- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Not that it’d be a real possibility of happening but…
Would it make sense to have a wealth limit on politicians? It doesn’t really make sense to have the leaders be the ones who most benefit from the current system if we want it to change for the better of the masses. But if we made a law that was something like, “if your wealth puts you above the 70th percentile of Americans, you are not eligible for public office and are immediately removed”, would that have any major downsides? Would that be better than our current system? Is that unethical in some way? Just a thought sparked by this headline.
Or, perhaps more practical to implement, simply outlaw politicians or their immediate families being able to take on any additional sources of income.
No investments outside of retirement 401ks (with those locked into index funds), no “speaking engagements”, or book deals, or NFT trading cards, or any of the usual ways that politicians let corporations funnel money there way.
Honestly I’d gladly vote for a law that quadrupled their already stellar benefits packages if those limitations were put into place.
It says a lot about how corrupt and obscenely wealthy our politicians are that even a 500k+ comp package would be pennies compared to what they make via corruption
We means-test student financial and medical aid based on total household income regardless of whether other people in the home actually contribute to your finances. Similarly, this could mean people who don’t actually benefit from the wealth of their families (re: adult children suffering financial abuse from their wealthy parents) could be barred from holding office regardless of their actual circumstances, behavior, or political beliefs.
I feel it’s be unethical to put into place a system of political exclusion in the first place, but especially if it could affect people who aren’t actually causing harm themselves and are only guilty by association or the circumstances of their birth.
It’d also probably require a constitutional amendment, because it’s adding additional eligibility requirements on public office positions, which are outlined in the constitution, iirc.
Instead of barring people from political office based on our means-testing practices, why not just institute a progressive wealth tax that caps at 100%, with a significant part of the funds generated dedicated to enforcing tax laws on the wealthy?
A wealth limit would be nice but hard to get through. What has to happen is term limits. Period. Two terms and you’re done. That’s it. I believe that right there will help quite a bit. Maybe not though, then The next rich guy or gal just gets elected, right? :(
In other news, grass is green, the oceans and sky appear to be blue, and tomorrow, the sun will rise, and set. Also, the earth is round, companies are destroying the ecosystems, any nature that they can make a profit from, and your drinking water just to make a lot of rich old people more rich while you struggle to afford toilet paper.
More at 11.
As long as you aren’t voting for them just because you think they are on “your team.”
If anybody is getting cozy with Boebert then they might want to see their doctor.
