[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 hours ago

He should be getting in front of a camera every day and saying "here's what we're trying to do. Here's why it helps you/society. And here are the assholes standing in the way". And if those assholes are Democrats, kick them out of the party and support a better candidate to run against them.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

Also the fact they aren't allowed to save up money. I think it's like $2k saved up and they get cut off. That's not even enough for first last and security deposit if they wanted to try and move to a better situation.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Except now there's nukes, end stage capitalism, and climate change... Sure up until like 100 years ago shit sucked hard for just about everyone, but at least there was no way they could literally end all life on earth

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

In a lot of ways yes this is the best humanity has ever had, but it's also the first time we've had the means to completely eradicate life on earth, and still seen to be barreling towards it. (If you consider the last 80 or so years to be "now")

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Literally gives me anxiety to the point I need meds

[-] [email protected] -4 points 2 days ago

Biden's meme-team hard at work I see

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Well yeah, I mean vote 3rd party if you prefer a different candidate and you're not in one of the states that matters... It's not going to effect the outcome of the election, but could allow more parties on the ballot in the future if they get enough of the vote

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

I mean... I could see quick reflexes coming into play for a pilot more than for a president though

[-] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I don't care how old a person is... I care if they're sound of mind. We need to start having cognitive testing done before someone can run

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

And instead of fighting the rich who are causing all of that, they're dumb and blame immigrants... Like they're told to... By the rich

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Yes, this is why... But of course the article doesn't mention that... Which is shocking coming from a media conglomerate owned by a nepo rich white guy /s

30
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/economics

This idea has been kicking around in my head for a while, and I'm hoping some Lemmy geniuses can poke holes/ flesh it out with me.

Every person I've ever heard of works for and gets paid by some form of company. So instead of the company paying the workers and then those workers getting taxed, why not just tax it all to the corporations to begin with? Instead of hundreds of millions of individuals to think about, the IRS (in US) could just focus on a few million companies.

We the people democratically decide what we think is needed for a functioning society, and charge it to the corporations.

I'd say each company should be responsible for paying the same percentage of the bill as percentage of total "profits" they made. Like, if Apple makes 10% of all the combined profits of all the companies this quarter, they are responsible for paying 10% of the bill. Highest paid employee can make 10x what the lowest paid employee (including contracted and foreign workers) makes; more than that gets included in the calculation as part of the company's "profits". (So that CEO can still get paid absurd amounts of money, but the company will still pay taxes on most of it)

What if we created some sort of secure opinion/voting app where people go to cast their vote on whatever people think needs to be voted on. Should there be UBI? Should it be a token, living, or thriving wage? (Personally, I'd go with thriving and tie it to inflation) Single payer healthcare? All education paid for? Stop funding genocide? No more polluting the planet, or at least force companies to pay to clean up their own messes? When and where are companies allowed to market to us? Where should the threshold of agreement be to enact changes, 40% 50%+1 60%? Etc etc

Then we elect people who agree to simply enact what the people democratically agree on... And if the people don't agree, they'll stay away from it or leave it to the states. And hopefully someday we could build it out so that state and local governments work this way too.

I think we get bogged down on the 2 or 3 things we disagree on and allow that to mean we never get the things we DO agree on. Let's get the things we agree on first, and then continue debating the things we disagree on.

Also I think this would be a long term plan. 12 years would give us 2 full election cycles here in the US and would give zoomers time to grow up, settle, and start to really vote (hopefully with this new system).

Anyway, like I said, let's poke holes and figure out solutions. Thanks

view more: next ›

Wes4Humanity

joined 2 months ago