Perhaps this is just my European wallet talking, but $50k/y income = rich people. I'm sure there are states in USA where this is also true.
That sort of a change would totally crash tax income?
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
642 points (89.4% liked)
General Discussion
12314 readers
19 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
🪆 About Lemmy World
🧭 Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
- [email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
- [email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
- [email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
- [email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!
- [email protected] - Want to talk politics apart from political news? Here's a community for that!
Rules and Policies
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
- No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
- Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
- Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
- No Ads/Spamming.
- No NSFW content.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I like a lot of your proposals,but I don’t think they will fix everything. Certainly an improvement though.
I don’t think the supreme court changes would fix issues with the court, and I think a 15 yr. limit could make it worse.
Each presidential term would get 2-3 nominations per term, allowing them to establish a majority if elected for 2 terms. Considering how powerful the court is, allowing a president to establish a majority simply by being in office for 2 terms isn’t great.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I like where you're going here, and the only things I disagree with are the Senate merge and Electoral College as these still serve a purpose. The removal of the House cap will rebalance there, and if anything the Senate could be reverted from popular election back to being appointed by the State Legislatures so they rebalance back to being actual actors for the State as intended vs overpowered Representatives.
The Electoral College helps balance democracy being 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, but maybe get some math experts to review the equation for apportionment and/or set all electors to be proportional to the vote percentages in every state.
IRS filing taxes for us could lead to unintended consequences, like them just saying "yep, everything's in order here. you're all paid up. What's that? Tax return? No, you paid the exact amount you owed in taxes, so you get no return." and probably you'd have to do a FOIA request to get a copy of the return, then you could probably fight it, but it'd cost more to fight it than you'd get back in the return in the first place.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I’m happy if the mail comes on time. I don’t think the government could properly manage these broad sweeping programs especially with radical changes to the legislative and judicial branches and elections.
Nor do I think you’d be able to get the states on board with this much radical change. Everything sounds ok on a surface level but rather than thinking pie in the sky, pragmatism would be needed on just the most important issues such as a universal health plan or education plan