politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Further proving billionaires shouldn't exist
Step 1: Seize all assets above 0.99 billion
Step 2: No more billionaires
(Now you got a bunch of money to redistribute)
Personally, I like the idea of taking the richest person in the country, and redistributing half their wealth every year. That way the goal is to be the second richest person, and you basically pit the two richest and most powerful guys on the planet against each other, trying to prove that the other one is richer.
I'd also like to cap total CEO (or highest earner) compensation at 1000x the pay of the lowest paid person at the company. This would include bonuses and stock options/growth. Any extra amount is confiscated and paid to fund UBI.
Why 1000? I'm more at the 50x level.
True dat.
Insanely high executive pay is mainly a problem in the English-speaking countries, and worst in the US. Studies of the relationship of executive compensation to corporate performance in different countries shows that the obscene levels of money thrown at US C-levels is entirely wasted. If the system were rational, US companies would be recruiting Japanese execs, offering them twice their current pay, and still saving tens of millions to distribute to their shareholders. But there is a flaw in corporate governance that enables this parasitism, and so far, the government has shown no interest in correcting it, or any other policy that worsens inequality.
Well, I honestly think that two people with different skill sets and experience can have a 100x difference in productivity. I then multiplied that value by 10x to appease people who really really really think they deserve it.
Why do you think 50x is the right number, out of curiosity?
Following a similar logic to you, but replacing value with actual people.
If I put 1000 people doing the same role as a CEO (900 for thinking, 100 for organising and filtering) could they make equivalent or better decisions? Definitely.
If I put 50 people doing the CEO role could I match the decisions? I think so.
10x people do exist but rarely can an individual outperform a larger team. I went for 5x10 to add in experience and specific individual qualities like communication and charisma.
Billionaire A: "I donated billions to end world hunger, I'm now the second richest"
Billionaire B: "Actually, I sent private investigators to tail your every movement, and I figured out how much you were donating so I donate one dollar more. You are richer by one dollar"
Billionaire A: "NOOOOOO 😭"
🤣 I'd love a movie about billionaires just trying to figure out how much others are donating so they try to stay just under the richest so they can keep their wealth.
A blind auction to keep their heads attached would be great fun to watch.
"I paid off your investigator to lie to you. You're actually 1 dollar richer than I am"
No you don't, because their wealth was immediately returned to the people who made it in the form of converting all industries into co-ops!
And people will claim "You can't measure them that way because stocks etc "
Except you can.
Take their "worth" on December 31st of year X and their "worth" on Jan 1st of that same year X, subtract December from January, that's their "Income."
Tax that shit at 100% for anyone in the billions range.
I have a feeling whoever is tasked with that will be some kind of variant of this