this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
579 points (98.0% liked)

politics

24898 readers
3267 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm pro jacking it way the fuck up as we move through income tiers. We could just have such nice things if we raised taxes.

Ideally I'd like to see federal incentives tied to states tying their minimum wage to local COL, and significantly higher progressively-increasing taxes on everyone from the third quintile up.

Then just change all welfare that isn't a training/education program to straight cash and we are cooking with gas.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'd say fourth quintile but I'm personally biased and I do agree with pretty much everything you're saying. It's wild to me that we have a flat constant as the minimum wage and not a formula that takes into consideration your district's cost of living. Ideally we'd have:

Min Wage for District A = Federal Constant + k*Cost of Living in A

It would need to be coupled with some sort of gerrymandering prevention so that districts were more representative of state areas. You'd need large cities to be their own district in this scheme.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think voting districts and localized COL need to be tied together, but I'd sell a kidney to fix the gerrymandering shit so yeah, still agreed.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's the best way I can think of defining an area for CoL without screwing someone over. On the state level it would be heavily skewed still. Maybe counties?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

County is def how I would do it. They're more localized and self-governing and can more quickly make adjustments as needed.