this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
26 points (81.0% liked)
New Political Party
58 readers
1 users here now
The community for creating a new US political party, so far our guiding principle is that billionaires are trash, United Health CEO had it coming, The Adjustor is our mascot and our main raison d'etre is to shit on the rich and take back whats rightfully ours.
founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, since I hate myself, I have worked at local level Dem politics off and on over the years. It’s been a cycle of jumping to help because if not me then who? Then I get disgusted when reminded of how gamed the Dems are, the grassroots has no influence on the national party and step away. It’s a stupid stubbornness of mine to keep going back because I believe you have to understand these systems to make real change.
So, I suggest we get a sense of some consensus on
By the way, we have historical precedent. The phrase “I have to go hang a duke” as a euphemism for dropping a shit suddenly has new relevance.
We need to galvanize some creativity in the community on this. Art is definitely a tool we should leverage.
Now what about funding? I mean once we get attention we can commit only to taking small donations. But how to get to there from here?
I will look into what it takes to make a PAC. Sell “shit back” merch as a fundraiser?
And since you did indeed light the fire, you definitely have total naming rights for this party.
I’m strangely jazzed by your proposal. It’s a way to catch the bounce from the recent adjustment and focus our near-universal agreement on the fact that the problem is too much money in too few hands.
Well, damn good that you tried-- thats better than most of us already. And good that you push yourself and the dems for better than the sad corrupt effort the DNC serve up. And we dont even need to talk about the rethuglicans.
Don't get me wrong. I am a freaking traitor to the dems. My first vote after 18 was for Ross Perot. He explained the game. He warned us about the giant sucking sound that meant our jobs were going to Mexico. But he didn't blame Mexicans. It was the god-damned NAFTA. The man was bat-shit crazy, but I take that as a qualification in the political arena.
traitors to either party get massive free upvotes for as long as I can remember their username..
personally I like the
net income = s * sqrt(gross income / s + 1)curve as it provides a universal basic income, with an incentive to work, naturally guides incomes downwards, and all as a single easily configurable parameter you can use to fit to any arbitrary taxation amount, it might be better to get more granular control, but as far as 'janky patch solutions on top of capitalism' go I think it works well enough for how simple it isThis would be more taxes on the lowest income earners if you don’t put in a tax-free threshold. Will there still be deductions for things like dependents?
It depends on the scaling threshold but where s=30k, it crosses over at around 50k
Its not of an income thing than a tax thing, if you earn no money you will still get an income of s$
Personally, I fscking love it.
But I need help with the math. Where in the equation is the velocity of the shit I am expelling on rich people?
So, I know you know, but tell us how this equation shits on rich people.
It’s not all that extreme but with an s of 30k someone who would be earning 20 million now earns 775k, you would also have to take into account benefits, stocks, etc I’m sure
I’m now leaning towards
s*log2(x/s+2), it behaves a bit better towards the higher ends imo (280k at 20m and 381k at 200m)If you want to decouple the starting income and income scale you could use
s*logb(x/s+b)here's a curve you can play around with, if you had a dataset with the number of people making each income you could balance it in whatever way would be ideal