You must log in or # to comment.
#1. Truly abolish slavery. #2. Change the legal system from punishment to rehabilitation. #3. Congress gets minimum wage. #4. Minimum wage and unemployment must be a livable wage.
Congress gets minimum wage
Only works in a country where politicians can’t enrich themselves through heredity or graft. As it stands, the bulk of a Congressman’s fortune accrues before (family/career) or after (lobbyist/book deals) they take high office.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect system when humans are involved. We’ll either fuck it up or change our minds on what is perfect.
A perfect system would necessarily be mutable. If we couldn’t fuck it up, it wouldn’t be perfect, just rigid and unforgiving.
- Democratize the workplace.
There are probably many ways you could go about this: Requiring that employees have a representative on the board of all corporations, forcing companies to give a certain amount of equity to employees, all businesses have to be worker co-ops, maybe some kind of automatic unionization? The point is to give workers more say in how businesses are run and a fairer cut of the value they produce, which would probably end up fixing some of the other things on this list as a byproduct.
- News reporting must be factual and clearly distinguishable from opinion and other non-news programming.
Something needs to be done about deliberate propaganda and misinformation. I’m not sure what the answer is here, but maybe having some rules for what can be called “news” would be a start.
- Enumerated right to bodily autonomy
This would cover abortion, prostitution, and marijuana consumption, and would also cover many forms of trans healthcare that are currently under attack. Speaking of which…
- Strengthened protections for minorities, including legal recognition of trans and intersex people. Something like the Equal Rights Amendment but for all minorities. Let’s explicitly get it into law that you can’t discriminate based on something people are born with.
I don’t agree with merging the House and Senate; uncapping the House fixes the proportionality issue and the Senate is a useful check to ensure that smaller states still have a voice.
Adding 5% to the highest tax bracket seems way too low. There should be a new top bracket with a rate so high it’s almost confiscatory; anyone earning that much is a resource hoarder and should be made to share with the rest of society. We used to have a top tax rate of 95%, so this isn’t unrealistic.
Banning tax prep is redundant if the IRS is calculating it for you, and I wouldn’t want to outright ban it for those whose financial situations may be complicated enough to actually need it.
Why are we including a ban on tipping? I feel like we’re getting lost in the details here. This should be a shorter list of high-level changes. If you don’t like tipping, wouldn’t it be better to do something about employers not giving fair wages in general?
Id also add the corporations cant own single family housing. Huge penalty for multiple houses.
That is covered by “Abolish corporate home ownership”.
Missed that one
Mandatory voting just adds semi-random votes, skewing the proportion of people who are really voting for their own interests, but rather out of vibes due to obligation. Holiday on voting days and repealing of disenfranchisement measures work much better.
deleted by creator
Ok so…
Mandatory voting
I think this can get messy. It would require a system to prosecute those who don’t vote. That kind of registry can be very easily used for nefarious purposes by politicians or just anyone with access to that information. Also, it would really depend on what degree of mandatory this is. If you get thrown in jail then we are going to see a lot of poor people in prison for no reason. If you get just a fine then we are essentially introducing the inverse of a poll tax. Not voting is a protected form of free speech for a reason and can be interpreted as protest.
Merge house into senate
Last time something like this was posted I got flamed for asking what the point of this one is. The Senate is a representation of the states rights we have in our constitution. It serves as a safeguard against heavily populated areas dictating the laws for much less populated states. I’m all for reform but eliminating the Senate all together seems like a step backwards.
Ban tipping
I think this is another one where the spirit of the idea is right but the execution is wrong. What we need to ban is allowing restaurants to pay tipped positions far below minimum wage, and stop allowing restaurants to take a cut of the tip at all.
The act of tipping itself is a cultural thing that needs to be addressed culturally. If you can’t tip someone for something, complications in the law arise that may disallow giving money to people in general. For example how do you distinguish between tipping a server for a meal and giving the server a dollar as a gift?
+1 on the senate, it serves a purpose, if you don’t think it does you clearly don’t understand why it exists lol.
It exists because there was a time when we needed buy in from states, not just people. The Senate was how that was accomplished.
It’s a way of ensuring our democracy isn’t too democratic.You can understand the point of the Senate without thinking that we need to ensure that land is adequately represented in our government.
legislatively it makes sense. it removes a significant portion of say from large states, like texas and california, over small states like wyoming, who have comparatively little say. The trick is that it’s application specific. Unless we’re restructuring the entire government the senate does exist for a pretty explicit purpose.
I think it only makes sense if you think that it matters that Wyoming is fairly represented, and not the people in Wyoming.
I don’t particularly care about the representation of the land, only the people who live on it, where each person should have as much say as any other.The Senate is explicitly antidemocratic, and since I’m a fan of fair representation, I’m not a fan of the Senate.
Well, I suppose you could also make it so states get equal numbers of senators and representatives. That would also be fine, since there’s a slight use for the Senate having a longer election cycle.
Since this whole thread is basically playing and dreaming, I’ll easily agree that you can’t just drop the Senate without at least giving a look at how that impacts the rest of the government organization.
it depends on the legislation. If it’s something that the states are involved in, and it isn’t particularly relevant to the people of the state like most legislation probably is. And in that scenario, it would be beneficial for wyoming to not be overshadowed by.
Also i dont think you understand how senate seats work, they’re literally popular votes. We put them there. That’s at least following the basic principles of democracy. I’m not sure how one would argue against that, unless you have a massive problem with the electoral college, would which would be fair i suppose.
This isn’t a supreme court situation where they’re appointed magically.
What? No, I understand how Senate seats work. It’s not undemocratic because they’re not voted on, it’s undemocratic because they over represent some people over others. Wyoming and California should not be on equal ground because California has 80 times the population.
All issues that impact a state impact the people of the state. States don’t have interests, they’re just collections of people living on a piece of land.Giving votes to land is an artifact of getting the country started.
The problem here though is that the US doesn’t work like the EU does for instance. The EU is the US if it were less federally controlled, and more “formally agreed upon” rather than legislated and codified into law.
While it is true that most issues of the state are related to the people, it’s also true that each state government is independent from the federal government. And they do need some level of individualism, in order to function appropriately, without the ability for larger states to pull a shenanigan that can negatively affect smaller states. It’s not about representation of the land, it’s about equal representation of the individual components of the hierarchical government body.
This is like saying that because America is 75% white people, that they should have 75% control over everything, which by nature, is true to a degree, but this creates a problem where the majority, can overrule anything a minority says. And they have no course of action in response.
A lot of legislation in the government is highly isolated from the average citizen. That’s kind of the whole point of the government, if you truly wanted democracy. Wouldn’t it be prudent to delete both the house and the senate? So that way we truly have democratic rule over the county? Seems like the better option here. Not to mention the fact that the house and senate co-exist in a similar space, and can be utilized to prevent further shenanigans. If we only had the house, it would only take the house in order to push through bullshit legislation that nobody wants. They exist as two separate entities, operating in two independent manners. With a reasonable level of democratic influence over the two.
While technically not democratic, the US doesn’t advertise itself as democratic, merely a democratic republic.
The last one could just be “free education”
Could? I think it should be.
I would perhaps reword it to something along the lines of “add economic literacy to the public school curriculum”.
How about age limits for government officials as well? Or at least the senate. The grandma at the tax form place in city hall is ok even if she a bit slow.
personally think it’s less a problem with age. age limits are arbitrary and likely have no basis in science (within reason). however i do think it could be advantageous to require a variety of ages of people, and somehow weight their input, but that process may destroy the inherent value of a representative democracy; if we let everyone speak nothing will get done.
personally i think hard term limits and ranked choice voting would fix the majority of issues caused by generational gaps.
Can someone explain to me what “collateral for loan is realized gain” means?
Not an expert and i might be wrong, but here is how i understand it with an example:
You are a billionaire that wants to buy a new mansion for 100 million dollar. Even being that rich you probably don’t just have that amount of cash sitting around in your regular bank account where it doesn’t earn you any more money. That would be stupid. Instead you likely have it tied up in stocks.
Now you could ofc just sell some of those, turn around and buy the mansion with cash. But then you would have to pay taxes on the gains you have made so far with these stocks. Because up until those are realized (by selling them), they are just on paper and there is no taxable event. You have all the money you’d need for thousands of lifetimes already, but you still don’t like paying taxes. So luckily there is a better way.
You go to a bank and ask them to borrow you the 100 million. You aren’t named Donald Trump, so the bank will gladly give you the money for a very low interest rate, because they know you are good for it. They gladly do so since it is basically risk free and they can in a way just create that money. For you the amout of interest also doesn’t matter because it is actually less than your stocks will on average give you in profits.
Now you haven’t realized any gains, but instead have a “loss” through the loan and bought your 10th mansion. Over time you will either pay back the loan slowly and use the cost fo your loan to balance out some profits (and avoid taxes that way). Or you might just pay the interest and roll over the loans indefinitely.
We don’t have immortality yet so eventually you will die having payed little to no taxes. However your heirs will have to pay inheritance taxes. But until then your wealth has enjoyed the compunding gains unhindered by taxes. And rather than directly passing on your wealth to the next generation you might have some foundation or other construct to keep taxes to a minimum.
I am actually not sure about the coroprate home ownership point. Here in Germany renting is much more common and accepted compared to the US, and i think there are lots of situations where this makes sense. However both in the US and here in Germany the systems need changes. And i think they should mostly target land ownership rather than the houses themself. What drives up the prices in desired areas are mostly increases in land value, not that building houses got that much more expensive (although that is also a factor).
And most of that value gain are from external factors rather than the owners own merit. If someone builds an architectually great and energy efficient house or develops land, then it is fine if he gains value from it. But if simply owning the property improves the value over time, because society around it builds nice schools, parks and so on. Then the owner hasn’t done anything and that profit should be taxed completely away. If that makes sense.
That said there probably should also be a mechanism to support the first home people own to counteract scale efficiencies that corporations might be able to leverage.
Not sure if outright banning stocks for politicians is the way to go, but there should be more points regarding transparancy and conflicts of interest. Also not just during their time in office, but after that aswell.
I’d have no issue with politicians holding a borad market index fund.
No employee, owner, shareholder, investor, contractor, etc. can make more than 50 times the amount of the lowest paid employee, contractor, supplier employee, supplier’s supplier employee, etc. (Including all of the foreign slaves).
Tim Cook wants to earn 50M per year? Then all of those Foxconn guys that they need nets to stop from suiciding need to make at least 1M. All of the guys making chips have to make 1M. All of the guys mining coal to produce the electricity have to make 1M.
Income inequality problems would be abated. “Dey took our yobs.” would be less of a problem because you would save money by using local labor due to lower shipping costs. Poverty would eventually be eliminated.
Probably communism with extra steps, but maybe it would be less prone to party dictators.
Fuck 50 times. Why should it be higher than 30…or 20…or even 10 times?
But yeah, communism with extra steps is better than what we have now. 😉👍
No employee, owner, shareholder, investor, contractor, etc. can make more than
501 times the amount of the lowest paid employee, contractor, supplier employee, supplier’s supplier employee, etc
deleted by creator
Sure, but be careful with “universal basic income” ,“taxes” and actual national expenses.
What you have there is a wish list. It’s a good wishlist, but an actual plan requires planning. Including how the math works out. Which can be done, but you still need to do it.
You forgot “embrace the metric system”.
As someone who hates this God forsaken measuring system, I genuinely don’t know if the costs of this would ever be worth it. There’d be thousands and thousands of miles marker signs that’d have to be replaced, not to mention having to redo thousands of textbooks.
Plus, when it comes to some things, imperial is just better. Mostly this is carpentry. 12 is way more divisible than 10 and fractions are way easier for cutting than decimal
There are also tons of machines and tools made to work in inches. As more things are becoming computer controlled, it’s easier to convert between inch and mm on the fly, but every drill bit, end mill, and tool holder for the manual mill in my company’s shop is in inch.
I’m also gonna disagree with you on the 12 better than 10 front. Just use a calculator if you can’t do it in your head and round to the nearest mm. I bet you’ll learn what 10/6 and 10/3 are faster than 12/5 too.
I can actually do all of those in my head, so that wouldn’t be an issue for me.
But yeah, all of my tools and bits and holders are imperial, and someone else better be paying to get the damn things replaced or they are staying imperial even if we go metric. I think the only things I have in metric are allans (allens? I’ve never had to spell it out), like 2 hole saws from an old project, and a set of calipers I was gifted and have used maybe twice
This will be considered for v4 as “Transition to metric system”. It would take several years for the transition to completely take place for the average American. I’m also probably going to add “end daylight savings”, which is close to being passed anyway.
A commendable attempt at building the foundations of a progressive movement that breaks the current political stagnation we have endured for the past forty years or more.
Unfortunately the majority of people are inexplicably content to be shafted by successive governments whatever their political persuasion.
