this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
131 points (99.2% liked)

tumblr

6394 readers
200 users here now

Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.

  4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.

  5. No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.


Sister Communities:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

World wide wealth caps, implemented though taxes

Have tax brackets as we know them, but more brackets with one final bracket: As soon as you reach, say, 10 million dollars in net worth, taxes on income and anything that increases your wealth go to 100%. Anything over it also gets taxes 100%

This way nobody gets to be filthy rich.

Governments get huge influxes of funds that they then use for a large socialist system. Universal free healthcare, free education for anyone that wants it. Free housing where needed, universal basic income, you name it

Governments can fund independent news foundations that in their turn fund news organizations with the most important rule that news always must be as factual and unbiased as possible

Since nobody can be filthy rich, or dirt poor, its hard to bribe people because people are fine with the money they have

Worried about people hiding wealth? Make all financial data public. All of it. If nobody can go over 10 mil anyways, who cares that it's public

Since nobody can be filthy rich, nobody can be filthy powerful, which is good as power is the root of all evil for humans. Want to wage a war? Good luck with that without power to push for that

Since nobody will be dirt poor, most crime will disappear. Scams will disappear because incentives for those things will be gone

Most people would never hit the line, and they'd be fine. The few workaholics under us will be able to get "rich" and hit that line:

10 mil gets you a very nice house and car and some investment money for a company maybe

Want a bigger company? Get more investors. This practically goes to the point where companies are owned by the employees

Governments can also fund independent investment foundations where needed for bigger companies but I'd keep companies limited in size too, let's say 1 billion dollars in net worth max.

This way, no powerful companies that will fuck over customers. No powerful companies to lobby governments to fuck over the people. You will no longer have these too big to fail companies either. Better 5000 1 million companies than one 5 billion dollars company

We can even keep capitalism as we currently have it because capitalism is basically free trade. Trade all the crap you want, its fine, as we now have simple basic limits to the system. No need for changing systems ehatbeill guaranteed cause shitstorms

Yes, the 10 mil is rather arbitrary, and should be subject to inflation and so on, but you get the basic point. I'm sure an economist could come up with better limits, and I'm sure we'll need to add some details here and there, bit the basics is simple.

The hardest part of this is that you'll probably need to implement this world wide all at the same time, and you'll probably want to have all countries using the same currency (which would also simplify the crap out of so many things)

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Here is the thing, all of that money is fictional. It doesn't exist in the real world. All that stuff the fictional money buys does exist though, and possession is 9/10th of the law.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Eliminate standardized testing? Sir, things like not having centralized education standards like that is why half of Americans don't know about the native genocides, many of them read below a 7th grade level, and a lot of them place creationism on the same tier as fossil records.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm guessing he was trying to say how to educate, not what. Not every human being learns in the same way and different people need different teaching methods.

Even so, I'd limit that to a list of scientifically proven methods

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

My guess this is a combination of the OP being more sheltered that he or she thinks and the phenomenon where people are in favor of abstract concept like "education" as long as there's no discussion of what exactly that means, but actually disagree vehemently about the specifics.

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 minutes ago* (last edited 19 minutes ago)

The polling backs up OP's general idea. These are very popular opinions when disconnected from party talking points.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I definitely don't believe that they've personally spoken with tens of thousands of people about politics. Most politicians can't even say that unless they count giving a speech in front of hundreds of people as talking to each one individually.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 1 hour ago

You can speak to tens of thousands easily enough if you have the platform for it.

But you can't Iisten to tens of thousands. There is no real conversation going on there.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 20 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

No war but the class war. It's us against them, and we outnumber them.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

No we don't. Thet pay us, and with that they own most of us. Most people just want a salary, if that means they have to kill poor people, that is what they do

[–] 1egg4u@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Learning about history is a touch demoralizing when you realize we've been fighting this same fight basically since the beginning of civilization and the concept of wealth

I yearn for a day that wealth hoarding is seen as the detriment to everybody that it is and is abhorred instead of admired. Displays of wealth in a world with so many sufferiny disgusts me... i wish I could bottle and distribute that perspective.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Displays of wealth in a world with so many sufferiny disgusts me

I was thinking the other day about how a friend once pointed out someone carrying a handbag that sells for $10,000. I'm like... send that person straight to therapy and community service. That's so much money on something a $100, tops, bag could do.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 1 hour ago

When they blow an amount of money that could permanently change your life ... on some snobby bottle of wine ... that they probably couldn't differentiate between a $10 bottle of wine if you subjected them to a blind taste test ... and then they only drink half of it and throw the rest away.

[–] 1egg4u@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

A Birkin bag is 20,000 and is supposed to just be some simple "carry all" tote that costs basically college tuition and some people have multiple. I dont know how they can justify that to themselves.

[–] cavitationfetishist01@quokk.au 1 points 5 hours ago

Filter filter filter!

[–] ChaosSpectre@lemmy.zip 9 points 6 hours ago

We live in a gatekept society. Bring the gates down

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

I will say, spending on public education doesn't actually seems terribly proportional to outcomes.

The major city near me is pumping well over the national average into their schools/teachers, and still show some of the worst numbers in the nation.

I think the problem may be a bit more complex than "just throw more money at it."

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago

All you have to do is look at Portland or Seattle to see what throwing money at problems actually solves (hint: not much).

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

The problem isn't that the filthy rich are rich. It's that they are powerful because they are rich, because that's capitalism.

It's not about redistribution of wealth, it's about redistribution of power. Money = power.

The problem with schools is they don't have the power to set curriculum and teach the way that works without interference from governments, who are controlled by the filthy rich.

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

My wife is an administrator at a public school, and as such I know a lot of teachers.

I've yet to meet any that say the limiting factor on their decisions is government interference.

I'd say the thing I hear most with regards to limiting their ability to teach/choose curriculum is how litigious American society is. The schools are so afraid of being sued they bend over backwards to every whim of the parents.

Little Timmy is stabbing the other kids? Better have it documented over a 18 month span with 57 different ways you politely asked him not to. Then maybe we'll consider moving him to a tougher placement.

Oh, you want to teach the Odyssey? Susie's mom thinks Zeus is actually Satan in disguise, so you have to pick something else or we'll be sued for promoting devil worship.

And then you have EdTech corps pushing snake oil so hard that admins are buying it up left and right and forcing it into the classroom against teachers' wills.

All that to say, it's a big, multifaceted problem, but the core of it isn't money. The US spends more per student than almost any country in the EU. It has some of the highest per student spending worldwide. It's not helping, and it's not because the government is interfering.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 1 hour ago

Admin itself is a problem.

A lot of that spending goes into incredibly bloated admin staff and suspiciously high admin salaries.

And most of that is because, of course, admin are the ones who decide how the money gets spent. And, being admin, they always have admin's issues front and center and their first thought is to spend the money to address those issues.

[–] cavitationfetishist01@quokk.au 0 points 5 hours ago

First off, as someone who has known a lot of teachers:

None of them think their administrators are competent or speak entirely freely around them. Not that the problems she hears about aren't entirely valid.

The application of the law is the government. The fact a teacher can be even inconvenienced for teaching something heretical like 'the guy who wrote this liked him some twinks' or 'the number zero exists' is a function of government overreach, subcontracted and made more politically palatable by decentralizing it a bit, but government power is applied, and its favored-tax-status religions are the ones wielding it.

[–] cavitationfetishist01@quokk.au 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

If you say 'educated qualified teachers aren't allowed to teach and we are spending the whole budget on grok tokens' you can spend money on education without improving outcomes. This is true.

But generally, if you pay for teachers facilities and things like textbooks chosen by people who know the subjects, you get better outcomes literally as far as any society in history has ever tried.

There's also some peripheral stuff like nutrition programs, enrichments like field trips, fancy org design shit and tech toys that are good when done in good faith and can provide really exceptional returns but can go off-mission in various ways that don't improve educational outcomes as much, where returns do not scale to an unlimited degree, or shit can be applied in a detrimental way. This is why a hypothetical competent administrator would be very useful, though I'm more likely to have an opportunity to be gangbanged by unicorns than ever meet one of those who works around education.