this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

General Discussion

12139 readers
120 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


πŸͺ† About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


πŸ’¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with β€˜silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

As a mathematician, I want to see this modified slightly (I will pair the original with my modification)

  • Income up to $50k is untaxed

  • Income up to $100k is untaxed (I have done the math, this would actually work with one of my other modifications)

  • VAT tax for luxury items

  • VAT for B2B sales based on the Value Added by their step in the production chain

  • Remove sales tax

  • Remove tax brackets - replace with a continuous function that has parameters to encapsulate the current credits and deductions, as well as new ones to encourage reasonable behaviors (green energy, having kids, not having kids, etc.)

  • Addendum to the above: business taxes fall get the same treatment, with parameters for things like the wealth/income gap ratio between the highest-paid employee and the median for the company, % of employees who reside in the United States, number of subsidiaries, number of technology acquisitions made. Oh, and companies that make more than $1M/yr never get a refund, period.

  • Require communities to cap rent, it is done by popular vote as a ballot measure, and the options are calculated based on local needs, cost of living, and median income for the town.

I have more, but I also have a headache.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Rather than abolish the Electoral College and merge the House and Senate, I would suggest massively increasing the size of the House. This would increase the size of the Electoral College too, reducing the distortion of the population while still protecting less populous states. This also has the advantage of being something that can be done through ordinary laws instead of Constitutional amendments.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (8 children)

"Protecting" the less populous states from what?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

From the tyranny of the majority. Each state is equally represented in the Senate, versus the House where states are apportioned seats by population.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I agree with most of these. Key differences that'd I prefer:

  • Approval instead of ranked choice voting (easier auditing, simpler to explain)
  • Get rid of pretty much all taxes, and replaced it with a land and carbon/pollution tax
  • Mandate all companies be employee owned
  • Abolish the stock market
  • Ban on corporations from owning single family unit homes, every citizen capped to 3 residences, and all multi-unit homes must be non-market housing
  • Massive public investment into housing construction
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

At the bare minimum force states to proportionally allocate electors. I know this is realistically impossible.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

twenty year old me β€œheck yeah”

Forty year old me β€œnever going to happen.”

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Term limit for congress

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ban political donations, all political parties get the same, small campaign budget and allotment of advertising space/airtime funded by the government instead

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

The BIG unintended consequence here is that this makes starting a new party just to leech off the government a big target. Who cares if you never get anyone elected, so long as you can have government paid salaries and airtime.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

You missed step one, which is to not live in the United States. Alternatively live in a parallel universe where any of this would be politically achievable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Forced retirement of politicians at whatever the national retirement age currently is

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (5 children)

You missed a very important one, fix the main reason billionaires don't pay any tax:

Using your unrealised gains (e.g. shares) as collatoral to take out loans should be considered realising those gains and thus subject to capital gains tax

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Why stop there? Why keep the stock market at all? It's only real purpose is for the rich to play games with their wealth, to distribute wealth towards themselves, etc. People shouldn't be making a living off of speculative investment at all. Jobs should contribute to society. Owning is not a job.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure if you got rid of "the stock market" it would immediately be reinvented.

"Hey, I need money to start my CatChat app. If you invest, I'll give you part of the company"

"Cool."

"Hmm.. I bet I could sell parts of this to the public the same way"

Maybe the worst parts wouldn't be reinvented right away, but those are the things that need to actually go. High frequency trading, weird nonsense that's not actually creating value, etc

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Yeah, there would be a risk of that happening. But to prevent that, the existing concept of ownership in a company needs to change as well. All companies should be legally required to be 100% employee owned, no other form of ownership allowed.

The switch away from a stock market wouldn't be simple, and it would probably be quite painful. But absolutely worth it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

And while we’re at it, let’s take into account the total wealth of your stock holdings when you realize gains. There’s no reason poor and middle Americans should pay the same tax on their capital gains as billionaires.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

ALL sales tax needs to be replaced with value-added tax. Zero tax on used goods, including cars, if you actually want to reduce waste and related harm to the environment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I like almost all of this, but I disagree with merging the Senate and House as well as a VAT on luxury items. We already have tax on basically every transaction and the burden is on the consumer, that needs to change. What should happen is that all taxes on food items currently should be removed. I believe the separation of Senate and House, while burdensome and inefficient at times, really does an essential good for American society. We would fare much better if we had term limits and more than two (essentially one) political party.

Edit: I want to continue with strickening the UBI from this list as well in exchange for significanly improving social services to make sure that everyone is guaranteed food, housing, medical, and security. I get that income is important and some people cant work, but inflation is real and that money has to come from somewhere not just the ether. It would be better to create/improve upon existing social safety nets to make sure everyone can contribute to society in some way rather than just giving everyone money for nothing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm wondering who defines "luxury items". I'd currently put a trip to the dentist and a car with under 120k miles in the luxury category.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

The car yes, dentist, no. Dentists are essential services imo

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think literally all you need is ranked choice voting and the abolishment of corporate personhood and for profit lobbying. The rest will take care of itself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Agreed, although ranked choice with some form or proportional allocation instead of "single winner take all" might be even better.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Out of these, unfortunately the only one that even has a chance of being realized is "IRS does taxes for everyone", and even that is more like "IRS provides official avenue to not have to pay a tax prep service"

The rest of these won't happen without a revolution, because the people with the power to make these things happen all directly benefit from them.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see even one or two things on this list become reality. Any two would make a ton of difference for a lot of people. But capitalism doesn't like it when you benefit the average Joe, and capitalism always wins here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Term limits on SCOTUS should be 18 years, with one Justice retiring every other year.

Unless the court expands, then the term limits could be shorter

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Yeah, 10 years is too short. 18 sounds pretty good. I'd also want to give them a full retirement. Ostensibly, they'd be less likely to sell influence.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

i think one small addition

  1. decrease influence of ~~bribing~~ lobbying
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Why not just add 1. Everyone gets free money and is happy all the time

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

abolishing corporate personhood would effectively do this, since that's the primary justification for legalizing corruption in the USA.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί