Not that I’m particularly against that - quite the opposite, in fact. But I’m wondering if anyone sees, or had seen a path to social and climate recovery/progress that could occur without first eradicating the class of people who most enjoy the present status quo.
All it is necessary to do is to abolish all other forms of taxation until the weight of taxation rests upon the value of land irrespective of improvements, and take the ground-rent for the public benefit.
~ Henry George, Social Problems
Adjust our economic system to disallow inherited wealth beyond a lavish amount. I don’t mind a person getting rich for starting and succeeding with a massive company. I do mind the 100B being passed to their children, who will never have done anything to earn it.
Let the kids have $10 million each or something, the government should take the rest. If they try to “leave” the country the same thing should apply.
This will also adjust the incentive for billionaires to just make more money since they know they won’t be able to pass it on maybe they will start actually spending it to keep the
Make it illegal to even have that much money, since literally no one needs that much, and take it from them. No idea what that would look like though.
Whatever theoretically is done their wealth should be redistributed to the people that made it for them. Workers need to own the means of production.
Yes, and it’s simple and effective - Tax them and limit the huge transfers of intergenerational wealth. When the US had a robust taxation system with high marginal rates for the highest income levels, we also had the strongest and most robust middle class. It powered the “American Dream.” Having individuals hoard billions of dollars and build familial dynasties isn’t good for society as a whole.
In my opinion, it all begins with ending the system of legalized political bribery, getting dark money out of politics, and making politicians accountable to citizens again.
While I’d say that it is absolutely the case that the ruling class must be eliminated before there can be meaningful change, since they’re too far removed from common life (or sanity for that matter) to make any of the necessary concessions of their own volition, I think it’s undeniably the case that a rational society cannot be built by people who believe that killing people is an acceptable approach to problems.
I think the only hope is that our descendants, when they rebuild civilization out of the rubble we leave behind, will do a better job of it - at the very least, that they’ll know better than to let psychopaths gain power.
That suggests, though, that societal progress can only occur once they ARE dead, or at least disenfranchised beyond any hope of recovery (and presumably a lot of other people dead too, if civilization is reduced to ruins)
But I would challenge the assertion that people willing to kill (or, I guess, order it to be done) are unable to improve upon current society. If certain individuals are impeding society from advancement, and the only viable solution to their removal is one of violence, simply seeing that to be the case and being willing to take those actions doesn’t necessarily mean their vision of society is a flawed one (though I will admit, it does make for a reasonable inductive argument of that conclusion)
But if, as you say, the ruling class must first be removed before positive change can take place, that suggests that either the only path to improvement is through such extreme means, or else there is no path to a better society.
Japan solved the overpaid corporate culture nonsense. Australia has the most wealth equality, without the parasitic billionaire problem. The solutions have existed for a long time.
The real issue in the USA is the lack of effective legislation. There is no political accountability. This is all due to a two party system. All it takes to fix the USA is outlawing gerrymandering, rejecting the electoral college, and institute tiered voting where everyone votes for the candidates based upon their preferred priority order. Popular votes is the only Democratic method. Representative republics are a corruption of democracy that was a necessity with the travel and communication limitations of 300 years ago but not now. Voting for candidates by priority would make party affiliation nearly meaningless and force accountability and substance because the difference between candidates would drastically decrease. It would eliminate the polarized nonsense that all the billionaires want. It isn’t about the ridiculous nonsense, it is about ensuring very little productive legislation is possible. No laws means do anything you want. The US has a tenth of the laws and protections of any other western country.
The problems is not that rich people exist, millionaires are few and far between, but that rich people that are able to screw everyone over.
What we have to do is to stop giving the rich so much power, especially over the government. Less corruption means that we can better regulate large companies, including enforcing pollution emission limts.
In fact, you are already helping with that, by using Lemmy and not corporate social media like Twitter or Reddit.
Do you think the ultra rich will pay up? Also the government is the US is quite corrupt, this money won’t fix anything. Fist fix corruption, then try to help the poor.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community space dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All posts titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That’s it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content. Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Matrix Chat Room
To find & join our chat room, log into fluffychat.im(or any other matrix client) and put #nostupidquestions:matrix.org on the search bar.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
This is a meme, right? …right?
There are relatively few steps that would go a long way toward stopping the accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth.
If you want to really jump start things we should also make all campaigns publicly funded.
I mean, take all their money so that they’re no longer billionaires.
I think it’s possible they might have an opinion on that subject, perhaps loosely phrased as “over my dead body”
Well, then they’ll have consented, then. Ethical conundrum solved!
THE TEST IS OVER
Adjust our economic system to disallow inherited wealth beyond a lavish amount. I don’t mind a person getting rich for starting and succeeding with a massive company. I do mind the 100B being passed to their children, who will never have done anything to earn it.
Let the kids have $10 million each or something, the government should take the rest. If they try to “leave” the country the same thing should apply.
This will also adjust the incentive for billionaires to just make more money since they know they won’t be able to pass it on maybe they will start actually spending it to keep the
RIP BlameThePeacock. Tragically eaten alive by billionaires before they could finish their post.
F
Oh no they got SquiggleMonster too!
Make it illegal to even have that much money, since literally no one needs that much, and take it from them. No idea what that would look like though. Whatever theoretically is done their wealth should be redistributed to the people that made it for them. Workers need to own the means of production.
Yes, and it’s simple and effective - Tax them and limit the huge transfers of intergenerational wealth. When the US had a robust taxation system with high marginal rates for the highest income levels, we also had the strongest and most robust middle class. It powered the “American Dream.” Having individuals hoard billions of dollars and build familial dynasties isn’t good for society as a whole.
In my opinion, it all begins with ending the system of legalized political bribery, getting dark money out of politics, and making politicians accountable to citizens again.
While I’d say that it is absolutely the case that the ruling class must be eliminated before there can be meaningful change, since they’re too far removed from common life (or sanity for that matter) to make any of the necessary concessions of their own volition, I think it’s undeniably the case that a rational society cannot be built by people who believe that killing people is an acceptable approach to problems.
I think the only hope is that our descendants, when they rebuild civilization out of the rubble we leave behind, will do a better job of it - at the very least, that they’ll know better than to let psychopaths gain power.
That suggests, though, that societal progress can only occur once they ARE dead, or at least disenfranchised beyond any hope of recovery (and presumably a lot of other people dead too, if civilization is reduced to ruins)
But I would challenge the assertion that people willing to kill (or, I guess, order it to be done) are unable to improve upon current society. If certain individuals are impeding society from advancement, and the only viable solution to their removal is one of violence, simply seeing that to be the case and being willing to take those actions doesn’t necessarily mean their vision of society is a flawed one (though I will admit, it does make for a reasonable inductive argument of that conclusion)
But if, as you say, the ruling class must first be removed before positive change can take place, that suggests that either the only path to improvement is through such extreme means, or else there is no path to a better society.
Japan solved the overpaid corporate culture nonsense. Australia has the most wealth equality, without the parasitic billionaire problem. The solutions have existed for a long time.
The real issue in the USA is the lack of effective legislation. There is no political accountability. This is all due to a two party system. All it takes to fix the USA is outlawing gerrymandering, rejecting the electoral college, and institute tiered voting where everyone votes for the candidates based upon their preferred priority order. Popular votes is the only Democratic method. Representative republics are a corruption of democracy that was a necessity with the travel and communication limitations of 300 years ago but not now. Voting for candidates by priority would make party affiliation nearly meaningless and force accountability and substance because the difference between candidates would drastically decrease. It would eliminate the polarized nonsense that all the billionaires want. It isn’t about the ridiculous nonsense, it is about ensuring very little productive legislation is possible. No laws means do anything you want. The US has a tenth of the laws and protections of any other western country.
Australia has bad wealth inequality and does have a parasitic billionaire problem.
The problems is not that rich people exist, millionaires are few and far between, but that rich people that are able to screw everyone over.
What we have to do is to stop giving the rich so much power, especially over the government. Less corruption means that we can better regulate large companies, including enforcing pollution emission limts.
In fact, you are already helping with that, by using Lemmy and not corporate social media like Twitter or Reddit.
Return the tax rate for the uppermost bracket to what it was before 1981 when Reagan screwed us all over. That rate is 70%, by the by.
Do you think the ultra rich will pay up? Also the government is the US is quite corrupt, this money won’t fix anything. Fist fix corruption, then try to help the poor.
Tax them into millionaires.
Yes, you’re supposed to eat them too. This helps reduce world hunger.
In all seriousness, we’ve dealt with this problem before. We had a time we call the era of the robber barons if you want to read a little about it.
I’ve always interpreted that idea as “make it so billionaires can’t exist” change the system so that people can’t actually make all that money.
Nice try CIA/FBI
We’re not having the CIA do it for you you coward