courage and he did more for justice than the entire governments and judicial systems together. Have a look at this video clip.




The problem that I have with this is that the "crime" committed by Bradley Manning is treated as if he has done a bigger wrong than the people in the helicopter and the people who gave the okay to shoot. This is proof that when you are in the USA and you show that a crime has taken place by people who are paid by the taxpayer, there is a very big change that you will go to jail. Why? I think that the one and only reason is: The USA Government and the USA Army do this when they are caught with their trousers down because in their eyes they can not do anything wrong. It appears that they are above the law and (excuse me the expression) bigger than God. 
Let's see how long it will take (if that ever will happen) before justice takes it's right course. Unfortunately nowadays justice is a matter of who is the best at interpreting and applying the rules and regulations of  the law. By law, Manning was not allowed to show this video to the world but I wonder if he would not have done so, how would we have known that this crime had happened? And that is why Bradley Manning is in prison. Development of his case shall be linked up here as often as I can.

Bradley Manning pleads guilty to 10 out of 22 charges against him