You must log in or # to comment.
Abolish senate and scotus? Wtf is this?
A list of half baked ideas.
Yup.
I am pretty sure close to half this list is completely unconstitutional and literally unworkable without a whole new one.
That’s the point of a rework
Oh absolutely.
Implement armed street judges that operate as judge, jury, and executioner.
The Senate has the exact same problem that the electoral college does.
For the SCOTUS, we do need a “highest court” but I’m certainly open to things like ethics requirements that are actually enforced. Don’t know how I feel about lifetime appointments. Pros and cons there.
Who needs those pesky checks and balances? They just slow things down. I want my candidate to do what I want, without interference. I’m sure Bernie will be the next President and we can build trains just like China!
No. What kind of crazy shit is this?
Income tax is one of the only tools that could be used to combat inequalityCapital gains taxes and graduated lending taxes would do far more to combat wealth inequality than income tax ever could
I’d just like to give a shout-out to estate tax, which is the only kind of tax that has the explicit purpose of preventing the establishment of an aristocracy.
Yeah but it also means that families might not be able to afford their own home if the people listed on the deed die.
1 home should be deductible from property and estate taxes for all individuals, and not at all for any kind of corporation or organization.
Here, if you’d actually like to learn why income tax doesn’t work and why it disproportionately impacts the poorest workers: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
This is incredibly misleading. I thought propublica was better than this. They calculated these billionaires “true tax rates” based on unrealized gains. Until they cash out they don’t actually make the money.
You can argue for higher income tax brackets, or a more progressive capital gains ladder, or regulations in banking stopping rich people from using other peoples money based on equity they have or any number of way more complicated things that aren’t income related, but outside of just a wealth tax which is something entirely different, these true tax rate numbers are nonsense.
His idea that an income tax is super regressive because the wealthy can live off “unrealized gains” is wrong. But so is your assertion that they don’t actually make money until they realize the gains.
Wealthy people live off of low interest loans that use their stock as collateral. However as long as the green line goes up, they never need to really worry. And when payment comes due it just gets rolled into another loan. The primary mistake the merely rich make when trying to move up is transitioning to this model too early or too aggressively and losing their stock collateral.
This is also how billionaires take a 1 dollar “paycheck” and afford to fly private jets everywhere. “Unrealized gains” is a lie and a giant loophole in our tax system.
I know, and that’s what I was vaguely describing. It’s something entirely different than what’s being talked about.
The poorest workers have an effective tax rate of 0%, and are given extra money when they file their returns if they have kids. How does income tax hurt people who don’t pay it and only receive the benefits from it?
You must not understand how the rich make money. Unfortunate, hopefully you learn some day.
So you’re not really asking if your plan makes sense, you’re trying to force what you think on others. You’ll learn one day.
I’m not forcing anything on anyone, I’m just bringing up things they don’t like to hear.
You want income tax to scale up for ‘normal’ rich people. You then need additional laws/taxes for the super rich as they operate in a different economic world.
VAT is regressive, disproportionally taxing those who have to spend more of their income.
An income tax with a wide untaxed bracket and steeper rates for higher brackets would be more equitable.
The Supreme Court serves a purpose, but is being coopted by political interests and effectively controlled by the Senate, so changes are needed (e.g. eliminating the Senate, moving to elections, setting term limits).
Everything else is reasonable and necessary for a functioning democracy.
VAT can be tailored to not include certain staple items. It can focus frivolous purchases like private jets, yachts, etc.
Leave income tax (VAT is useful but ultimately a regressive tax in that it relies on consumption and therefore disproportionately affects the poor).
Leave the Supreme Court but add term limits-I like 13 years because it keeps the chances that any one person will be able to transform the court very small.
Add in universal pre-k and post-secondary education. Pre-k in particular benefits society at large because it teaches children how to interact with peers in an equitable fashion.
It would require a Constitutional Convention, large amendment, or several amendments. So really hard. Furthermore getting rid of SCOTUS and the income tax aren’t good ideas. We need a court of last resort and a VAT is incredibly regressive compared to an income tax.
It really isn’t possible to abolish the Supreme Court without undoing the constitution entirely. You do that, and you aren’t fixing things, you’re starting over. And yeah, in theory you could amend the constitution to do it, but trying to make that happen is the same as undoing it in reality.
I’m not saying that’s an invalid choice (viva la revolution!), I’m just saying that it is a different concept entirely.
But yeah, if you just changed the first one on that list (which could be done without drastic measures), it would fix 90% of the rest.
The supreme court should probably be a random selection of judges from the lower courts, rather than a set of jerks. Maybe they serve a short term, or are selected for each case.
Not sure why abolishing income tax is on here. That’s usually a right wing fever dream.
There’s other stuff that would probably help, too.
- Enforce monopoly laws.
- Break up existing orgs that are too much.
- Nationalize ISPs.
- Do… something… about police. Just don’t let it devolve into outright private police. Probably need to unbundle all the responsibilities the police currently have into separate institutions, increase licensing requirements, increase accountability. I don’t have a fully baked answer, but if the state doesn’t provide an answer for “Someone broke into my house” then the private market will, and that’s probably going to be worse.
I like the idea of 18 year staggered terms offset by 2 years. Each president gets to nominate 2 justices each presidential term. It needs something to prevent the Senate from essentially saying “no” to every nominee like McConnell did, but it’s better than lifetime appointments.
We can thank the fucked system for allowing the orange reality TV show star to appoint 3 of the 9 current supreme court justices.
I agree, the anti-trust laws have been butchered and Citizens United v. FEC fucked everything up.
I’m waiting with baited breath for stand your ground laws to be used by armed security to kill homeless people.
a good start re: Police - nationalize training standards, ROE, and accountability nationwide, and prohibit police unions.
Income tax disproportionately impacts blue collar workers and the wealthy just avoid them, our tax system is designed to fuck working Americans. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
This was an interesting read.
Sounds like we need a wealth tax and to tax unrealized gains
Where do you get the money for UBI if income tax is abolished?
Land value tax, also popularly known as georgism.
Fairies!
Where do they get the money for the military budget?
Just so you know, the rest of us grudge our income tax, but pay it because of the massive benefit to us and others less fortunate
The answer is abolishing income tax below a certain threshold, and raising it above certain thresholds
Ding ding ding
No tax up to $75k, tax brackets with exponential decay reaching 95% at $1MM, all adjusted for inflation annually.
This makes sense, I agree to an extent. Abolishing income tax in hindsight is a bit extreme.
Percentages adjusted for inflation? Do you mean lower percentage of income is taxed during years with high inflation?
The tax bracket limits, obviously.
How should i know? I’m not American.
If you’re interested at all, here’s how
So your solution for funding UBI after abolishing income tax is…debt?
The debt is meaningless anyway, do you think they’ll ever pay it off?
Yes yes no no yes yes yes no
Yes.
*Undo citizens united
Income tax and senate are important.
Fuck the Senate and giving representation unequally.
Why the fuck do CA and WY get the same representation in the Senate other than because some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states.
The Senate makes sense under two circumstances:
- The US is a confederation, with the majority of the sovereignty resting with individual states rather than the Federal government, and
- Senators are appointed by state legislatures and not directly elected, giving them a meaningfully different constituency and perspective than House reps.
Those circumstances existed when the Senate was initially conceived of by the founding fathers, but no longer do.
How does that make the Senate important?
That is why the House exists.
some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states.
You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone.
The House prevents all of the red states from getting together and patently overruling California.
The Senate prevents the entire country being ruled by California.
Only through striking balance through both checks can a law that impacts everyone be advanced.
The system is build the way it is built for a reason.
California can pass all the state legislation it wants. It needs to get a bill through both house and senate to impose their will on the other 49 states.
If anything, the idea of the House of Representatives at a FEDERAL level is the stupid one.
If we got rid of the Senate, we should just change the name of the country to The United State of California.
You’re literally arguing that people shouldn’t get equal representation because you think land votes.
I’m literally not.
I’m saying checks and balances should exist because we are a country of states with different environments, different hardships, and different cultures, not a country of Californians.
Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol
Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.
So 1 state having all the power is equality?
In your mind, equal = Californian?
1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population?
49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people?
That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group.
Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole.
EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group.
With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I’d think you would be for that.
So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented?
You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone.
Not even remotely true. Slaves were very expensive and only rich people could afford to buy and own slaves. Or did you mean everyone who established Congress?
I meant everyone who established Congress.
Congress didn’t get established as it is by a slave owning south to the chagrin of the not-slave-owning-north.
Slavery was only ever (very rightfully) addressed far after.
That was the point I was making.
Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so.
- Star Voting
- Voting is a national federal holiday
- Universal mail in voting
- UBI
- Medicare for all And things start getting better from there.
I probably should have added UBI to the list. Maybe I’ll make an updated list in the future when I spend some more time doing research. Just read about STAR voting and I still think ranked choice is simpler and better.
Why does voting day need to be a holiday if you can mail it in
To reduce barriers to voting.
And to make it more fun and increase involvement. It should be a huge celebration — not something that feels like doing your taxes.
How is it being a holiday or not a barrier if you can just mail it?
Because some people will struggle to mail it in, and voting in person is easier for those people.
The last two points reminds me of the Fair Tax proposal that was popular among Libertarian circles for a bit.
(I should note that the Fair Tax was the name and not necessarily an accurate description)
A bi-cameral system makes sense in a federated state. But it’s reasonable to graduate the power of one chamber to ensure legislation can’t be blocked forever.
A Supreme Court is necessary if you have a constitution. But judges shouldn’t be political appointees only. Many other countries have a selection process whereby the nominees are selected by a wide group of judges and the selection is done by an approval process in parliament (often not a majority vote, but an approval system that enables centrist candidates to emerge).
For government overhaul would add abolishing the presidency and per district voting (just divide seats in the house based on percentage of the vote overall, I.e. one big district).
For the rest of society: abolish private ownership of companies, but award stocks to the employees instead. This will align incentives of the company with the people most impacted by its decisions.
Income tax can stay as long as its very progressive.
