this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
373 points (99.0% liked)

Just Post

677 readers
62 users here now

Just post something πŸ’›

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I saw this circulating around and thought it was an interesting read.

Some of these are horrendous, some are funny, and a few made me think "Hmm, maybe not a bad idea"

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 96 points 2 months ago (12 children)

A limit of $1 million in 1933 inflation adjusted would be $24.4 million today.

[–] Maalus 13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

How would that work with inflation / deflation I wonder, you hit the limit, can't make anymore, you retire, all is well. Then what, you need to get rid of 5% of your wealth? How do you define the limit, dollars in X year? Why that arbitrary amount?

[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A progressive wealth tax with the final bracket being 100% at $24.4 million.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

I seriously support this

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago

We make minimum wage an arbitrary amount untied to inflation. This would be the same.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

Tie it to inflation, set the number high enough to maintain an upscale property and life for 100 years (that way babies inheriting money won't suffer), and enforce it via military strikes on offenders and their families.

[–] Etterra 7 points 2 months ago

I love that amendment, and have wanted it to exist for years. Nice to see I'm not the only person to come up with it.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] 4_degrees 66 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That 1876 session sounds lit

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago

We should revisit those. The senate thing could be moderated with each state getting an extra two representatives. I’d add to the β€œno religious leader can hold office” one that churches are no longer tax-exempt by default, they can file as a 501(c)3 like every other charitable organization and show the community work they’re doing.

[–] barsquid 59 points 2 months ago

Some of these are bangers but others are utterly deplorable.

[–] penguinsAreRapists 43 points 2 months ago (4 children)

United States of Earth is hilarious

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago
[–] nucleative 2 points 2 months ago

Thinking way down the road

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago (12 children)

As a layperson who hasn't given it too much thought, the 1916 sounds interesting. I assume they'd only use a small percentage of volunteers since having 200 million new soldiers would be a bit unmanageable. The pessimist in me thinks they'd just do "military exercises" and never actually go to war and a vote though πŸ˜”

[–] spankmonkey 25 points 2 months ago

Registering to volunteer would basically be the same as the current requirement to register for selective service (the draft). It doesn't mean they need to immediately start serving, just that they need to volunteer and serve when needed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

"Don't cast the vote unless you're on the boat".

As former infantry, I complete approve.

But as someone involved in a large group that does a lot of peacekeeping, I think our obligation to the UN is important and needs to be stepped-up to give the UN some teeth.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Dasus 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Right? How different would things look today?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It would be common knowledge that deflation is good solely because it benefits those at $1mil

[–] Dasus 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)

But people having just one million wouldn't wield incredible political power, so the government probably wouldn't listen to them as much as they do now.

[–] spankmonkey 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If I someone hits the $1 mark, they would probably be able to spend/transfer the excess to their children and relatives, and all kinds of shenanigans. It isn't a terrible idea, but it would require some complex regulations to avoid it being yet another way for the wealthy to spend money to influence things.

High tax rates had the same intended outcome by encouraging them to keep their money in growing businesses and employees reaped the benefits in the 50s and 60s.

[–] Dasus 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

to spend/transfer the excess to their children and relatives, and all kinds of shenanigans

Sharing wealth to people who might also do the same once they end up millionaire? Doesn't sound too bad, especially if any of those wealth transfers were taxed even slightly.

Honestly, there's nothing wrong with the current system we have except for letting the rich people keep pretty much everything.

Imbalanced game state, rich people OP. Nerf that and shit will be gucci

[–] spankmonkey 3 points 2 months ago

Higher taxes on high incomes and wealth is better though.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Draghetta 2 points 2 months ago

Not much, rich people are usually smart enough to go around this sort of stuff. This is the company yacht, this penthouse is my office I just happen to live in, I am akshually a cayman citizen, etc etc.

Plus wealthy people usually don’t have a lot of cash, because keeping cash means losing money to inflation - I bet a lot of billionaires don’t have one million dollars in the bank even now.

[–] Etterra 21 points 2 months ago

I like the 1916 one. A lot, actually.

[–] Stern 20 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Shouldn't be an amendment, but we should impose a "securities" tax to achieve something like the $1 million limit on personal wealth.

An annual, 1% tax on stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other financial instruments, payable in shares of that security. (Which will then be slowly liquidated on the open market, such that the liquidated shares never comprise more than 1% of traded volume in any given time period)

The first $10 million directly held by a natural person are exempt from this tax.

Wealth isn't problematic in and of itself. The issue is when wealth is used primarily to purchase wealth-generating assets, rather than the products and services that generate wealth for workers.

[–] Etterra 3 points 2 months ago

No make it an amendment so the rich who want to be richer have a much harder time abolishing it. And since you can't stop the worst people from getting rich, it's better to do an across the board blanket ceiling. If you can't control the assholes, you have to say least throttle them.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'm guessing the Council of Three got shot down because the office of the President shouldn't be that powerful anyway. And yet we slowly made it that way.

[–] spankmonkey 12 points 2 months ago

The office of the president is so powerful because congress keeps passing more and more responsibility to the office.

Congress is supposed to declare war, but they give the president a bunch of limited power and follow their lead when it comes to military actions.

Congress is supposed to create the budget, but they start with a proposed budget from the president.

Congress is supposed to be the ones leading legislative change in general, but they defer most of that to the president.

etc.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SupraMario 8 points 2 months ago

2nd and 3rd and last all sound top-notch.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

1893 and 1933 sound so coool

No army, no too rich people

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Based Based Based Cringe Based Cringe Cringe Cringe Based (lol) Based Based Cringe Cringe Cringe Based

[–] finitebanjo 3 points 2 months ago

No senate? and deconstructing the US Military before the World War Era? What?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra 5 points 2 months ago

1948 isn't a bad one, but you have to accept being relocated to a shitty reservation. A Christian Nationalist lunatic reservation would make everything so much better for the rest of us.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

this is highly interesting

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί