this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
906 points (98.9% liked)

Political Memes

8755 readers
2857 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I have been thinking on an absolute wealth cap on income and savings. It should be for both individuals and corporations. The corporations can have their cap increased by hiring employees, based on the wage of the employee. Employees themselves have income ranks, so someone like a CEO is capped at $100,000 a year, while a waitress is at $40,000. UBI for someone who doesn't work is at $10,000 annually. This forces the economy to control inflation and price goods according to what income levels that companies want to reach. UBI can also supply generic items, shelter, and services, so that money is used solely for luxury items or lifestyle upgrades. This gives workers the ability to strike or protest, since society isn't holding their wellbeing hostage.

Also, companies can sponsor an income lotto to increase their caps, that gives individuals increased income ranks without having to work. This helps address the workers that are replaced by AI. We need that sort of mechanism for an automated society, else many people will suffer terribly.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You're suffering from what I might call liberal disease or the wonkish fallacy. If you're going to propose some policy that would radically transform society, you need to KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Forget the Everything Bagel Liberalism. Don't try to solve every social ill with one policy. Don't try to make it perfect. Don't add a bunch of provisos and loopholes, even if those loopholes are made with good intentions. People lose track of your goals, and they become understandably suspect that you're trying to pull a con on them with all this fine print.

That's why I propose a 1000x median household income cap. It's simple, clear, and understandable by anyone. If the basic outline of your policy cannot be understood by someone with an 8th grade education, then you are failing at writing policy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree. It IS simple, especially compared to what we have now as a society. We are so used to traditional capitalism, steeped in it for decades of our entire lives, that rules that depict a different way are strange and foreign. Also, merely raising 1,000x income by cap alone is bad, because it undoubtedly leaves room for exploitation, nor does it address it the snowball effect of capitalism.

We need a means to dictate the everyday wellbeing of people, ensure that they can obtain prosperity, and never have their wealth become a toxic substance. That means rules and engineering.

Anyhow, some slides of what I have in mind.

UNIVERSAL RANKED INCOME

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Me: "if your policy isn't understandable by someone with an 8th grade education, you're doing it wrong."

You: "Here's my slide deck."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Cool. Let me ask you this: what philosophies and rules did the founding fathers set down in the founding documents for America?

Those are WAY wordier than what I put here, and they worked for a couple of centuries. Brainpower isn't the issue here, it is the ethical intent and devising rules that naturally lend themselves to be self-enforcing, that matters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to embrace this weird caste system you want to create.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 21 minutes ago)

Caste systems don't allow ordinary people to change their lot in life. What I am proposing is that jobs have codified incomes, education PAYS people to learn, citizens guaranteed an income even if they don't have a job, universal benefits that apply to migrants, everyone pays taxes that increase with their income rank, and that companies pay 100% taxes once their income or wealth expands past a cap based on the people they are employing, that naturalization for citizenship is automatic for migrants.

The only caste I want to create, is that everyone has prosperous agency. That requires the creation of wealth floors and ceilings, ensuring workers can vote for leadership and what income they are owed, and so forth. Mechanisms intended to destroy the ratchet effect of wealth and the influence of a powerful few.

Castes are all about ensuring specific people are strong at the expense of everyone else.