this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
101 points (89.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7389 readers
530 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

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?

load more comments (2 replies)