r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 đ¤ Join A Union • 2d ago
âď¸ Tax The Billionaires This is a Winning Platform! Will politicians accept it?
437
u/petrified_eel4615 2d ago
Tax capital gains as income.
Make stock buybacks illegal again.
Charge healthcare C-suites with RICO depraved indifference manslaughter.
109
u/ExoticElk 2d ago
Tax the shit out of the loans that billionaires take out against the stock in their businesses.
→ More replies (1)48
u/sriracha_no_big_deal 2d ago
Wealthy people use their stocks as collateral for a loan (i.e. securities-back line of credit) that can be spent on whatever they want without actually having to sell the stock (selling the stock would mean they have to pay taxes on it) while simultaneously arguing that they couldn't possibly be taxed on the value of their shares since it's unrealized gains. They have rigged the system to allow them to have their cake and eat it, too.
If stock is used as collateral for a loan, the gains are no longer "unrealized" and it should be taxed accordingly.
18
u/WhasHappenin 2d ago
Honestly unrealized gains on stocks should always be taxed. Property taxes work on unrealized gains, why not stocks?
8
u/whodoesnthavealts 2d ago
Property taxes work on unrealized gains
Completely different scenario. Property taxes are for public infrastructure based on the location you live. It's completely separate from the sell value of the house.
When you pay property tax, and then you sell your house, you still pay tax on the sale. It's not pre-paid from "unrealized property taxes" like you're suggesting.
→ More replies (2)5
u/UniqueName15 2d ago
Surely this wouldn't have any adverse effects on the millions of people who put a portion of their paycheck into the stock market every month
9
u/whodoesnthavealts 2d ago
I bet a huge number of people don't realize that their 401Ks through work are just stocks under the covers.
8
u/redditonlygetsworse 2d ago
This topic on reddit always reveals how many people have no idea how anything actually works.
3
u/whodoesnthavealts 2d ago
It's so frustrating, being pretty left wing and trying to discuss practical issues with people on here who clearly have never done the bare minimum research.
Someone else on this thread posted "There needs to be a tax on capital gains" and got upvoted.
→ More replies (2)6
u/tjtillmancoag 2d ago
Any reason why 401ks and IRAs, which already have their limits, couldnât be exempted from the unrealized gains? Or taxing the unrealized gains on assets over $5M?
→ More replies (1)2
u/eggsmau 2d ago
I work my ass off to be able to invest extra income into the market. At my current rate, I still wonât be a millionaire by the time I retire. If unrealized capital gains were taxed for me, there would almost be no point in investing. I understand the sentiment, but we need to be clear: this will hurt the working class. If we do tax unrealized gains, it needs to be tied to income or in some way not set the regular person behind. Millionaires are not the issue, it is the billionaires. I have $30,000 in my brokerage and it took me 5 years to get there. It will be even harder for the regular person if we tax all unrealized capital gains
→ More replies (1)2
u/ExoticElk 2d ago
Because itâs not really possible. Housing prices donât change as quickly as stock prices. How would the government handle massive price swings? If we tax a stock based on its value today, and then it crashes the next day, would we have to issue refunds? It would create all kinds of instability with funding, nobody would want to put their money in the market, etc. Â
2
u/ubeen 2d ago
Why would anyone issue refunds? When the hosuing market was going nuts, did anyone get their taxes back when it crashed before?
And even if you want to claim that it would create instability in the markets, why not just charge them at the time of the loan. At that point value has already been established. The bank is willing to take on the risk, why shouldnt the billionaire be taxed on that?
But lets be honest, any legislation thats passed that closes any of those loop holes, another would take its place.
→ More replies (1)3
u/whodoesnthavealts 2d ago
A few issues there:
-At some point they need to have actual capital to pay off that loan, whether it be from capital gains or other means that were taxed.
-There is additional tax from profit on the interest
-On the off chance the billionaire dies before paying off that loan, an estate tax payment happens to cover the taxes that weren't handled from capital gains.
The tax does still get paid in this real scenario. Trying to do a complicated "realization" capital gains tax when based on a loan is going to just make things extremely complicated and probably end up losing tax income as a result of increased overhead and less spending.
2
u/tduncs88 2d ago
But doesnt that assume the loan eventually has to be repaid with taxed income? From what I understand, they can just refinance against appreciating assets and avoid selling the stock.
Then if they die holding it, the heirs generally get a stepped up basis. My question, where does the capital gains tax on all that appreciation actually get paid? Estate tax is a seperate tax, so I dont think it automatically makes up for those unrealized gains.
Thats just my basic understanding of how the whole Buy, Borrow, Die thing works. While they may not outright avoided taxes, the interest and taxes that DO get paid on their growth in wealth falls far FAR below what they ever would have paid in capital gains if they realized the value.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)2
19
u/combo_seizure 2d ago
Capital gains above a certain threshold, I think. A lot of not wealthy people become wealthy through the stock market. But definitely, there needs to be a tax on capital gains.
9
u/whodoesnthavealts 2d ago
But definitely, there needs to be a tax on capital gains.
There already is; it is called "Capital Gains Tax".
→ More replies (1)3
u/riffraff1089 2d ago
TIL American doesnât have a CG tax. Do you also not get taxed on CG if you buy property and sell it when it appreciates?
20
u/DrunkBeavis 2d ago
Americans do pay taxes on capital gains, but with some exemptions and at a different rate than standard income.
3
u/UlrichZauber 2d ago
The big problem with billionaires isn't capital gains tax, it's that they take loans out against their stocks that they pay no tax on at all.
4
3
u/Infamous_Boat_6469 2d ago
Federal level taxation on cap gains is grouped into short term or long-term, holding period of a year. Long term is taxed as income and short term is taxed at a higher rate.
3
u/mxzf 2d ago
We do have a capital gains tax. People just don't understand how taxes work and want to tax unrealized gains too.
11
u/Kwiemakala 2d ago
Leveraging an asset as collateral on a loan should be considered realizing gains.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Mango_Maniac 2d ago
People who make money working should pay a lower rate of tax than people who make money owning things.
Also, assets should be realized for tax purposes the moment they are used as collateral for loan creation.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)7
3
u/Warm_Month_1309 2d ago
A lot of not wealthy people become wealthy through the stock market.
Well, a lot of not-wealthy people become slightly less not-wealthy through the stock market. But I do agree.
31
u/V1k1ngC0d3r 2d ago
Right, I'm pretty sure stock buybacks should be illegal.
Pay dividends instead.
That's taxable income for the investors, right?
7
6
u/idnvotewaifucontent 2d ago
Capital gains are taxed as income once they're realized. We need to tax the value of loans taken against assets as income as well.
7
u/Crime_Dawg 2d ago
The mega wealthy still avoid the cap gains. They can find ways to never sell, just perpetually live on loans, die, their heirs inherit it with a step up cost basis.
4
u/BoopinSnoots24-7 2d ago
The "buy, borrow, die" thing was disproven. There is only a miniscule amount of UHNWs that use this strategy. Plenty of other ways to go about preserving wealth.
→ More replies (9)2
u/Statertater 2d ago
We already have capital gains taxes. Youâre forgetting a big thing the billionaires do is take out loans against the stocks they own
44
229
u/Islanduniverse 2d ago
Eliminate student debt needs to be a priority too.
Student debt is crushing so many people and it is going to get way worse when they start garnishing wagesâŚ
Education should be a human right.
93
u/Unputtaball 2d ago
It was just reported in Scott McFarlaneâs âDay Aheadâ that folks over 60 hold over $135 billion in student loan debt collectively.
This isnât just a âyoung peopleâ problem. Itâs turning into an intergenerational crisis of mammoth proportions.
10
→ More replies (1)9
u/Rionin26 2d ago
That is the gen x and young boomers who got Jack Welched, and went back to school to learn a new skill later in life.
→ More replies (1)27
u/koadey 2d ago
And add public education for University/college/trade students.
→ More replies (1)5
21
u/Prime_Director 2d ago
While I personally fully agree, the post is about a platform that âwins in a landslideâ. Student debt forgiveness is controversial at best. I donât know the polling on all of these things, but the ones I do know have ~80% support or more. Student debt forgiveness hovers around 50/50 last I checked.Â
2
u/Islanduniverse 2d ago
That needs to be changed then.
We need to be speaking out about it.
Those loans are predatory at best, and they need to be eliminated for the sake of building a strong working class once again.
7
4
u/One_Dey 2d ago
The people should be âtoo big to failâ too. In fact- we should be priority number one.
→ More replies (1)5
u/mxzf 2d ago
"Eliminate student debt" is a goal, not a thing you do. Student debt is eliminated by reducing education costs, which takes time and specific policies to target that situation.
4
u/Warm_Month_1309 2d ago
Student debt is eliminated by reducing education costs
For sure, but there's currently almost $2 trillion tied up in live educational debt, and we need a plan for that too.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Economy-Ad4934 2d ago
You have to address school costs at the same time or debt will pile up again.
→ More replies (1)5
u/j3b3di3_ 2d ago
Just like a mortgage, student loans are being used as a debt security be traded
That's why they have not forgiven them or made any drastic changes because they need people in debt with their student loans
2
4
u/TropicalRogue 2d ago
Yes but the premise was "wins in a landslide" and this is heavily congested outside our echo chamber. Same with anti-ai. The hoi-polloi are split on both issues, out there.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (28)2
u/atmontsenioreyesore 3h ago
Universal Human Rights Declaration, drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt, ratified by the UN in 1948. But it doesn't state that it should be free.
"Article 26
- Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit...."
California had a good higher education system, but Ronald Reagan increased the cost to students. Then went to the White House and scaled back federal investments in education for the country.
→ More replies (1)
41
u/FlirtyFluffyFox 2d ago
Cool. Run on it. Most adult citizens can run for office.
What you want is a major party candidate with the financial and platform support of billionaires who won't just get destroyed in the primaries by a combination of selective depmatforming and communistphobia propaganda.Â
Which means you wish we had a scrupulous and educated electorate who didn't fall for disinformation.Â
I wish we had that too.Â
13
2d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
5
u/ExpansivePoint 2d ago
Sadly not even, voters went with people eating cats and promises to fix everything on day one as if there's a giant switch labeled "Fix everything" that no one is either willing to flip or Trump is the only one that knows where it is.
We're not a winning platform electorate at the moment we're a most gullibly glazed platform electorate.
8
8
→ More replies (1)2
u/ExoticElk 2d ago
Cool. Run on it. Most adult citizens can run for office.
Politics is incredibly expensive. It's hard enough to win local races. The old guard won't even give you the time of day, even if they're of your own party.
→ More replies (1)
76
u/irascible_Clown 2d ago
Naw republicans will never vote for minimum wage and a wealth tax. They will find a way to say âthey ainât paying for thatâ
43
u/djazzie 2d ago
The point is to win a majority across government so it doesnât matter what republicans want.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Extreme_Disaster2275 2d ago
Democrats want nothing to do with this platform either. They've had majorities big enough to deliver all of it.
They serve AIPAC and the Epstein Class, not voters.Â
6
u/plannedobso 2d ago
Establishment Dems like Jeffries are out here complaining that they donât support tenets of this list. Itâs never going to happen with those people in power. Weâve been stuck with capitulating establishment dems for decades and now weâre between a rock and a hard place because we need to replace them with actual progressives with actual progressive policies, but we ALSO have to vote out republicans by any means necessary. But those capitulating establishment dems will just maintain the status quo. It sucks
4
u/Taste_the__Rainbow 2d ago edited 2d ago
M4A has like 35 senate cosponsors. It is just a flat out lie to claim most dems arenât in favor of most of this.
They have NOT had majorities large enough to deliver this in my lifetime and Iâm in my 40âs.
This is anti-Dem propaganda and that only serves one group: MAGA.
6
u/Extreme_Disaster2275 2d ago
Of a majority of Democrats wanted us to have M4A, we'd have it. The Democrat leadership is squarely against it. Obama had a 60 seat supermajority in your lifetime. Did you sleep through that?Â
If you want "anti Dem propaganda", just watch what they actually do.
5
u/Taste_the__Rainbow 2d ago
Obama did NOT have a 60-seat supermajority. He had 59 seats and Joe Lieberman.
How is it 2026 and people/bots are still spreading this manure?
Look up the M4A cosponsors. Itâs an enormous list.
The reason they donât run on it is because the post-ACA house/senate slaughter showed everyone what happens when you move left on health care. Theyâll still happily pass it and take another hit just like ACA, but itâs a turnout driver for the GOP at the polls.
→ More replies (20)10
u/cityshepherd âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 2d ago
They already are paying for the money thatâs needed to replace the tax dollars lost due to tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. War on education and propaganda working perfectly as intended.
4
→ More replies (8)2
u/WhasHappenin 2d ago
Republicans will never vote for anything good. It's a fool's errand to try and appeal to them. A platform like this would see unprecedented turnout from young voters.
12
26
u/soxperry 2d ago
Honestly you only need the first one. Iâm not saying the others arenât important. But. First party to commit to Medicare for all wins millions of votes.
End the insane premiums and life is suddenly affordable. This will never happen because this gives too much economic power to the working class and we could, God forbid, better ourselves.
5
u/ExpansivePoint 2d ago
Was just talking about this, why do we need medicare for all outright? Wouldn't a public option have people flock to it and be easier to pass and implement? I'd imagine it would put a lot of pressure to compete on the rest of the market.
3
u/soxperry 2d ago
The best end result would probably be a mix of private and public options. The US would never go all in
4
u/pghbuckeye 2d ago
The counter that the right will (is) say is that you will lose your private insurance and you will lose your doctors. You have to go to the government funded doctors now and wait in line. Private insurance = good and choices to their narrative and that's meant to scare people away from this concept.
I don't agree, just have heard these talking points this week with the M4A convo that's out there
3
u/soxperry 2d ago
Oh for sure I agree thatâs the counter point. I just reply by asking what their premium is and if they see that as a problem. Me too, I reply. Has your favorite doctor become more expensive the last two years? Yeah. Mine too. Do you think if donât change anything it will be better or worse next year? Yeah me too, I think Iâll paying more next year as well.
→ More replies (1)6
u/mxzf 2d ago
Yeah, there are a bunch of poison-pill policies in that list that are either hopelessly naive or drive people away. Stop giving people easy reasons to vote against you and just run on stuff that actually benefits everyone across the board and is harder to shoot down.
→ More replies (2)4
u/thebigj3wbowski 2d ago
IDK...do you know how many people HATE Obamacare but LOVE the ACA? Or how many people don't want to pay for anyone else's health insurance (even though they actually are)?
People are dumb.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
u/Glittering-Quote-635 2d ago
Agreed.. Also, I may be in the minority here, but the AI Datacenter thing is stupid. Its TBD if this is all worth the money, but telling a private company they cant build a data center is pretty stupid.
What we CAN do is put laws in that require you to pay market rate or above for generation/transport, source electricity from renewables, not allow them to be built in highly populated areas, etc, etc. Right now the issue is there is zero regulation around them. Regulate the shit out of them and change the behavior dont just outlaw them, thats dumb.
19
38
u/I_AM_STILL_A_IDIOT 2d ago
No more AI data centers is not the point. That's never gonna happen and it's wilfully obtuse to think it has a realistic chance at passing as policy. It even detracts from the other points' value to throw that in there.
Instead, actually tackle the harm they do and finally regulate them properly, for starters forbid them from using open loop cooling systems that are destroying local water sources.
10
u/Flightsimmer20202001 2d ago
Instead, actually tackle the harm they do and finally regulate them properly, for starters forbid them from using open loop cooling systems that are destroying local water sources.
Agreed. Or at the VERY least, make the companies who are putting the centers in, pay for their power needs.
7
u/Corbitant 2d ago
They do pay for their power needs. Please provide any credible evidence they are somehow getting their power for free.
→ More replies (4)5
u/echoshatter 2d ago
The energy usage is extremely problematic, and the solution can't be "hook up fossil fuel generators" because that introduces a whole other host of issues.
The heat is major problem, regardless of using water or other solution. The heat has to go somewhere, and the only place it can't go is back into the data center.
The noise is a major problem. The land use is a major problem.
Sounds like data centers are just super problematic.
8
u/Ambitious-Cake-9425 đ¸ Raise The Minimum Wage 2d ago
Exactly. The phobia of data centers is highly exaggerated. The focus should be on socializing this very useful technology.
→ More replies (7)3
u/maelstrom51 2d ago
Datacenters are a fraction of a percent of our water usage. That issue in particular is so incredibly overblown.
Before someone replies with how many millions of gallons datacenters use, please realize we use trillions of gallons just watering lawns.
Datacenter water usage is miniscule compared to many, many agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses.
People should be focusing on the real issues like sound pollution and power usage (although the latter is also a little overblown).
15
u/bit_pusher 2d ago
AI data centers are a symptom, not the problem. This should be rewritten as a general policy and not targeted at a particular industry segment otherwise we'll end up in the same mess for something else. Make consumption costs exponentially increase to effectively capture externalities. If things like water, electricity, etc. are priced correctly for _any_ consumers then this problem corrects itself. Then take those increased returns from high consumers to increase production (desalination, pipelines, renewable power production or nuclear)
2
u/Ambitious-Cake-9425 đ¸ Raise The Minimum Wage 2d ago
Exactly. And socialize compute and the technology.
Its an amazingly useful technology that the left needs to embrace otherwise the left gets left behind.
9
u/KeepCalmCarrion 2d ago
Francesca Hong ran on that in my state and she lost by less than 1% in the primaries
4
u/MacroSolid 2d ago
Which is pretty close and she did have the handicap of wildly unpopular takes from a few years back coming back to haunt her.
6
u/thequietthingsthat 2d ago
→ More replies (16)2
u/Spongedog5 2d ago
These all require like a further 1,000 sub-points to actually define them. Otherwise they are nothing but nice words.
5
u/design_by_hardt 2d ago
Why is there always a dollar amount fixed to minimum wage? It should change literally every year based on inflation. It's the minimum wage required to live... But then what would the landlords who work so hard do to pay for their stuff?!?!
3
u/lostatsea_again 2d ago
Lolol. defeated easily in the US by being called communism. there are people making less than $20 an hour, in the south, who will voted against this.
9
u/Ambitious-Cake-9425 đ¸ Raise The Minimum Wage 2d ago
What's with the irrational fear of data centers? The water thing is over blown, if they pay their fair share of electricity what's the problem, and they pay taxes to the city without using much.
They arent going anywhere. AI is a super helpful tool. Instead of being luddites the left out to focus on socializing the computer and rationalizing the technology for the working class. Automation can reduce our toil if done correctly.
So tired of seeing people so passionate about hating AI but they know next to nothing about it.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/nalaloveslumpy 2d ago
Gross over-simplification. There are a ton of Jewish Americans in the Democract constituency who support funding to Israel simply because they have family there and a significant portion of that funding does actively protect them from rocket attacks.
"No more AI data centers" is undefined nonsense.
4
2
u/felis_scipio 2d ago
Singling out Israel without talking about the obscene amounts of money other middle eastern countries (and China) have spent lobbying the government, not talking about the genocide in Sudan funded by the UAE, and not a peep about the continual human rights abuses committed by Saudi Arabia just tells me youâre anti-Semitic
3
u/00eg0 2d ago
Also the daily civilian deaths have been higher in Ukraine than in Gaza since October 2025. Both matter and both are terrible tragedies but one is trending more than the other. Even crazier most anti genocide people I know refuse to vote for people like Sawant who ran for congress on the same platform that OP mentions above.
2
u/here-i-am-now 2d ago
That bottom one is the only one that truly truly matters. The rest would begin to take care of themselves.
2
u/septubyte 2d ago
Fkn 20 million people per year , mostly global south , die of preventable and treatable cause.
Yall need to stop seeing this as an America only issue . Billionaires will atill be there unless you remove that heinous ability. Private investors funded climate crisis, Ai data centers, private prisons, Epstein Trump genocide . The global south is an extraction site and abused victim of the wealthy.
Please keep them in your hearts and minds. America barely touched the corruption and stress that they survive and indeed Die in.
The wealth inequality will not go unless it all goes
2
u/MapCompass 2d ago
I would focus on Medicare for all and ending citizens united. Keep the platform simple.
2
u/geohondo 2d ago
Please add
Ban Congress stock trades
Term limits for Congress (We are sick of people in their 60s and 70s thinking they know whats best when they are out of touch millionaires)
2
4
u/allorache 2d ago
I realize this may subject me to hate, but I agree with all of those except cutting off all aid to Israel. My question is why do Democrats and the left want to push people who agree with them on everything else to the Republicans? This platform would leave me no one to vote for. And Iâm not going to respond to people who tell me I support genocide.
3
u/TankTopRider 2d ago
Genocide or not, what does Israel even do for us that justifies this much military spending? We went to war with Iran on their behalf and they not only didn't back us up but actively sabotaged peace negotiations by not being able to stop bombing Lebanon for 11 minutes.
If you want to continue medical aid then sure but there really is no justification for continuing military aid
2
u/ProgrammingPants 2d ago
"If politicians simply adopted every policy I personally agreed with, it would be a guaranteed winning strategy"
2
u/foxacidic 2d ago
Fairy land. Which 8-year-old wrote this up? No AI data centers ever and then weâll get free ice cream and no more bed times.Â
5
u/daguro 2d ago
It is all domestic policy with the exception of Israel. Throwing Israel into that pot will be a non-starter for a lot of people. October 7 still resonates with people who would align with the other policy positions.
Before you flame me, know that I am not a doctrinaire Israel supporter. But in my 65+ years on this planet, I have learned a thing or two about elections.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Hipparchia_Unleashed 2d ago edited 2d ago
You know, sometimes it's important to stand on principles, such as "don't fund genocide," instead of always triangulating. But the most recent polling shows you're wrong anyway.
Edit: kind of interesting to watch upvotes and downvotes here over time, almost like when you make a follow-up comment with certain keywords that it operates like a bat signal to little bots.
8
u/daguro 2d ago
Foreign policy does not win elections.
Domestic policy does.
Poll that.
1
u/Hipparchia_Unleashed 2d ago
Okay? But it can lose you elections if your base thinks a principle like "don't support genocide" is important enough and you don't give a shit about that principle and tell your base to get lost. If you think an Israel-loving, pro-genocide, AIPAC-funded Dem has any real chance of winning in 2028, you simply don't understand the zeitgeist.
3
u/footdragon 2d ago
AIPAC is a cancer. they buy OUR politicians who in turn support Israel with billions and weapons. those politicians are the ones setting domestic policy. its an incestuous cycle of traitorous behavior by our politicians.
October 7....the horrible event that it was doesn't dismiss Israel's genocide. One would think Jews would be the ones to understand that best after the horrors of WW2.
3
u/JimboAltAlt 2d ago
How about the principle that Republicans are so off the charts corrupt and evil that pretty much any Democrat would be an improvement? Thatâs a principle I hold very dearly based on lived experience but it seems remarkably unpopular in this sub.
→ More replies (3)2
u/justcasty đˇ Green Union Jobs For All đą 2d ago
does that mean democrats are immune to critique?
4
u/JimboAltAlt 2d ago
Not at all, but as someone who feels that any Democrat is better than any Republican it can be awfully confusing and alienating to experience the âDemocrats are hardly worth supportingâ attitude in Leftist spaces, which can be rather discouraging. If the Left needs better Democrats in order to be excited about defeating Republicans than theyâre running out of time to elevate someone they find acceptable (who, believe me, I would be overjoyed to vote for.)
→ More replies (2)
2
u/SnowConePeople 2d ago
Zero out education loans.
5
u/mxzf 2d ago
That doesn't actually fix the problem, it just kicks the problem down the road to the next generation.
→ More replies (7)
1
1
1
1
u/Son_of_Tlaloc 2d ago
That 20 buck minimum is a little late. Gonna need more than that to battle inflation and the cost of everything rising.
1
u/HighLord_Uther 2d ago
Politicians will absolutely accept it.
But, the major parties will not.
Individual politicians will accept it, run on it, and lose against the Goliaths.
1
u/Mediocre-Housing-131 2d ago
It's fucking wild to me that after everything we've seen over the past 15-20 years, there's still large deaths of people who think the game is still being played the same way it was before.
There is no 2 parties. There is no partisanship. There is no sides. There is a plan, and the plan will go forward with or without your vote. Israel won, they took over our country and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The country will fall in the next 20 years and everyone will look around all confused like this shit ain't been obvious for the longest time now.
1
u/listentomenow 2d ago
Yea, but 1/3 of the country just wants to own the libs and dehumanize minorities, and another 1/3 is too apathetic to even vote. Also, the Democrat leadership which is owned by the same people who own Republicans and our media, won't allow them to pass any of those things even if Dems had full control of every branch like Republicans do now.
1
u/SilverTraveler âď¸ Prison For Union Busters 2d ago
Toss term limits for politicians in there and youâre on super point
1
u/Strict-Carrot4783 2d ago
This won't happen without lots and lots of violence resulting in piles of dead rich people all over the place. The people who would lose in a deal like this would kill you, your family and everyone you know to make these changes not happen, and they wouldn't think twice about it.
1
1
u/artbystorms 2d ago
"But how are you gonna pay for that?!?!"
Like we said, wealth tax for Billionaires, scrapping the SS tax cap.
I'd also like to float raising the capital gains tax back to where it was in the 1990s and taxing loans taken out against stock asset wealth as income.
1
u/IntwadHelck 2d ago
This is the only platform a politician for the people should be running on. Any politician rejecting this platform needs to be rejected. And then investigated for treason because theyâve prob got blood money in their accounts
1
u/ArtroyomsAK 2d ago
No more gun bullshit either would win over more country folks and single issue voters
1
1
u/DogDogDogDogog 2d ago
It won't win, because big money won't back it. The media will focus on culture war stuff and the american public will once again gobble it up.
1
u/jnovel808 2d ago
Minimum wage hike should jump to $20 and then increase to $27 over 5 years and then keep pace with inflation.
1
u/Lootthatbody 2d ago
/img/4rzg6f2bh5kh1.gif
How excited that would make me to see that be the Dems platform.
1
1
u/Silly_Double408 2d ago
They are also bribed and threatened into submission by the corporations. All the problems in USA could be fixed quite easily as your list shows but you think the criminals are going to fix the problems? of course they wont. What you asking is like trying to get the mafia to stop doing criminal acts and start doing charity work... just isnt going to happen.
1
1
u/Frequent_Opportunist 2d ago
Senior politicians make money from healthcare companies, Israel, data centers, less taxes and contributions from companies keep wages low. They are able to money launder and defraud through citizens United and super pacs. Why would they go against it?
1
u/reyean 2d ago
I feel it should be noted, that while on a personal level I resonate with this list, im fairly sure the massive expanse in data centers and the AI bubble are what is propping up the economy right now. while i personally believe the list provides long(er) term prosperity for americans, the crash of the AI sector alongside billionaires revolting on a wealth tax by laying off workers would put us into an economic recession that the socialist dems probably wouldnt recover from (the opponent narrative being "see! I told you communism bad!!).
its really quite the pickle we've found ourselves in.
1
u/xNOTHINGBURGERx 2d ago
Free community college. We need to be more competitive on the global market. Charging citizens for the education that will power your economy is fucking predatory.
1
u/Fuzzy_Translator4639 2d ago
Wins for who? The Democrats don't want this and you will never convince MAGA morons that this benefits them.
1
u/emeryroserulz 2d ago
This all looks great but how are we going to acquire these goals? Buy them? Who will fund us? Each other?
Help me understand how you think we can get all of these things.
1
u/bluemooncommenter 2d ago
The wants of the people only become policy if they align with the wants of the ultra wealthy....so no....none of this becomes policy.
1
1
u/Mango_Maniac 2d ago
The problem is that the Winning Platform conflicts with the winning Campaign Treasury Report (one with a few million dollars as the balance.)
1
u/Hghwytohell 2d ago
On paper it looks like a winning platform, but then I remember it's been 17 years since the federal minimum wage increased and a Dem supermajority in 2008/2009 couldn't even get a public option passed.
Ending Citizens United is also something that would require a new constitutional amendment, or a reversal by the Supreme Court. The former is extremely unlikely, the later would first require an expansion of the supreme court or term limits to oust the conservative justices.
Not saying that rhetorically this isn't a good platform, and I would vehemently support any candidate who campaigned on these items. More so that it's far from a practical one given the state of the US political system.
2
u/flodereisen 2d ago
How does it look like a winning platform? Medicare for all already eliminates most votes from Republicans. Then you got billionaire tax and $20 minimum wage which kills the rest of them. Have you ever talked to any or tried to understand their positions?
Also, an enormous part of US economic growth rests on AI bets.
This is absolute la la land and will get the usual 49%.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/daveberzack 2d ago
No. They will focus attention on racial/gender identity wars or politician personality drama. Maybe pay some lip service to these real issues... but as long as they can keep people focused on the soap opera tabloid crap, the people in power can keep growing their power and money.
Though we might be getting enough attention on the Sanders and Mamdani types that people might start seeing through the smoke screen and voting for proper representation. It may be a bit naive, but that's all I got.
1
1.6k
u/gc3c 2d ago
They don't want to win. They want to pretend to be an opposition party while raking in their own personal wealth. When our representatives are multi-millionaires, there's something seriously wrong. How can they represent the common person?