For other countries yes, but the US won't vote again

Tax All religions, it's a business. Make everyone pay into Social Security, no income caps. Move retirement age back to 65 for everyone, and early (reduced benefits) to 62.

Oh man. My husband is a journeyman electrician (IBEW). He is 57. Has had a hip replacement. He is hyper-focused on his diet and tracks all calories, hits the gym 5 days a week. Yet he has bone on bone arthritis in his shoulders, his left knee has no meniscus and he has popped his IT band 3 times in the last 4 months. He is on a job that has gone OT, tons of ladder climbing and stairs. Meanwhile the shoppie employees huddle with their phones while he is responsible for the switch gear. He really wants to retire. He has his full pension credits.
I am a nurse (60) with 27 years experience. I just spent a weekend on service and there was very little transport staffing. I ended up having to transport the patients to the nuclear medical dept and then wait. One had to travel on the tele so I told his nurse to bring him down and leave the equipment. After his testing was done... I hooked him back up and brought him to his floor and of course, the bed was out of battery charge WAFB, I was worn out.
We are both retirement curious. I was thinking... maybe get all our expenses on a spreadsheet, star the ones that can be reduced or eliminated, get all our most recent sheets together and see a financial advisor. We are kind of tired of carrying the 30 somethings honestly... We are Gen X and actually didn't expect we would live this long. Honestly... we have kept our communities running for a long time and are ready for others to take over.
Personally, I 'd love to go somewhere like Portugal or Italy for a few years and wait out this MAGA mess. Our kid lives less than 3 blocks away though and we do want to be involved grandparents. It is a difficult choice in these times. I hope we can convince them to come with us. The fact is... this nation under Trump will become a prison if you wait long enough.
- Hold up. You're 60 and on Lemmy? That is super cool. I hope I'm that cool when I get there.
  As for moving away, I noped out to Korea just before Trump. Just coincidence of timing. Expat life is great, but be ready for a hefty dose of loneliness unless you can get in on the language. You can find other expat communities, but you end up needing to be less picky about your friends, which isn't necessarily bad.
  In any case, I hope your husband catches a break and lasts too retirement. Good luck with everything
I'm leary about taxing religion, only because they would try to leverage that for more government influence than they already have.
- We literally have a christian nationalist government right now and the churches are not being taxed fairly. Your taxes pay for things they want and use. And they abuse those tax free donations & income they get because there is no reporting to the IRS. Religions are a business. You take in money for a service, it's a business. Most religions are not actually helping people, like the homeless, food kitchens, or fundraising for those in need. If you had the ability to see where all the finances go from a 'church', you would never give money, or defend them again. Even non-religious charities don't give back as much as they claim, Goodwill is a great example.
  Tax all religions fairly.
- I agree, we don't tax a variety of non-profits. Including simple social clubs all the way to universities. I don't like the idea of taxing all of those either.
  Religion seems to get a lot of benefits other non-profits don't though. So I'm down to level the playing field, and maybe there is some way to alter tax law to punish the mega-churches specifically

I refuse to believe any of this is actually endorsed or supported by the Democratic Party of The United States.

It's all great. And I'd love to be wrong. But there's no way.

I refuse to believe any of this is actually endorsed or supported by the Democratic Party
I don't see it claiming to be.
It's also things dems refuse to acknowledge are needed when in power

Lmao. Unless step number one includes some guillotines, you might as well be asking people if they'd like to go to paradise.

Pure fantasy.

Fuck off.
No.
Dream big. Get balls.
Yes.
A Reality TV star who diddled kids, hid top secret documents in his bathroom, and openly agrees with all of the USA's enemies is now President, jail free, and has ham fisted the stupidest people alive into a laughablely unreal kakistocracy that nothing else in human history compares to.
This is the fantasy of the biggest idiots alive and it has very much become real. And now that CEO murders are up significantly more than usual, you wanna believe paradise can't be achieved because the idiots did it first?
Please. It's a numbers game. And there are far fewer idiots than those who are now suffering from them.
- Look man, what do you want? We can do this, or we can go to war. I want to see a fash nailed to every tree, but thats still a big ask.

Sounds great.

Hope you've got your guns, because you'll need them for any of that.

Voting is just for deciding what colour tie your right-wing authoritarianism wears.

Like I get the whole moralistic bent about not wanting to pay representatives big incomes relative to their constituents because politician bad and “they should be doing it for the pride of serving”, or like term limits because “I don’t like these politicians and they keep getting reelected/ serve life terms.”

But realistically, if you want skilled professionals in a field, you need to pay them competitively and offer long term career prospects. Otherwise you’re going to only get people who take the job as a stepping stone to another position, like a high paying job at a big company they passed a bunch of laws to help, or who can make money in other ways.

As it stands right now, the whole stock trading thing is largely a result of how little congress people are payed relative to the importance of the position. Like, sure, it’s a six figure salary with a great benefits package, but, that’s peanuts compared to what a modern private sector executive make, even a mediocre one.

If anything, congress people should probably have their wages increased significantly.

In every possible way, I don't want skilled professionals as representatives. Even if you get one they are only a skilled professional in ONE, maybe TWO areas - COMPLETELY inadequate for the vast number of areas the government is tasked with managing. That specialized knowledge is what the career bureaucrats the administration is gleefully firing are for.
I want someone who can ASK and LISTEN to skilled professionals, detect and reject bullshit from scam artists, and feels a responsibility to make decisions that benefit their constituents. There are 10 year olds that fit that description.
- I want someone who can ASK and LISTEN to skilled professionals, detect and reject bullshit from scam artists, and feels a responsibility to make decisions that benefit their constituents.
  It is a skill. You need professionals in that skill
They can have that when they start serving the got damn people like they're supposed to
See that's where limiting CEO pay comes in.
the whole stock trading thing is largely a result of how little congress people are payed relative to the importance of the position.
Completely unreal. Given an opportunity to legally trade on the information available to them people with 6 and 7 figure salaries will act identically to maximize their benefit. At present in many difficult and valuable professions you can obtain the best of the best for less than what congress is paid. There is no reason to believe that lifetime benefits, 174k and the prestige of leading the nation is insufficient to attract excellent candidates.
If the candidates presently in play are often trash it is because other factors select for same not because of insufficient compensation.
I like what Singapore does, which is to pay public servants very well, and then heavily punish corruption
Wow the capitalism is strong in this one.
They can tie it to the minimum wage. Want a pay boost? Raise the minimum wage.
When we pay more, we attract vermin. I’d happily serve for a pittance because I want to make the world better, and so would many others. If you want to get rich, don't serve in Congress!
- Ok, but, like, no offense, are you skilled enough to properly analyze and dig through large complicated bills? Are you a skilled enough administrator to manage an office of staffers? Are you a good enough public speaker to campaign?
  I’m not saying people should want to serve in congress because it pays well, but, if the same set of skills that make a good representative could earn you 4 million a year in the private sector, then it’s going to be really hard to get qualified professionals. Instead you’ll get incompetent ideologues, independently wealthy aristocrats, or corrupt individuals intending to abuse the position.
  It needs to pay competitively or else you create a bunch of perverse incentives.
That's a good thing. Private sector executives are wildly more sociopathic than the general public, and literally the enforcers of poverty on most americans. We should be incentivizing that type of person to stay as far the fuck away from politics as possible.
But realistically, if you want skilled professionals in a field, you need to pay them competitively and offer long term career prospects. Otherwise you’re going to only get people who take the job as a stepping stone to another position, like a high paying job at a big company they passed a bunch of laws to help, or who can make money in other ways.
But this is already what we get anyway. Like 90% of our "representatives" behave this way.
I do agree though that maybe 1.5x is a little low especially since they're supposedly "required" to maintain a residence closer to d.c as well and that's super expensive. I'd say the public pay for their housing near d.c and then we can consider lower salaries for them, or at least having them be closer to what their constituents make so they understand what people actually have to go through to get by.
- The problem with low salaries is that it makes the job less appealing, so it attracts more corruption. (In theory) if you are payed a lot, you don’t care when someone offers you a little more, while when you are payed little, a little money can make a big difference. Then again, this theory clearly failed, so… who knows

Capping congressional salary that low is a bad idea - especially with the cost of maintaining homes in their district and DC both. It heavily encourages corruption.

I had a good family friend who was a small business owner. He was the local AC repair guy who worked super hard and built a thriving business. He eventually got into politics and was elected to the US House of Representatives. I was proud of my friend, because while we didn't agree on a lot of political issues, he was fundamentally a good person and would be different than all the corrupt assholes in government.

He quickly ran into financial issues trying to maintain 2 households - especially since his wife was essentially forced to leave her job to be with him full-time as he went back and forth between his district and DC.

So what did he do? He started accepting help from donors. Then special interests. He started becoming more and more beholden to them as they supported him, and he started getting a taste of the Washington lifestyle.

Now he's as corrupt as corrupt gets, and I'm ashamed to have called him a friend. Motherfucker even voted against election certification on January 6th.

I truly believe that if Congress paid better, more "Average Joe" politicians could thrive in Washington without having to take dirty money, and my family friend may have been saved.

Capping congressional salary that low is a bad idea
Exactly. Giving someone immense power without giving them pay reflecting that power is just an unstable incentive for corruption.
There are some downstream effects, too. Federal law caps regular federal employee pay to formulas based on the Congressional pay, so plenty of senior managers and Ph.D.-level specialists have their pay capped because Congress hasn't given itself a raise since 2009, all while inflation has gone up by about 50% in those 16 years. It used to be that federal employees would put up with lower salaries for better job security and belief in the mission, but the current administration has basically torn down those assumptions.
In theory Congress could lift the caps on federal salaries without giving themselves a raise, but I don't think that's very likely.

I'm impressed with this, someone has clearly given it more than 30s of thought

treating unrealized gains used for collateral as income avoids most of the complicated issues around wealth taxes while still enforcing that you have to pay your fair share if you want to live a life of luxury.

Congressional pay caps seem like a good way to align their incentives with helping all their constituents rather than just the donors and median mean that passing a real minimum wage law is to their direct benefit. No idea how you would get around the increased risk of bribery though.

Fixing gerrymandering, replacing fptp and scrapping the electoral college evens out the voting power so an election is less likely to be swung imby a handful of close districts in swing states.

Striking down Citizens united would (could?) clean up campaign finance making it harder for fossil fuel lobbies (for example) to purchase power.

I don't know how feasible it is given some of it is federal, some of it is state level and I imagine some of it requires ammending the constitution, but I would consider any candidate who ran on some/all of these to be a good choice focused on fixing the root causes of a lot of the problems the US is facing.

Non-American here: is it possible to objectively outlaw gerrymandering while still having the ability to redraw/create/merge districts?
I thought you do need that mechanism as populations shift from rural to urban (or reverse) so that it’s always the same number of people per congressperson or however it works.
- Also non-american but subject to a bunch of us-centricn news anyway 😅
  Good question you need to be able to re-draw boundaries, but re-drawing boundaries shouldn't have a material effect on election results (assuming the same people vote the same way.
  I have heard a few proposals like "districts must be regular polygons" or avoiding moving people from contested seats into safe seats.
  Neither of them are perfect for a number of reasons (reliance on perdictive models, ways to work around etc.) so the common approach is to appoint an independent redistricting commission to handle it and have them look at a bunch of metrics to figure out if it's fair.
  The nice thing is a perfect solution isn't even necassary for improvement, just preventing horrorshows like Texas's 33rd (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_33rd_congressional_district) would help.
  The main problem is that a few states passed ballot initiatives to combat gerrymandering, the politicians then undermined or straight up ignored them and then in 2019 the supreme court decided that it wasn't within the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear cases around gerrymandering. Funnily enough every single one of the justices who decided they were fine with republicans germandering efforts were appointed by republican presidents who could have guessed?
  So now it's de-facto legal; states run by the democrats are doing similar things and the clearly-acting-in-good-faith pundits on the right are screaming "look both parties are the same see! See!"
  Err.. I may have strayed from my point a little, but yes IRCs are the way to do this provided they have sufficient legal backing to see that their decisions are enforced.

That minimum wage pretty slim for a wish list...

Tie minimum wage to inflation. Tie rent to it, too. Im suck of having this discussion. They stonewall on purpose.
- Yeah, the minimum wage isn't so much the problem anymore (maybe in some areas, but definitely not all), it's the cost of living. If we raise minimum wage, the cost of everything else just gets raised to offset it, particularly the cost of rent/property. At this point, we need to enforce rent caps before raising the wage anymore.

It's cute you think there will be another election. I mean, there will be elections ... but they won't mean anything. The idiotic half of the US is realizing too late that the "conservative" party is the party of evil.

You think you're getting another election?

All of this should be simple for any sane politician to get on board with, and yet it's somehow revolutionary.

Keeping congressional salaries that low would encourage corruption and possibly discourage non-corrupt candidates with valuable experience, but I otherwise agree.

yeah, grand scheme of things a few hundred people getting a salary that's comparable to what they'd get in industry, makes zero difference to total government revenue.
The only reason to make it lower is either out of some weird sanctimonious need to put them in their place, or some idealistic notion that lowering salaries would result in a congress full of serene monk-like sages who exist only to serve their people, when the reality is that it would heavily incentivize even more corruption than we see now.
Give them a million dollars each, and tax them 100% on every penny they make from any other source.
- I wouldn't give them that much, but I wouldn't cap it as low as OP suggested.
If what keeps you from serving is money (in excess of a modest living wage), I don’t want you to serve. I want you to fuck off.
- I would agree, but 1.5 times medium income is on the low end.
I would say that capping the CEO pay would also lead to unintended outcomes. CEOs aren't going to just shrug and say "ok, I'll take a pay cut", and they certainly aren't going to give everyone a raise... instead they will just convert everyone making less than $500k and offer to bring them back on as a contractor. Or they will 'outsource' all of their departments to staffing agencies and the "CEO" of the staffing agency will only be making $150k.
- It turns out that you can fix that quite easily, have a read of the IR35 laws in the UK.
  Pasting from wikipedia:
  The legislation introduced in July 2000 is designed to target disguised employment. It uses tests to find out if someone is genuinely in business on their own account or a disguised employee of the client. In this context, "disguised employees" means workers who receive payments from a client via an intermediary, i.e. their own limited company, and whose relationship with their client is such that had they been paid directly they would be employees of the client.
You realize that’s the argument they made about Trump, right? “Having no money encourages corruption.” But Trump has money, so he’s less likely to be corrupt.
- That is not directly related to what I was saying, no. I did not imply that people with money won't be corrupt.

Giving pledge? How about a taking pledge.

Proposed wealth tax:

1% over $1M
10% over $10M
100% over $100M

The proceeds fund UBI. MMW we will have 100x as many millionaires after doing this.

I feel like you'd end up with a lot of people making $99M. Though I can see that being a good thing with prices for whatever the person made money from falling or driving investment instead of hording so it might actually work out
- Nah. If it's a graduated system like our taxes are now, there's no advantage to staying under the next bracket. Good trying to think of edge cases though
- You'd have a ton of people near $10m for sure. It would also be less rewarding to get over $10m. You'd need to make over $10m a year to cap out, so the top 0.01%.
  Also note you could still live like a king even in this system. If you made $1b a year, just spend or donate it each year. Go to space, buy a thousand homes for the homeless. But most rich people don't work to begin so probably not them.
- Wealth, not income.

Sure, all of this would be great. There's no chance of it happening, though. We're at a point where either we rise up and take what we want or it'll never change. And we're basically incapable of rising up. Prove me wrong!

Can't prove you wrong, because you're right.
Also, these are nice goals but a project needs a properly fleshed out plan with Steps on how to achieve those. It'll all be hampered by the fact that judicial is heavily swayed to the right with no term limits and getting that passed will be impossible. It's the lynch point needed to achieve everything else.
- The judicial branch siding with the executive branch on nearly everything constitutes a constitutional crisis in my mind even tho the official definition is the executive branch not heeding the judicial branch's decisions. The balance of power is still gone.

$20 minimum wage is still too low, but better than nothing. Decent outline. Just have to get someone that gives a shit about people into office.

Minimum wage shouldn't have to exist
If everyone had a universal basic income then people wouldn't be forced to take a job that doesn't pay them what they feel like they deserve.
Let the market set the price
If I am willing to do a job for $10 dollars to make extra cash, I should be able to.
If no one is willing to do the job for $10, the company will have to offer more.
Minimum wage is a bandage to a problem of capitalism. Wound being poor people suffering without "minimum". If you make sure everyone has the "minimum" you fix the problem and don't need the bandage.
Capitalism doesn't take into account people have basic needs. It assumes everyone is like a robot waiting for the perfect job to pop up.
- The problem is people who are desperate enough will still do it for under market wage.
  Plus markets are shit at labor/wages.
  Capitalism doesn't take into account people have basic needs. It assumes everyone is like a robot waiting for the perfect job to pop up.
  But your idea is to do exactly that with capitalism
can we fix it with a bread basket index please?
- Most countries have this (minimum wage regulated by a regulator). The fact you need an act passed by the legislature every time you want to raise it is ridiculous.

UBI would be nice too, especially as the reliance on AI/automation becomes more prevalent

Except no one will bother voting for this because the dems are just as bad because they're not giving away free unicorns or something /s

I'm thinking more that no one will vote for the dems, because the dems don't actually try to get any of this through?
If they wanted ANY of this through, they could have done so multiple times the past 10, 20, 50 years, but no. The dems do not want to accomplish this list. It is NOT part of the democrat policies.
Dems aren't for any of that, let alone all of it.

Caping their pay like that would assure only rich people could become politicians in poor districts.

Make sure all politicians like in public DC housing that cannot cost any more than what their own district spends on public housing.
Well even more than usual. Fucking Elise Stefanik, she is originally from Albany

Make the government fearful of the people.

Make the government fearful of the people.
Isn't that what the NRA claims the 2nd ammendment is all about?
- The French invented the perfect device.

I support this platform. Expect nothing less, accept nothing less. Look at the pipe dreams on the other side of the aisle they've been able to enact. Let's swing the hammer hard the other way now.

Cap CEO pay 35x lowest paid full-time employee

Remove “Full-Time” from that, it’s an obvious loophole that would make the point moot.

Yeah... suddenly everyone would be a 'contract worker'

You forgot ban lobbying.

So... I was gonna say that's Citizens United, but... I realized that's only for campaigns.
Anyone know what mechanism allows lobbyists to have the access they do? Or is it just that there's nothing barring it?
- I think the reason it was allowed in the first place was so that experts in their fields could argue pros and cons of bills associated with their field(s) of expertise. Then businesses started paying wolves in sheeps' clothing to go to Congress to present pros/cons for their best interests. Anyway you go about it, this is something that will be needed in some way or form and will always be sought out to corrupt, since elected officials can't be experts in everything.
  Not entirely sure what a good resolution for this problem is, other than make a law to make it illegal to misrepresent science/data/logic for the sole purpose of benefitting somebody paying/gifting/bribing you, and then actually enforce that law. Hate being a defeatist about it, but I don't think that'll ever happen in my lifetime since that's what politicians do in a regular basis. They aren't supposed to take bribes, but they do, and there are never penalties for them doing so.

Okay, hold up. Not all of these are federal.

Ranked choice in all elections - that's a state thing.

As for the congress trading and income caps, we want to do that for state representatives as well, right?

I'm guessing the billionaire and mega church taxes would also need to be state level, since there's nothing necessitating them crossing state lines.

I'm all in, but wanna make sure the effort is in the right areas.

Also, I prefer approval voting over ranked choice. And let's covert the House of Representatives to proportional representation instead of district-based, and let's do the same for state level representatives. And let's trash the Senate, or at least change it such that small groups of people don't have significantly more power just because they live in the middle of nowhere.

Also, donation info? Website or something to participate? The hell kind of call to action poster has no call to action???? I really wanna get in on this shit.

Not all of these are federal.
I don't see where the poster claims it is.
There will be state elections in 2028 too.
- Fair point. Thinking on Project 2025 more, I guess that wasn't federal-only either. Nevermind, then!

Bring back civil rights

Ranked Choice is a bad system to use for elections.

And that's per its inventor, the Marchese de Condorcet back in the 1790s.

He came up with the instant runoff idea, and then tore it to pieces because of how poorly it performed. i.e. Instant Runoff almost never gives you the Pairwise winner, the person who would win in a direct one-to-one matchup against every other candidate.

In the 200 years since then, we've found other, more serious problems. Like the fact that the system is somehow not monotonic. Meaning that increasing the support to a candidate can actually cause them to lose the election.

There's more, but the main point stands. RCV is broken beyond repair.

A system that is not broken is STAR. Designed from the ground up to be a modern voting system.

Fun fact, while strategic voting is possible under STAR, it actually gives worse results for the strategic voter just being honest in your preference. Which is opposite of how pretty much every other voting system works.

What's STAR?
- Found it: https://www.starvoting.org/
STAR is complicated to explain to people whose eyes glaze over when you start talking math and also has the problem that you can't tell someone how their vote will be counted until every other vote is counted first.
People who like STAR tend to overestimate how much those things matter when it comes to getting public buy in.
That's among the upsides of approval voting - it's dead easy to explain and already works with existing machines meaning it's cheaper to implement. It's biggest downside is arguably that it tends to trend towards moderate candidates with broad appeal, ones that are "good enough" for a wide assortment of people rather than necessarily being anyone's favorite.
- STAR, rate these candidates on a scale of 0-5 multiple candidates can have the same rating. Done. How it's counted? Easy, the top two rated candidates go into an automatic run-off, if you rated A higher than B, your vote goes to A. if you rated them the same, your vote is counted as "no preference". Done.
  That second step is mostly to get around some of the anti-democracy laws on the books in various states, but it also has the benefit of winnowing out clone candidates.
There's one weird voting system that's pretty good: ranked voting with fractional vote counting.
Your top candidate only gets the fraction of each vote they need to be guaranteed to stay in to the next round, the rest of your vote is available to the next candidate on your preference list.
In each round, one candidate will be eliminated. If there are 11 candidates now, there will be 10 next, so each candidate needs 1/10 of the votes to stay in.
Let's say there are 20000 voters so candidates need 2000 votes to guarantee being in the top ten. Your top candidate got 4000 votes, but they only need 2000 to guarantee going through. A half of your vote went to your top candidate.
Your second favourite candidate was more popular and got 8000 votes, so the people who voted for them used a quarter of their vote, by they have enough now anyway and don't need your vote at all to stay in. None of your vote is used on them.
Your third favourite got 1500 first place votes, which wasn't enough on its own. The people who voted them top used 100% of their vote to keep them in. But plenty of people voted for them lower down and they used up another quarter of your vote and stayed in.
And so on until one of the candidates can't get up to 2000 votes after higher preference candidates got kept in.
It's a great system that makes your best strategy to vote in preference order to let your preferences count in each round and across multiple rounds, but it has the disadvantage that people believe factions are hard and that somehow someone's tricking them if they're using hard math.
- Why do multiple rounds and complex counting at all?
  Just use STAR. It's easy, it's fast. And you can tell the world how much you actually like or hate every candidate rather than an arbitrary ranking where the options could be God, Ghandi, and then Hitler, and then somehow two more people worse than Hitler.
  See? Just a simple ranking gives extremely limited information about your preference. Just that A is ranked above B.
  Like A and B the same? You cannot communicate that via a ranking.
  Absolutely hate B? Again you cannot communicate that via a ranking.
  You need a rating system with a set good and bad.
  STAR does that. And in a single round of counting.

If we can actually get back in power after they rig or cancel elections, yes!

Lot of defeatism in the comments. You know who didn’t plan on defeat? The project 2025 assholes. Fight! Fight fire with fire!! Fuck anyone that doesn’t get on board. Project 2028, general strike, death to fascism!!

Cap CEO pay at no more than 2x lowest paid employee/contractor in terms of total compensation.

Raising minimum wage won't do shit, just cause more inflation. Deal with the real problem, cap the highest paid employee at 10x the lowest paid employee. CEO wants a million dollar salary, has to pay the grunts 100k first.

Hmm that ain't bad

Came in late but I'll bandwagon that the minimum wage needs to be bumped up.

It's the last point, but yes it needs to be linked to inflation.

I'd like to add to this that there needs to be limits to how many terms a congressman can be in office and that afterwards, they are unable to fund anything related to lobbying or government officials. Also, kick them off insurance for government officials and cut off their government official salary permanently when out of office.

Not gonna lie, cutting former members of parliament off from insurance and pensions sounds like a poor idea. They will have to find work somehow, and if you have been a politician for 12 years there is a very good chance you won't find anything unrelated to your former position. Even if you mean well and simply apply the expertise you have gathered. Such a law might force you either into poverty or corruption. If you were a lawyer or a medical doctor you might be fine, but someone of lower socioeconomic status might not. Consider Gorbachev for example, he had to stretch his meager pension by giving talks, and barely came by.

I say just tax all churches, not just the big ones.

Extend benefits to all employees. Make employer contribution for part time employees125% of employer contribution for full time employees. Make school vouchers illegal and get all kids back into public education. Eliminate media conglomerates. Nationalize the assets of any billionaire who paid for a cabinet position in order to destroy the agency that regulates their industry. Tax the wealthy and corporations.

They forgot privacy rights and surveillance elimination.

2 of those require a constitutional amendment which is a high bar to meet. Also personally prefer approval voting to RCV, it's easier to explain, works with existing machines, and eliminates the spoiler effect.

I personally prefer approval voting, but god almighty do regressives lose their minds over it when it's brought up. It's easier to address their emotional points with ranked choice voting, so I'll often default to it.

Shouldn't that be "Project 2029"? That's when a new president would take office.

Humans like even numbers more, if it's a campaigning tool you want to maximize likeability

Too bad we'll never have a benevolent tyrant who rams these things through. It's always evil that does things that way.

It's nice and I'm all for most of those with some exceptions, but I don't think I will ever see any of that happen in my short lifetime. Shit's only going to get worse from here on out. America will not survive this. Hell, Yale/Harvard professors of Fascism have left the freaking country cuz they know what's coming....

So is there a plan? Or just this little feel good poster?

Excuse me, this AI generated feel good poster!
Someone is whispering a call to action into a void.

LOL... this is just another moving of the goal post so Americans can continue sitting on their asses for another 3 years while the consequences of their decisions keep burning the world

Sign me up

Shouldn't this be project 2029?

That's what I thought too. Project 2025 is named for the first year of this term.
Also, it is named for the year when they want to finish implementing the project. And they are almost halfway there already.

I would love to see unrealized gains used as collateral taxed.

I've always thought it was the fairest way to stop them from using/enjoying/benefiting from their wealth without paying taxes, without having to just outright tax unrealized gains which is pretty unfair to me.

You could optionally start it at a certain wealth level so as to not burden the working class with the extra complicated taxes it would cause, and the wealthy at that point would be able to afford the extra work on the taxes.

I sadly don't think it will ever happen in our life times =(

I'm not even commenting on the political decisions made in this some of which I could support.

DUMB NAME

For multiple reasons. 2028 is still during Trump's term. I don't see him going away, and I don't see any of this passing under him

Billionaires will orchestrate a war (they have the power) before their agenda is threatened

CEO pay should be max 7x (do they honestly work 7x more than their lowest paid?).

And minimum wage should be $25/hour or more (with additional increases based on cost of living a d inflation).

Congruent polygons for congressional district boundaries, end the Senate, have real democracy!

The problem with taxing billionaires out of existence is that the top 1% income earners in the US make up about 50% of all income tax revenue.

And because they're billionaires they can afford to just move somewhere else.

So if they leave you're left with less than half of your tax revenue, and they just carry on being billionaires somewhere else.

Don’t confuse high income earners with wealth holders.
Wealth holders don’t have to work. Someone with 500 million $ in assets gets 5% returns, ie. 25 million $ per year by doing nothing.
They then use this money to buy more assets from you. This is why you can’t afford a house. They have too much money to spend just from passive income.
They also can’t move away. They can, but their assets can’t. The assets are shares of businesses, houses, land, etc. they can’t take that with them.
Tax wealth not work.

Gerrymandering can't be outlawed. It happens all the time and is a powerful tool to help enfranchise people as well as a weapon to disenfranchise them when used incorrectly.

What should happen is take the power to redraw voting districts out of the hands of partisan groups and make a cross-party commission to oversee the process.

Obligatory MapMen video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBslntC3xg

Or, get this: No districts. Proportional representation. X% of the vote means X% of seats. No shenanigans

Ranked choice voting is barely better the first past the post. We need approval voting like STAR.

I looked it up.
https://www.starvoting.org/
Give all candidates between 0 and 5 stars to indicate your support for them.
There are just two rounds: totals then preferences.
Stars are added up in the totals round, the two top starred candidates go through to the preferences round, where your vote goes to whichever candidate you starred higher.
- Yep! Still 1 vote per person but it allows you to strategically vote and put all the least popular candidates at #5 while not ranking the ones you didn’t want to win at all.

Ranked choice is an improvement, but ending FPTP is better. There are other proportional representation systems that are likely to outperform ranked choice, let's not lock in on that specific alternative.

Is this the new dem campaign promises or just a wish list?

This is a wish list. P2025 was a... what... 900? page document with precise goals, action steps, policy guidance, identified barriers (and how to destroy them), and criteria for success.
This... thing... is just wishful thinking with no possibility of execution. And I say that as one of those people that gets pissed when others poo-poo people trying to ignite change.
- I just don't get what the point of this wish list is if not from the dnc. All it does is get people excited then disappointed when they realize it's not actually what dems are working on. Or worse how they're moving to grift donations

I'm here for it, except I don't think ranked choice should be required. Essentially anything is better than First Past The Post, but, imo, Approval voting is a better system. Ranked Choice can still favor polarizing and antagonistic politics where Approval favors compromise and coalition. Again, though, anything but FPTP. Maybe that should be the goal.

Isn't approval voting just a form of alternative / ranked choice?
- No. It is mechanically much simpler.
  TL:DR: Ranked choice runoff system makes it more likely for less popular but polarizing candidates to win and popular but less exciting candidates to lose, while Approval voting avoids this pitfall and results in most popular candidate winning.
  In ranked choice, voters rank as many or as few candidates as they like (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc). Then all each cadidate is given as many votes as they were the 1st ranked choice for. They are totalled up for all candidates, and if any individual has a majority, they win. If not, then there is an instant runoff where the candidate with the lowest count is eliminated (this is the source of the problem I have with Ranked Choice, as I will explain later), then all of the votes that went to him are reassigned to the candidate that was their 2nd choice (or dropped if they didnt put down a 2nd). The counts are totalled again, and anyone with a majority wins. Lather, rinse, repeat until someone wins.
  The problem that, as I said, is that people get dropped based entirely off whether they were the most people's highest ranked choices. This disregards their overall popularity as a second choice, or third, etc.
  For example, with 100 voters, 38 vote left wing candidate A as their 1st rank and of those, 30 rank center candidate B their 2nd rank, the rest having no 2nd. Similarly, 37 vote right wing candidate C their 1st rank, and 35 rank center candidate B their 2nd rank, the rest having no 2nd. The remaining 25 voters ranked B their 1st, and then split their 2nd choice with 9 for A and 11 for C, the last 5 having no 2nd. So 1st choices are tallied, A-38 B-25, C-37. B is eliminated for being lowest. B's votes are redistributed to their 2nd choices, and now it is A-47, and C-48. C wins as the majority line is now 47.5 due to the 5 dropped votes. But notice two things: First, C wins with less than the majority of actual voters' support, only 48%. So 52% did not support the winner. Second, B, who was eliminated first for being the least popular 1st rank vote, actually had 1st and 2nd ranked support from 80% of voters, a landslide. But B loses anyway. This is why I don't care for Ranked Choice. Candidates that are more agreeable but less likely to stir the most passionate support still lose, and polarizing politicians still win. In fact, they're incentivized to stir up passion to win, which means more lies, fear mongering, media driven campaigns, etc.
  Now Approval voting is much much simpler. You don't rank anyone. You just vote once for as many or as few people as you would approve of to win. The one with the most approval votes wins. Simple as that. So with the exact same setup and vote as in the above example, but with Approval voting we get the following results: A-47, B-80, C-48. B wins, as damn well they should.
  That is why I like Approval Voting. It does not promote polarizing politics. It promotes compromise, coalition between parties, actions and results over party loyalty, etc. Hell, it would even be good strategy for like minded candidates to promote one another as they are more likely to earn Approval from the others' supporters without the risk of spoiling their own votes.
  The one and only possible fault with Approval to my knowledge is that if everyone gets overly strategic and only votes for one person each instead of anyone they would actually approve of, then it will often be the case that the winner does not get a majority of votes.... but do you know what that is called? First Past the Post, the shit we already have now. Worst case scenario for Approval is our current system, so... yeah, go Approval voting!

Fuck yes

The great need for anything good to happen policy-wise is that death grip on controlled information and shaping opinion be broken. The Luigi Mangione story showed it was possible. The Epstein Files are refusing to be buried.

There’s still a chance. The surrender of public discourse to tech can start reaching levels of inauthenticity and distrust that can become critical. The AI hype is proof of that. Regular people who interact with it realize it’s shit, while the parasite class keeps doubling down on bad investments.

If people can start looking around them and seeing how badly government needs to support working people over elite Nazi pedophiles hiding their list, that’s when labels like “socialist” stop being campaign killers.

As other people have said, the whole congressional pay thing is complex, but everything else I'm down for! Hell, I'll take any of these, even congressional pay. Any progress at this point.

Are you trying to make every worker a part time worker? CEO pay just need to be a multiple of the lowest paid employee. Tying it to full time work just means they'll not bring anyone to full time until there's a seriously desperate need, to make sure they're able to get obscene pay contracts.

I'm on board