Does this plan make sense? v3
Does this plan make sense? v3
Does this plan make sense? v3
You're viewing a single thread.
Mandatory voting - how? Currently voting is handled state by state, you want to make the federal government take that over? What would the punishment be for not voting? Frankly I disagree with this
Tax credit for voting. Make it count like a $50 charitable donation would.
If you're thinking, now, "but then poor people would always vote and rich people would be off sailing their yacht", I completely agree.
Tax credit for voting.
Yes. Or even better just cut a check or give cash or equivalent.
Make it count like a $50 charitable donation would.
No. That's a deduction, and it's worthless for the vast majority of people who have less in deductions than the standard deduction. Also doesn't reduce taxes by the full amount: a $50 deduction would be at most like an $11 credit (or cash) for most people, if it even mattered.
Man, the rich just fucking off away from society would be delightful. Things might actually function in society.
100% on the "lots of missing 'how's" point. You skipped the "ban lobbying" one, which is probably the second biggest "how" after the gerrymandering.
Lobbying is not some official policy or process. Senators don't have "lobbying hours." Lobbying is basically just "being at lunches and parties that politicians are at." Unless you're proposing Congress not be allowed to go out in public and live as secluded monks, I don't see how you "abolish" it..
Yeah I just didn't have it in me and meant to go back for it lol.
We have mandatory voting in Australia. It's "enforced" by a AU$20 fine. Not really a true punishment, more like a nudge. It's more of a societal understanding here, you turn up to a polling place as a civil duty. You can donkey vote if you want, you can draw a cock on the ballot form and invalidate it, doesn't matter. As long as you got your name crossed off, and most importantly had the opportunity to vote, then you're clear. I wouldn't have it any other way, it means that there can't be changes to dissuade people from voting, and politicians don't resort to wildly populist policies to try and encourage people to come out to vote. Also helps that federal elections always occur on a Saturday, and employers are required to give time off in order to vote.
Those are some good questions.
Politicians banned from stocks - so they can't own shares of any companies? Or they just can't trade while in office? Does this go for any elected official? More than just elected officials?
What about only allowing investments in broad index funds? But banning trading specific stocks and options could go a long way too.
a lot of your questions boil down to “how” and no hate but it’s just funny to witness lemmy discovering what drafting legislation looks like
That's exactly my point. There are people working hard to make these things happen and generally these are very well supported by the public, but without the plan behind them, theres no substance here.
The reason these don't get passed is because of the particulars of implementation. you can't write a bill with the only text being "universal healthcare" without a lot more to it. Once there's a lot more to it, then it gets picked apart and rejected.
re: gerrymandering
"Collateral for loan is realized gain" targets the "Buy Borrow Die" strategy.
Sure but what's the actual action there? Implementation of a wealth tax? What property counts for that? Is there some other technique he/you are talking about? Taking a loan will now count as income?
Making a loan count as income will mess up legit home purchases. If you went that route it couldn't be that simple.
A big benefit to the buy borrow die strategy is the step up basis for your children. Realizing the gain will move the basis up and cause a taxable event.
I don't know all the details, much less if this plan is perfect, but I think that's the idea.
Maybe removing step up basis is enough, to help reduce generational wealth. IDK