this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
371 points (98.9% liked)

Just Post

634 readers
6 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
[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 96 points 1 month ago (12 children)

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

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month 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?

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 month ago

I seriously support this

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 18 points 1 month ago

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

[–] basmati@lemmus.org 9 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 65 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That 1876 session sounds lit

[–] dylanmorgan 30 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 59 points 1 month ago

Some of these are bangers but others are utterly deplorable.

[–] penguinsAreRapists@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago (4 children)

United States of Earth is hilarious

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago
[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Thinking way down the road

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ryudos@lemm.ee 34 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month 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.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Right? How different would things look today?

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Higher taxes on high incomes and wealth is better though.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

I like the 1916 one. A lot, actually.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 9 points 1 month 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@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month 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.

[–] quantumantics@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Adding to this, I surmise that the inevitable comparisons to the triumvirates of republican Rome would not have gone over very well. I wonder if that was brought up at all when it was brought to the floor for discussion.

[–] LegoBrickOnFire@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Take a look at switzerland to see how this could turn out :) (obligatory swiss patriotism)

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

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

[–] BlastboomStrice@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

1893 and 1933 sound so coool

No army, no too rich people

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month 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.

[–] tlekiteki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

this is highly interesting

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί