Just post something π
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"
A limit of $1 million in 1933 inflation adjusted would be $24.4 million today.
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?
A progressive wealth tax with the final bracket being 100% at $24.4 million.
I seriously support this
We make minimum wage an arbitrary amount untied to inflation. This would be the same.
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.
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.
That 1876 session sounds lit
We should revisit those. The senate thing could be moderated with each state getting an extra two representatives. Iβd add to the βno religious leader can hold officeβ 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 theyβre doing.
Some of these are bangers but others are utterly deplorable.
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 π
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.
1933 :(
Right? How different would things look today?
It would be common knowledge that deflation is good solely because it benefits those at $1mil
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.
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.
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
Higher taxes on high incomes and wealth is better though.
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 donβt have a lot of cash, because keeping cash means losing money to inflation - I bet a lot of billionaires donβt have one million dollars in the bank even now.
I like the 1916 one. A lot, actually.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1893 and 1933 sound so coool
No army, no too rich people
2nd and 3rd and last all sound top-notch.
Based Based Based Cringe Based Cringe Cringe Cringe Based (lol) Based Based Cringe Cringe Cringe Based
No senate? and deconstructing the US Military before the World War Era? What?
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.
this is highly interesting
