I agree. However, I’m curious exactly what type of ranked voting system you would advocate for — Instant Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, etc.
Mandatory Voting
I disagree. The right to vote also encompasses one’s right to not vote. Even if one ignores the freedom aspect of it, an argument could be made that mandatory voting would actually have a negative effect: forcing people to vote, who otherwise wouldn’t’ve, will likely cause them to choose whomever they are the most familiar with — essentially, this means that the person who can afford the most advertising is the most likely to win. Furthermore, as pointed out in this comment, there are potential privacy risks associated with tracking voters.
Universal vote by mail
I disagree. There is too much potential for abuse.
Voting day national holiday
I agree.
Legalize marijuana
I agree — granted, I would legalize all drugs. However, I’m of the opinion that selling it to minors should still be illegal. I’ve also been considering the idea that any entity that wants to engage in the sale of addictive substances must also provide, proportional to their sale volume, rehabilitation centers. There would also need to be strict regulation, such as there is with the sale of food, on their production, and composition.
Legalize prostitution
I agree. Of course, this would then mean that prostitutes would be entitled to the same employee protections, and rights as anyone else.
Revert Citizens United v. FEC
I’m not very familiar with this court case, so my answer isn’t thoroughly thought out, but, if I understand it correctly, that ruling overturned a previous ruling that prohibited some forms of election spending. If so, I would agree with such a ruling — I believe that people have the right to spend their money where they see fit. It is the voter’s duty to determine whether the person should be elected.
Abolish corporate home ownership
I disagree. I’m not sure I understand your rationale behind this one. Why don’t you think this should be allowed? As long as the land-value taxes are being payed, the people are being justly compensated for the ownership of that land.
Abolish the electoral college
I haven’t come to a firm decision on this matter. Would you mind elaborating on your rationale?
Abolish gerrymandering
While I agree with the sentiment that gerrymandering is bad, what would you suggest should be done to “abolish” it?
Abolish filibuster
I disagree (I don’t disagree with the idea that filibustering is bad. I disagree that it should be prohibited). It is the duty of the voters to hold their representatives to account.
Merge senate into house
I disagree (from the perspective of the U.S. Congress). I would like to know your rationale for why you want them merged. The intent of a bicameral legislature is to act as a sort of “check and balance” on new legislation — it plays an important role in a federation. Do you disagree that this is the case? If so, why?
Remove house rep cap
I’ve never thought about this. I’m inclined to agree. I can’t think of, nor can I find, any good reason for why there is a cap beyond the arbitrary.
Universal healthcare
This a tricky one. I’m not yet convinced that it is as cut and dry as many people make it out to be — there are many caveats. I, at the very least, am strongly inclined to favor a hybrid system. There are also certain circumstances where a free market is simply not compatible (e.g. emergency departments).
Universal basic income
While I understand the rationale that it would effectively cover one’s right to life, I have economic concerns. Primarily, I am concerned that it would lead to runaway inflation. I have considered other options like breaking down the necessities for life into categories and apportioning them equally (e.g. foodstamps). I have not yet come to a conclusion on this matter.
Income up to $50k untaxed
I’m more of the thinking that income taxes should be abolished.
Ban tax preparation companies
…why? I suppose there is some lobbying risk, but, beyond that, I don’t understand this one. However, even if there was lobbying risk, they are within their rights, imo.
IRS files taxes for citizens
This may only be possible for simple taxes. Anything more complicated than simple income tax would not really be feasible, I think. Also, it is important to note that the IRS does already offer this, to an extent. I could be mistaken, though. In all honesty, I think the solution is to just simply taxes, rather than trying to obfuscate away their unnecessary complexity. This, most likely, will just lead to more bloat, and money wastage.
VAT for luxury items
Generally, I would disagree with the implementation of a VAT. The only tax on products that I would support is one that is in the form of compensation to the public for damages (e.g. environmental taxes).
Supreme court 15 year term limit
I’m not certain on the exact number, but I am in favor of the idea of term limits for non-elected officials.
Increase highest bracket tax (+5%)
Again, I’m more in favor of abolishing income tax.
Collateral for loan is realized gain
I don’t understand the rationale for this. Would you mind elaborating?
Abolish PACs and lobbying
This is similar to the point about Citizens United v. FEC. It is the voter’s job to hold elected officials accountable.
Politicians banned from stocks
I think this is sort of missing the point. What you’re effectively getting at is that insider trading should be illegal, which it is. The real question is why the SEC, or related government agencies in other countries, doesn’t seem to go after some people when it seems obvious that they are engaging in insider trading.
Municipalize internet service
Hm. I’m generally against adding any more government bloat unless absolutely necessary. One of the main issues with how ISPs are structured is that they somewhat currently function as an monopoly — due to intrinsic factors. This is the main reason, in my opinion, why prices are high, and why the service is often bad. Intrinsic monopolies are a tough issue to solve. I’m not sure that creating a government run ISP would make the problem any better. If anything, it might actually get worse. A cooperatively owned ISP may work, though.
Abortion constitutional right
This will always be a tricky issue. In my opinion, both sides of the debate have fair arguments. The main question is “whose rights trump whose?” Is it the baby, or the mother? Whichever one that one chooses, I would like to know their rationale. It is not an easy question to answer, imo. It most likely will always lie more in the realm of philosophy than in hard fact, which, of course, doesn’t lend itself well to legislation. If I were pushed to side with a group, I would most likely side with the mother.
Ban restaurant tipping
I disagree. That being said, I certainly would like for tipping culture to die. It is not my job to ensure that an employee is payed well — that is between them and their employer.
Free financial education
I’m more in the camp of wholly restructuring how education is done, but that is out of the scope of this comment. I agree that economic literacy is important, but my beliefs on the matter of education go far beyond only that — I believe that we need a fundamental restructuring of the education system.
Political beliefs are often more complex than simply applying a single label. I do support much of what libertarianism advocates for, but it’s more nuanced than that. I would also like to be clear that I don’t align with anarcho-capitalism.
That’s interesting, how would that work? If a political appointment was recalled, there would need to be another vote right? I think it gets pretty muddy, what’s to stop bad actors from immediately voting to recall the politician they didn’t want to win?
The United States does not have an official language. English is the most widely used language in the U.S., and some states designate it as their official language. usa.gov
I’d personally abolish the senate and leave the house alone, or change the house to one rep per every x number of people instead of whatever we do now.
How about age limits for government officials as well? Or at least the senate. The grandma at the tax form place in city hall is ok even if she a bit slow.
personally think it’s less a problem with age. age limits are arbitrary and likely have no basis in science (within reason). however i do think it could be advantageous to require a variety of ages of people, and somehow weight their input, but that process may destroy the inherent value of a representative democracy; if we let everyone speak nothing will get done.
personally i think hard term limits and ranked choice voting would fix the majority of issues caused by generational gaps.
If we can guarantee accurate census data, we could reach a decent basis with age limits doing +/- 10 years of the average age of the area being represented. Probably with a minimum age of 25 or something along those lines.
I am actually not sure about the coroprate home ownership point. Here in Germany renting is much more common and accepted compared to the US, and i think there are lots of situations where this makes sense. However both in the US and here in Germany the systems need changes. And i think they should mostly target land ownership rather than the houses themself. What drives up the prices in desired areas are mostly increases in land value, not that building houses got that much more expensive (although that is also a factor).
And most of that value gain are from external factors rather than the owners own merit. If someone builds an architectually great and energy efficient house or develops land, then it is fine if he gains value from it. But if simply owning the property improves the value over time, because society around it builds nice schools, parks and so on. Then the owner hasn’t done anything and that profit should be taxed completely away. If that makes sense.
That said there probably should also be a mechanism to support the first home people own to counteract scale efficiencies that corporations might be able to leverage.
Not sure if outright banning stocks for politicians is the way to go, but there should be more points regarding transparancy and conflicts of interest. Also not just during their time in office, but after that aswell.
I’d have no issue with politicians holding a borad market index fund.
Basically (and I’m not an expert here), the Uber rich get tax free spending money without taking big taxable salaries by leveraging their assets for super low interest loans. Current tax codes don’t consider these loans as taxable income, but they’re being used for the same things us peasants use our income for. By considering these cash flows as taxable, billionaires wouldn’t be able to hide behind the “it’s net worth not liquid income” bullshit these use to dodge taxes.
Possibly this could be prevented by having floor and ceiling limits to this. Could even exclude mortgages if you remove corporate ownership and limit taxes to multiple mortgage situations.
Although honestly the simpler the rules the better for everyone. So maybe some people get screwed in a couple areas but would still be way better off
Not an expert and i might be wrong, but here is how i understand it with an example:
You are a billionaire that wants to buy a new mansion for 100 million dollar. Even being that rich you probably don’t just have that amount of cash sitting around in your regular bank account where it doesn’t earn you any more money. That would be stupid. Instead you likely have it tied up in stocks.
Now you could ofc just sell some of those, turn around and buy the mansion with cash. But then you would have to pay taxes on the gains you have made so far with these stocks. Because up until those are realized (by selling them), they are just on paper and there is no taxable event. You have all the money you’d need for thousands of lifetimes already, but you still don’t like paying taxes. So luckily there is a better way.
You go to a bank and ask them to borrow you the 100 million. You aren’t named Donald Trump, so the bank will gladly give you the money for a very low interest rate, because they know you are good for it. They gladly do so since it is basically risk free and they can in a way just create that money. For you the amout of interest also doesn’t matter because it is actually less than your stocks will on average give you in profits.
Now you haven’t realized any gains, but instead have a “loss” through the loan and bought your 10th mansion. Over time you will either pay back the loan slowly and use the cost fo your loan to balance out some profits (and avoid taxes that way). Or you might just pay the interest and roll over the loans indefinitely.
We don’t have immortality yet so eventually you will die having payed little to no taxes. However your heirs will have to pay inheritance taxes. But until then your wealth has enjoyed the compunding gains unhindered by taxes. And rather than directly passing on your wealth to the next generation you might have some foundation or other construct to keep taxes to a minimum.
A term limit does make sense, but either in the form of a forced retirement age or a 36 year term. They should also be barred from collecting a wage or benefits from any employer after the end of their term (they should get a damn good retirement package, too).
There are good reasons for SCOTUS to be a life appointment. You don’t want them being bought out with lucrative cushy job offers once they leave. 36 years ensures one appointee per presidential term.
If life terms are there to prevent corruption, it doesn’t seem to be working. Maybe if there were any anti corruption laws that applied to them it might.
A 36 year term is tantamount to a life term. If a young attorney or judge is elected to the Supreme Court in their 30s they might see the end of the 36 year term.
Maybe, maybe not. You wouldn’t see judges strategically timing their retirements with elections, and you wouldn’t see people faulting RBG for not stepping down under Obama. She only spent 27 years on the bench, but she was appointed at ~60.
Add comment