What policies do you back that you believe would make things better in the USA

gorfias

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
412
59
33
Country
USA
I don't think you commented on your thoughts of these policies.

Two missing grounds here are anti-corruption laws and green initiatives

The police reform policy needs to add at least the rule of engagement used by the army in Afghanistan. Any failure would mean immediate jail time

In another thread, Aegix Drakan posited the items below would make things better in the USA. Any one of them could make a thread of its own, but for purposes of this thread, what would you add to this list? EDIT TO ADD SOME THOUGHTS

- Guaranteed healthcare for everyone, free at point of service.

ME: I don't think this would improve the quality of our healthcare. I think it would even decline in quality. BUT, it could change alot about our culture in positive ways. Other nations that have this have high tax rates. They're not asking for a free lunch: they just think they can have a fairer system with less overhead by nationalizing this industry.

- All medication being kept at an affordable price so that even people on minimum wage can afford their insulin.

ME: I think people are trying to do this but there is bipartisan opposition to it passing. Liberal Cory Booker, I think, even opposed it. Of course it is a great idea.

- Affordable low-cost housing for everyone, and improved homeless shelters so that no one is forced to live on the street, and has access to job training to get out of homelessness.

ME: We've tried this before and ended up with "vertical slums" like Cabrini Green. The wealthiest among us pass laws restricting building new housing. They attack land lords as villains, making it less likely anyone wants to be one. Big government IS the problem with housing. This is different for the homeless who are homeless due to substance abuse and mental health issues. Dealing with that is a touchy subject. The libertarian left and right object to hospitalizing such people while the wealthy are happy to have low taxes and let these people live in misery.

- Decriminalization of drug possession and an approach designed to help people overcome addiction instead of throwing them in prison and thus destroying any chance they have of finding decent employment in the future (and also does nothing to stop their addiction).

ME: Agreed.

- An end to all wars (and extrajudicial drone killings) your country is currently participating in, in countries that haven't even attacked you.

ME: I support bringing US troops home from around the world. As Pat Buchanan wrote, "A nation, not an empire." I can see a foreign power being a clear and present danger to us without having actually attacked us yet. But what can we ever believe again? Our forever war elites lied to us. They told us the Syrian government used poison gas on their own people just as the US was to pull out of the region, which made no sense. They showed us some BS like a female reporter sniffing a knapsack allegedly doused in nerve gas then stating, "yeah that does smell funny". And too many US citizens bought this garbage.

- A federally mandated living wage adjusted to your state's cost of living so that everyone who works a full time job can afford food, shelter and basic transportation.

ME: I don't think we've really tried the unearned income tax. I would want to do so again, but include those 13 or over.

-a massive overhaul of policing, replacing most police response (for things like homelessness, wellness checks, etc) with social workers who are trained to de-escalate situations peacefully.

ME: I worry this approach would get a lot of innocent social workers killed. One thing that radicalized me young was when I read of an innocent 16 year old girl was waiting for a bus, a mentally ill homeless man stabbed her to death for no reason. These situations can be very dangerous.

- demilitarizing the police so they don't show up with military hardware.

ME: Depends upon the situation. When that gunman murdered some 50 people in Nevada, I would want those cops to have whatever they need. But you can watch a youtube of a bodycam on some cops dressed like they are marines: they kill some innocent kid in a hotel hallway as they "investigate" a call to them: someone saw someone in a hotel room with a gun (it was a bb gun and he was showing it to a friend). Investigate? Dressed like they're about to invade Normandy?

- Tightened gun laws so that people suffering from severe mental illness or who have a record of violence are not able to get their hands on a semi-automatic rifle and a large amount of ammunition. "

ME: I believe these laws largely exist. But, were I to be the primary caretaker of a mentally ill person, should I be barred from having such weapons? I don't think so. I think I should be heavilly sanctioned (Even given jail time) if found criminally negligent in how the weapons are stored in that situation. There are cases of school shootings, for instance, where a mentally ill child got ahold of a semi-auto rifle from their parent. I would want to know how that happened and respond accordingly.

Your own thoughts are invited.
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
570
135
48
I don't think you commented on your thoughts of these policies.

Two missing grounds here are anti-corruption laws and green initiatives

The police reform policy needs to add at least the rule of engagement used by the army in Afghanistan. Any failure would mean immediate jail time
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
925
471
68
In the immediate term, I think replacing the incumbent president with one who both takes the job seriously and has the faintest idea what he's doing would make the USA considerably better.

* * *

For the most part, however, I think the USA's problems are institutional. Better policies will follow by creating a better political environment. I would suggest the biggest problem is the schism between the populace and the politicians, and increasing responsiveness of politicians to the public is an answer. This means ending things like gerrymandering, clamping down on big money, special interest groups and lobbying; trying to dampen down partisanship, both amongst politicians and - possibly more tricky - the media.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
302
276
68
Country
United States
To the broad stroke of the question, I must confess that I honestly don't think much will save for a change of the guard.

There is a large part of the population who wants to believe what makes them feel empowered over scientific facts. Or at least question facts. To whit, how we constantly find police corruption, quota padding, and vengeance arrest to be a thing, but then askew it because the biases within us are so strong we can't stop and question what we "know".

Again, not saying there's no crime in the black community. We are some of the poorest in this nation. And where you find poverty, you find crime. I mean this is something seen all over the world. But for some reason, in this country, people ignore all the disadvantages placed at the feet and shackled around the wrists on the black community. And then they proceed to act like there's no cause for this and "That's just how they are".

We've seen it in this forum. We've seen it in the last. We've seen it in day to day normal lives.

We live with people who are more interested in materials and resources than people. Who have ideals of protecting corporations more than fellow citizens. And some people who actually believe that there's some intrinsic benevolent force in capitalism that will steer it into an equilibrium instead of allowing Companies to dump in our rivers, where we can bail out banks but not schools, et cetera.

There's no union here. There's no common goal. There can never be a common goal with a nation that was programmed from birth "Me Above All". The fact that there's even a Left is staggering. But the most watched cable channel in this nation shows that the "Me before We" movement is alive and well in this country.

-Restrictions placed on hospitals nationwide on their charge masters, billing practices, or whatever method they use. Meet that half way, and Insurance won't cost that much to have.

-Civilian Oversight Teams sent to police calls via drone or personnel to erode any hint of corruption in policing. Calculate their own independent data. The only crossover is when a 911 call is sent out and if the Civilian oversight team must call the police out on their tactics.

-Taxation appropriately matched to income. No clever dodges, no shell companies, no lawyer magic. You earn, you pay. If the usual comment of "Well, that will just drive our rich and our companies out of this nation"... I think that bodes more ill for the concept of capitalism than the fact of fair play. Maybe we should give that ole idea of capitalism a once over if the idea of being fair sends them running.

-I propose a Dollar to Dollar Match for our Police Budget and our Educational Budget. But I'm just proposing it. I want to hear the justifications of why we should never consider enriching the lives of our children as much as we should spend on possible boogeymen in our community that needs Armored Personal Carriers to deal with. That will just show us the politicians who do not care about this country so we can single them out.

-But seriously, The Policing budget should never supersede Education, Health, and money into the community. When you have people with options, they simply have options. You will not need police as much in terms of the overpolicing they do in minority communities.

-Put government money in jobs that will not leave. You can do it gradually. Popularize the biodiesel/electric hybrid. Have several plants in America to keep American jobs, from production to logistics. Farms wouldn't be throwing away half their crop if it is needed to literally fuel our economy. More farms would be needed. Local greenhouses created for year round production. Alternative energy plants to keep up with the higher demand of electricity. Solar, Wind (where feasible), Geothermal (where feasible), Water (where feasible).

One change of population can pour money into the economy from a PR move to a Production Move to having America dependent on itself, because that fuel will need to be readily accessible. America creating its own demand and meeting it solely on these shores. Consistent Employment. Revenue for the nation.

Inevitably, when you start pointing to these ideals, people will come out and say "This is so close to socialism/marxism/communism that it's dangerous to even think about". Or "This will stifle people trying to be the best that they could be."

I look around at this society now and ask if people are trying to be the best they can be. I honestly have to say no. What I see are people trying to be the best to screw over everyone else so they can get more resources. If that is the best we were talking about, then yeah, we're well on way. A plus for effort.

But I don't see the best in humanity reflected in the current society. I see people ready to stroke pathetic racial, gender, class, culture fires to maintain power or to get more millions in their account because at the end, the "Me Before We" mentality will view other people as not the same, but as a competitor for resources. And then in turn, must be crushed before they have a chance.

How the hell can anyone believe the Best of Humanity will come from that? It hasn't so far. And I don't believe anyone can believe in a miracle Apex point where we suddenly 'get it' and humanity will enter an Utopia via capitalism.

The nearest future we have? The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
925
471
68
ME: We've tried this before and ended up with "horizontal slums" like Cabrini Green. The wealthiest among us pass laws restricting building new housing. They attack land lords as villains, making it less likely anyone wants to be one. Big government IS the problem with housing. This is different for the homeless who are homeless due to substance abuse and mental health issues. Dealing with that is a touchy subject. The libertarian left and right object to hospitalizing such people while the wealthy are happy to have low taxes and let these people live in misery.
I'm of the opinion that a good way to deal with societal problems is to force the rich and poor into similar areas and situations, and to end de facto ghettoisation.

Ultimately, the middle and upper classes are far better at motivating politicians to sort problems out and pay more taxes (even at a local level) to afford public services. At the point the affluent move out (or "gentify" and expel the poor by pricing them out), it ghettoises society. Affluent areas are more likely to have well funded services where local government is kept responsive, where poor areas are left to stew in their own deprivation.

Big government can be the answer, as long as it works out a sensible plan. Government led or backed regeneration projects can and have made things better in many struggling areas. There are some more antisocial types who will deface and wreck anything they can get their hands on, but to a large extent many people will be inclined to keep pretty things pretty, and respect it less the more run down it is (even if it is theirs). Thus keeping things tidy and in repair is to an extent self-sustaining. Finally, regeneration projects usually need to do more than just stick up new buildings: they should involve more complex interventions with the local community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
209
62
33
I'm of the opinion that a good way to deal with societal problems is to force the rich and poor into similar areas and situations, and to end de facto ghettoisation.

Ultimately, the middle and upper classes are far better at motivating politicians to sort problems out and pay more taxes (even at a local level) to afford public services. At the point the affluent move out (or "gentify" and expel the poor by pricing them out), it ghettoises society. Affluent areas are more likely to have well funded services where local government is kept responsive, where poor areas are left to stew in their own deprivation.

Big government can be the answer, as long as it works out a sensible plan. Government led or backed regeneration projects can and have made things better in many struggling areas. There are some more antisocial types who will deface and wreck anything they can get their hands on, but to a large extent many people will be inclined to keep pretty things pretty, and respect it less the more run down it is (even if it is theirs). Thus keeping things tidy and in repair is to an extent self-sustaining. Finally, regeneration projects usually need to do more than just stick up new buildings: they should involve more complex interventions with the local community.
That sounds very ehm..'80s European. :p Wealth redistribution may help to a degree but there are also more fundamental problems. Segregated cities also deal with major cultural and social ills like domestic abuse, substance/drug addiction, religious values that hinder integration(particularly Islamic) etc. America might be different with all the gang violence but it are still concentrations of disenfranchisement that aren't solved by mixing it up with a wealthier neighbourhood. I believe what helps more are government sponsored jobs for example by outsourcing public contracts to companies that hire unemployed people from troubled communities. When people have a job and a feeling of having something to lose and with it a sense of self-worth that usually helps a lot. Equally important is ofcourse the government providing equal access to a decent education. These are all measures that can be taken at low-cost but unfortunately like you said there are no electoral pressures so there is a lack in political will.

I don't necessarily believe in 'free' as someone needs to foot the bill eventually and the more socialist policies are implemented the more lopsided that balance between payer and receiver becomes. Going after multi billion dollar companies isn't really realistic as this is international capital that moves beyond nations and borders. Even in more socialist western European countries these companies pay almost no taxes. The one footing the bill is usually hard-working middle class and small companies.

I also think everyone has a right for affordable housing but the scarcity, espescially in cities, almost remains a given considering the demographic trends. More people living alone than ever before, people becoming older than ever before, more expats/foreign investors than ever before. More and more houses are occupied by just one person. I don't see that scarcity going away anytime soon and may require more creative solutions than just building more and more houses and appartments. Maybe companies need to move away from city centers or working from home should be the norm so people don't have to move to cities in the first place. So many cities nowadays just seem to collapse under their own weight.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
523
227
48
Country
USA
I also think everyone has a right for affordable housing but the scarcity, espescially in cities, almost remains a given considering the demographic trends. More people living alone than ever before, people becoming older than ever before, more expats/foreign investors than ever before. More and more houses are occupied by just one person. I don't see that scarcity going away anytime soon and may require more creative solutions than just building more and more houses and appartments. Maybe companies need to move away from city centers or working from home should be the norm so people don't have to move to cities in the first place. So many cities nowadays just seem to collapse under their own weight.
There's a quote I like from Ron Finley: "They tell you cities are designed for people. They're not. They're designed for commerce. If cities were designed for people, I could be walking down the sidewalk, do this... (reaches up over his head) and there would be an apple in my hand." It's become increasingly clear that we need to reexamine our ideas of how and why we do things. I do think though that it has to start at the local level. In some way, shape or form there has to be policy and practice that provides the necessary drives to push change. It sure as shit won't start at the top, institutional inertia alone will make half the victories Pyrrhic or meaningless.

To reference Ron again, he fought the city of LA to establish public gardens on vacant lots owned by the city. In the middle of vast food deserts, he took the space that wasn't being used and turned into a garden. Everywhere he teaches communities to plant gardens, life gets a little bit better. Community gardens are just one example, but I think they're important to point out as a frame of reference because they also address one of the most insidious unintended side effects of modernity: alienation. Community projects like that offer people a chance to make real, human connections with the people they see every day while making something that the whole neighborhood will benefit from. Some would call that corny perhaps, but cynics say that about everything. Reducing alienation is not THE solution, but I can think of worse places to start looking.
 

Satinavian

Regular Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
66
18
13
Personally i think what is needed most is getting rid of the two-party system. Which means, "First-past-the-post" has to vanish. Proportional representation is the way to go if you waht gouvernments that do compromises or just implement ideas with general support over party boundaries.

Then, because that seems somewhat urgent, police reform. Get rid of all elections for sherriffs, judges, prosecuters. Those people have the job to just implement the law and what that means should not change if you change the person doing so. That people can campaign for different ways to bend the justice system is stupid.

For police, don't recruit people who want to "fight crime", recruit people who want to "help citizens, clear up misunderstandings etc". Actual policework in a civilized country hardly ever contains any fight. Recruits with wrong expectations are half the reason policemen behave like bullies. Get rid of qualified immunity, it is stupid. And then educate policemen properly. In many other countries police training takes years, not weeks.

Centralized healthcare for all would be really good. The US health system is the worst in the whole world regading efficiency. There are hardly any countries where it costs more per person and what you get as average peoson is not much better than in parts of the third world. And the reason is an overblown bureaucratic health and pharma industry. Nowhere else in the world is medicine as expensive as in the US. No where else in the world so much of the budget of health providers goes into bureaucracy, ligitation and profit.
Kill those industries. Most of what they do has nothing to do with providing health anyway. The way they are now they are basically parasitic as you would expect from a powerful cartel which could sway gouvernments for generations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
925
471
68
I don't necessarily believe in 'free' as someone needs to foot the bill eventually and the more socialist policies are implemented the more lopsided that balance between payer and receiver becomes. Going after multi billion dollar companies isn't really realistic as this is international capital that moves beyond nations and borders. Even in more socialist western European countries these companies pay almost no taxes. The one footing the bill is usually hard-working middle class and small companies.
Yes.

But I think governments underestimate the power they can have over companies, or are lobbied by companies to not use it. Let's say the UK threatens to close Amazon's loopholes with its Luxembourg tax home. What's Amazon really going to do? It can threaten to vacate the UK market... and all its profits from the UK market. Other companies rush in to fill the gap, so consumers still get their stuff. Amazon is the only really big loser from this, and is better off just paying its taxes.

In terms of personal taxes, Europe is perhaps tricky, because it's easy for high net worth individuals to dodge tax (Monaco, London for non-UK citizens) whilst still being in the heart of things. But the USA? What low tax regime are they going to live in where they can still have reasonable and ready access to the safety, social networking and culture of the USA? It's an awful long way from New York to the nearest low-tax haven.

Ultimately - and this is already in process - Western governments are clearly eyeing up shutting down some routes of international tax avoidance, because as the rich become richer and constitute an ever-higher proportion of national wealth and income, the tax base becomes increasingly dependent on them. Add in extravagant tax avoidance, the ability of government to finance itself starts breaking down. Increase the burden on the middle and small companies, they'll realise they have more in common with the exploited poor and start voting leftwards to bring the rich and multinationals to heel.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
523
227
48
Country
USA
ME: I worry this approach would get a lot of innocent social workers killed. One thing that radicalized me young was when I read of an innocent 16 year old girl was waiting for a bus, a mentally ill homeless man stabbed her to death for no reason. These situations can be very dangerous.
This is predicated on the assumption that social workers and mental health professionals are not trained in how to de-escalate volatile situations. I assure you, they are far better at this than cops ever will be. By leaving the homeless and the mentally ill to the cops, you are basically saying that you have no intention of helping them, you just want another perceived threat removed, with deadly force if the cops deems it necessary, which they do alarmingly often.

Remember the case of the social worker a cop shot? Yeah, the cop decided deadly force was necessary to subdue a supine, cooperative black man and an autistic young man playing with a toy truck. If anything, social workers are currently in more danger of being killed by cops than by the people they're trying to help.

And this addresses another issue. The first thing you thought of when you thought of the homeless and mentally ill were unreasoning, psychotic killing machines. This is a mindset that has already relegated these people to sub-human. Violence against them is justified. They don't need medicine, they need a few rounds in the head. You're not murdering a human being, you're taking preventive measures against an individual whom you suspect may or may not commit some violent crime at an unspecified date. How can we as a society claim to be just when we decide that the least fortunate are more deserving of death than aid?

The fundamental problem with this attitude in America that cops need to do goddamn everything is that such a system devalues human life. Power corrupts may be a cliche, but it's true. The more power and the less oversight you give cops, the more they will feel entitled to wield that power upside your skull. This attitude that everything is dangerous and therefor the cops are the only ones who can handle it betrays an intense paranoia, cynicism, pessimism and frankly anti-humanism. It is inviting a police state dystopia in the erroneous belief that the only possible alternative is a post-apocalyptic hellscape. There is no room for the better part of human nature in this system. We are all so fundamentally greedy, stupid and selfish that we cannot be trusted to do the right thing without a gun being held to our heads, sometimes literally.

ME: Depends upon the situation. When that gunman murdered some 50 people in Nevada, I would want those cops to have whatever they need. But you can watch a youtube of a bodycam on some cops dressed like they are marines: they kill some innocent kid in a hotel hallway as they "investigate" a call to them: someone saw someone in a hotel room with a gun (it was a bb gun and he was showing it to a friend). Investigate? Dressed like they're about to invade Normandy?
Essentially, the argument is that cops need to have military-grade firepower because we were stupid enough to let civilians in this country have military-grade firepower. It's quite the feedback loop. You demand looser gun laws and lower accountability and we now have more guns than citizens. Ostensibly, we needed those guns to keep us safe from BIG GOVERNMENT and each other. Now we have a record level of mass shootings and cops are trained to mag dump into you if they suspect you're carrying. So now we need the cops to have even more powerful weapons than we do in order to protect us from the mass shooters. But that conjures up the spectre of BIG GOVERNMENT and the mass shootings keep happening, so you demand more guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

CM156

Elite Member
Legacy
May 6, 2020
103
65
33
Country
United States
Ask me this question a few years ago and I would tell you I had all the answers.

Now? I'm not so sure. I'd like to see some sort of reform to healthcare that controls costs (especially on the administrative side of things). And also police reform. Also, scrap judicial elections.

If I could rule as a dictator and impose my ideas by force without having to worry about the political process, I would change the structure of the US congress and Supreme Court.

For Congress:
House of Representatives is on a proportional representation system. Which one I'm not sure about.
Senators serve for 8 years (with one election every four years)
Senators are picked on an Australian-style preference voting system.
Term limits: No more than three 8-year senate terms. No more than twelve 2-year representative terms.
Consider increasing the size of the House of Representatives

President:
One six year term. Anyone elected as president cannot serve as vice president.
I heard a suggestion from someone who is a member of the Onida nation to make the Bureau of Indian Affairs a secretarial level position, rather than part of the Department of the Interior. I like that idea.

Supreme Court:
30 year term, 15 justices, staggered out so that every two years, you have someone new appointed. I would also have a system where the Senate has a time limit to have a hearing after the official nomination. If they don't, I would say that the justice should automatically be seated.
Justice who has been on the court longest is automatically the Chief Justice.

Also:
Make election day a federal holiday.
Puerto Rico statehood referendum.
Reanalysis of our relationship with our other territories.
End selective service requirements.
Reconfirm our commitment to NATO against Russia.
Repair relations with the European Union.
 
Last edited:

Mister Mumbler

Forum Lurker Extraordinaire
Legacy
Jun 17, 2020
41
28
23
Corona Capital of the World, Arizona
Country
United States
Well, first and foremost is to put laws on the book to protect the right that was so important to the founders that it didn't need to be put into an amendment: the right to vote.

Which means making the elections a national bank holiday, making sure every person eligible to vote in the US gets a ballot, however they want it (as an Arizonian with the option to always get a mail in ballot, the Republicans constant effort to demonize vote by mail has always seemed stupid to me), represtational voting (or however it's called, percentage of votes equals percentage of seats type deal), dismantling of the two party system, making more laws to control lobbying (or just make it outright illegal), etc.

Also, honestly don't know the best way to put this, but make the defense industry an actual part of the government again, but I guess that kinda falls under the 'capitalism needs some major reform' umbella in general I feel.

After that? I don't know, just general stuff more money to public services like education, and healthcare. Also police reform as well.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
209
62
33
Yes.

But I think governments underestimate the power they can have over companies, or are lobbied by companies to not use it. Let's say the UK threatens to close Amazon's loopholes with its Luxembourg tax home. What's Amazon really going to do? It can threaten to vacate the UK market... and all its profits from the UK market. Other companies rush in to fill the gap, so consumers still get their stuff. Amazon is the only really big loser from this, and is better off just paying its taxes.

In terms of personal taxes, Europe is perhaps tricky, because it's easy for high net worth individuals to dodge tax (Monaco, London for non-UK citizens) whilst still being in the heart of things. But the USA? What low tax regime are they going to live in where they can still have reasonable and ready access to the safety, social networking and culture of the USA? It's an awful long way from New York to the nearest low-tax haven.

Ultimately - and this is already in process - Western governments are clearly eyeing up shutting down some routes of international tax avoidance, because as the rich become richer and constitute an ever-higher proportion of national wealth and income, the tax base becomes increasingly dependent on them. Add in extravagant tax avoidance, the ability of government to finance itself starts breaking down. Increase the burden on the middle and small companies, they'll realise they have more in common with the exploited poor and start voting leftwards to bring the rich and multinationals to heel.
The wealth of really rich people is mostly in corporate share value and countries will never increase taxes on those because it will sink pension funds. Nett profits can be taxed but even here you see sister companies that constitute maybe 10% of revenue have 90% of profit written of because taxes are lowest(besides the numerous other ways to delay profits through artificial debt like being late on investment losses). Kind of like with Starbucks in the Netherlands even if until recently the Netherlands only had like one Starbucks. The IRS or whatever other local tax service then 'negotiates' a 'fair' tax deal which would be impossible in a vertical hierarchy like with average people and small companies. They would get the whip, fines or even prosecution. It's not so much about tax loopholes it's about corporate share value being too important for high taxes because of the stock market, housing market, pension funds, bank loans etc. It would actually undermine state finances because of it's indirect implications. A corporation can just as easily move it's administation to a supplier in some other country where profit/share/royalty taxes are lowest. Closing down tax loopholes in Panama really isn't going to affect the two percenters we're talking about here. They are way too entrenched in the system.
 
Last edited:

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,795
92
53
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Any state that wants to have capital punishment need only add the following conditions:

- If any prisoner that is executed by the state should be later found to have been innocent, then anyone involved in the conviction- judge, jury, prosecuting attorneys- will also be put to death via the same method; any person so responsible who has already died shall have two of their direct descendants executed in their stead. If the prisoner pled for clemency and was denied, then anyone complicit in that denial shall also be executed.

Guarantee you we'd never see another execution again, and yet nobody could claim "liberals are coddling criminals", 'cause this is all about punishing those who murder the innocent, and nobody escapes consequences by dying.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
523
227
48
Country
USA
Any state that wants to have capital punishment need only add the following conditions:

- If any prisoner that is executed by the state should be later found to have been innocent, then anyone involved in the conviction- judge, jury, prosecuting attorneys- will also be put to death via the same method; any person so responsible who has already died shall have two of their direct descendants executed in their stead. If the prisoner pled for clemency and was denied, then anyone complicit in that denial shall also be executed.

Guarantee you we'd never see another execution again, and yet nobody could claim "liberals are coddling criminals", 'cause this is all about punishing those who murder the innocent, and nobody escapes consequences by dying.
While most conservatives would balk at the idea of holding authority figures accountable, I don't doubt that there are at least a few MAGA orcs who would actually support this system 100% and ask that the executions be live-streamed.
 

CM156

Elite Member
Legacy
May 6, 2020
103
65
33
Country
United States
Any state that wants to have capital punishment need only add the following conditions:

- If any prisoner that is executed by the state should be later found to have been innocent, then anyone involved in the conviction- judge, jury, prosecuting attorneys- will also be put to death via the same method; any person so responsible who has already died shall have two of their direct descendants executed in their stead. If the prisoner pled for clemency and was denied, then anyone complicit in that denial shall also be executed.
Or you could just get rid of capital punishment altogether.

Guarantee you we'd never see another execution again, and yet nobody could claim "liberals are coddling criminals", 'cause this is all about punishing those who murder the innocent, and nobody escapes consequences by dying.
See, you'd have a point there, if you didn't say
any person so responsible who has already died shall have two of their direct descendants executed in their stead.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
925
471
68
The wealth of really rich people is mostly in corporate share value and countries will never increase taxes on those because it will sink pension funds.
They don't need to. They can increase capital gains tax, income tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax, and many other things. It doesn't really matter what gets taxed, as long as it brings the money in without too much damage elsewhere.

Cutting loopholes is attractive, because whilst not technically a tax raise, it increases income.

Nett profits can be taxed but even here you see sister companies that constitute maybe 10% of revenue have 90% of profit written of because taxes are lowest(besides the numerous other ways to delay profits through artificial debt like being late on investment losses). Kind of like with Starbucks in the Netherlands even if until recently the Netherlands only had like one Starbucks. The IRS or whatever other local tax service then 'negotiates' a 'fair' tax deal which would be impossible in a vertical hierarchy like with average people and small companies. They would get the whip, fines or even prosecution. It's not so much about tax loopholes it's about corporate share value being too important for high taxes because of the stock market, housing market, pension funds, bank loans etc. It would actually undermine state finances because of it's indirect implications. A corporation can just as easily move it's administation to a supplier in some other country where profit/share/royalty taxes are lowest. Closing down tax loopholes in Panama really isn't going to affect the two percenters we're talking about here. They are way too entrenched in the system.
Yeah, I don't really buy into this.

Some companies like Apple have staggering quantities of billions sitting in places like Ireland, because if they move it back to the US HQ it gets taxed. These companies can pay tax and it's really not going to hurt them much. They just don't want to, because profit - and thus not paying tax - is their institutional function. Let's remember that companies functioned fine for many decades before they developed a lot of these wheezes. If they did before, they can do so again.

I'm honestly a bit fed up reading "We can't do A because of B and We can't do X because of Y"... actually, we can. It is absolutely true that changing the way things operate will come with at least some downsides for some people, but this is not a reason to never do anything. Otherwise countries may as well empty their parliaments and hand over the keys to Facebook, Shell, Volkswagen and Samsung, because if we're going to argue we can to anything to inconvenience these mega-multinationals, we may as well strip away the pretence that they're not the ones running the world.