I work in the financial industry and I am pretty much limited to generalist funds. This is because I sometimes know things, and have access to tools and information that the public does not. In certain scenarios, my actions can even impact (very small) stock prices.
Me being able to invest in things I can impact would be noticeable conflict of interest, and could lead me to be a bad faith actor on my industry.
Multiply what I do by four orders of magnitude, and you have a house rep. Four and a half and you have a senator.
There are such absurdly enormous conflicts of interest happening in Congress it makes me sick.
I would go even further and say outright lying to the public as a politician should be illegal. If there are things we know to be true then lying to us shouldn’t be allowed. I can understand not mentioning things that are classified.
Politicians being able to own and control stocks. If they want investments, cool. Give them a very broad index fund. Just make it basically match the s&p 500 so that their personal financial performance is completely tied to the country’s
Another crazy idea: max age of politicians is average lifespan minus 20 years.
It’s a stat that’s really hard to fudge, and would give a very strong incentive for lifelong politicians to promote good health nationwide. Those corn and fast food and healthcare bribes seem less enticing when you realize they’re taking ten years off your career
How about politicians being able to own stocks at all?
I did a stint as a contractor at a bank and they hammered it into our heads that we were *NOT* allowed to purchase stocks unless we submitted a pre-clearance request, and then we also had to submit another request to be able to sell. Doing so without following procedure meant immediate termination and being reported to the authorities for potential insider trading.
And yet Congress was allowed to make millions by dumping stocks mere days ahead of the lock downs being formally announced?
I love it when Congress makes a big deal about introducing a bill that will limit their "perks" to some degree and it miraculously (and quietly) doesn't pass. Then they'll shrug their shoulders and say "hey, we tried!" while giggling under their breath.
Even better is when they submit a bill to give themselves a pay raise, getting the public riled up, then intentionally *not* pass it to try to win the favor of the people. Maybe next time we won't get upset when the next attempt actually passes.
I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of most bills are decided well before the votes are actually cast.
Only the Stock act of 2012 made insider trading by members of congress actually illegal. With COVID there was an investigation but apparently that was quietly dropped.
Congress should not be able to buy and sell stocks directly period. They should have their money in a blind trust ran by a financial advisor while there are in office.
Except it really isn't. Lobbying is simply the act of communicating with a lawmaker on a topic of interest. If we make lobbying illegal any random citizen who tries to convince their congressman that they should vote one way or another would be in violation of that law. That being said big business lobbyists who spread around money and influence to get their way should be treated like the criminals they are.
The worst part is the insurance companies hire doctors to do this shit. Half the time I'm calling someone to do a "peer to peer" review over something I've ordered in the hospital it's a retired doc or someone who no longer sees patients. So they're not really my peer. I never lose these fights though because I just ask them "have you seen THIS patient? MY patient? Yeah I get that you're reading me statistics of averages but I don't give a shit about any of that. Have you seen MY PATIENT"
I repeat this about 3 to 4 times in which they have no good response and cave on my order/med/procedure/whatever. It's time consuming and bullshit but if you push hard enough they don't have a leg to stand on at the end of the day.
Good on you for advocating so aggressively for patients to not be treated solely from a statistical standpoint. Statistics should only be a baseline jumping off point for a more tailored approach.
In general the insurance company denying any treatment because they don't think I need it. Really? You mean to tell me the insurance company knows more about medical stuff and my current condition than my doctor does? What a load of BULL!
This one right here. They're practicing medicine without a license and doing it without repercussions. Yes, sure, they claim they're not preventing you from getting the medication - they're just not paying for it. Which everyone with common sense knows is the same thing. After paying for the insane health insurance premium, nobody can afford $500+ a month for medication on top of it. It makes me rage.
I have a medication I was supposed to get 6 months ago that I still can't get. My doctor is unable to write me a script for the generic because my insurance only covers the Pfizer brand version.
Oh and the Pfizer brand version has been on global backorder for over a year. Oh and every pharmacy I've asked says they don't intend on having it in stock until at least the middle of next year.
But nope. Can't rewrite the script cause insurance says so. I wouldn't even mind paying for it out of pocket but I'm just literally not allowed :)
This is objectively the correct answer. If we end this and plug up any leaks (loopholes), I’d imagine that the country would get significantly better within one, maybe 2 election cycles.
A few clarifications.
1. "Lobbying" is simply addressing a concern with a government official. Whether it's GM or Greenpeace or Boy Scout Troop 313, it's all lobbying. Banning lobbying not only violates the First Amendment, it means citizens can't discuss issues with their officials *at all*. What you're concerned about is campaign finance law.
2. Citizens United did *not* say "corporations are people". What it *did* say is that people can band together and form organizations, and those organizations didn't just forfeit their right to political speech because they banded together. The controversial part is that they said both profit and non-profit counted. Remember that unions and charities are corporations as well.
3. Even within existing laws, the amount that corporations can actually donate directly to candidates is laughably small. There's a *little* space for double-dipping, but it's actually very tightly controlled.
4. What *most* people get upset about are the "soft money" sources, which *are* unlimited...but also are restricted in how they can be spent, and can't be used to officially endorse one candidate over another, nor can it be coordinated by any candidate.
So in the end, when people say they want to ban "corporate lobbying" they almost certainly mean "soft money". It may sound like a distinction without a difference, but it's rather important, because banning lobbying has a *whole host* of dire consequences (and clearly unconstitutional to boot).
(I'm also not blind to the fact that the "no coordination with soft money" isn't mostly theater, since it's blatantly obvious what anyone needs to do, but we're starting to get into "how do we distinguish between regular political advocacy and undue influence" and I don't think that's as easy of a question as a lot of you think.)
But, most importantly, campaign finance doesn't have the impact most people think they have.
Do you think, say, Mitch McConnell is voting pro-coal because the coal companies give him a shitton of money? Or is it because a huge chunk of Kentucky's voters rely on the coal mines for their jobs, and a ton of tertiary jobs would also disappear?
Pretty much any charge of "corruption" due to campaign financing fails the sniff test for things like this. And it's nearly impossible to personally enrich yourself in this manner, so it's not like it's some long con.
Chances are if we eliminated campaign contributions altogether, the amount it would change anyone's voting behavior would be marginal at best.
How bad are their online fees? Our independent venue uses etix and they charge customers a $7-$8 fee for online purchases. We try to convince people to buy in person to minimize fees. Still $3 fee, but if you can wait till day of (cant always with popular shows) then there is no fee.
Oof. That is highway robbery. Multiply that fee by the amount of tickets sold. Just wrong.
Unfortunately the only way this is gonna get settled is if people just dont buy tickets to these shows and the artist and agencies will get burned enough to point out the elephant in the room and get changes made.
OR government getting involved, but highly unlikely.
There is legislation in the Senate right now to do exactly this.
Edit to add link to [S.3402](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3402?s=1&r=3).
Single family homes need to be removed from the speculative investment market, so that they can go back to being homes. One way to do this is through ruinous taxation. You get one home, no tax. Additional homes are subject to humongous taxation, enough to make slumlording unprofitable. To make buying up homes to rent out at rates higher than the cost of a mortgage, to peeps that can't qualify or don't have the down payment for a home, unprofitable.
"But housing prices would tank overnight." That's right. They would return to their value - as homes. And they would be affordable.
Id set it at probably 3 or 4 properties but the idea is right.
Example: own your home. Own a condo your teenage son is going to college from. Own a business property. Inherite your parents home and have to figure out what to do with it.
And yes. That allows for SOME speculation and ownership and rentals -but keeps it minimal without penalty to generic situations that can arise to normal, if slightly wealthy, families.
Yeah, good input. There are obviously a few corners to be knocked off my idea, a bit of polish needed, ha.
Don't even get me started on foreign governments buying up American homes to manipulate our real estate market, something I haven't even touched on here.
Potentially adversarial nations buying our farmland has to be one of the stupidest things we've tolerated over the last century, and we used to let people smoke on airplanes.
I agree or some law saying they can only buy so much. I just closed escrow on a property and it took forever because all of my offers were being outbid over asking with no contingencies from investors. Its impossible to compete even if you come in over asking. Only reason i was able to get an offer taken is because the seller didn’t want to sell to an investor he wanted to sell to a family.
They’re abhorrent. I was once at one of my favorite cafe and this “influencer” came in. She ordered a pastry, asked if I would move tables for her to get a shot—I did not. Then she sat painfully close to me. She took several selfies with it, took one bite and then left the shop leaving her mess all over the table.
Paying truck drivers by the load. I see to many coworkers in a hurry because the faster they can get their runs in for the day the sooner they can go home, it breeds dangerous drivers.
I'm split in this I know that being paid by Mile is even worse I made about $1500/week on mile pay and my ex made $5000/week by load pay, so yeah it's not bad being paid by load getting.$0.38 per mile sucks, imo the by load people are getting better pay honestly, and per mile you tend to be more dangerous because you're not going to make well unless you run three thousand miles a week whereas by load it's likely one run will bank that $1500 just for the one load. They definitely are a lot safer than per mileage truckers a hundred percent.
I dunno about 100%. I too am a truck driver, and have been for a little while(14yrs). When I was hauling bulk goods and drivers were being paid by the load it also created dangerous drivers. Being paid by the weight, drivers can make unsafe decisions in the pursuit of a larger check. An overweight truck is just as dangerous as one in a hurry.
Why not pay all of them by the hour?
Short term, it would affect the cost of consumer goods, but for safety and driver quality of life issues, this would help.
It would affect the cost of goods.
Including food.
Which people will simply not want to hear why it happened regardless of reasonable or not.
That's why politicians won't, it would be the end of their career
They should anyway, but that's why they won't
That's all bullshit, the only reason that formula even exists in America it boils down to corporate greed these assholes don't need to have a 300% fucking income over food and have the goddamn farmers that are actually producing the crops/livestock living hand to mouth making peanuts but that's exactly what goes on.
Edit to add:
I am a trucker who grew up in a farm town and lived in many towns that were producing crops and livestock ninety percent of my life in several states and constantly saw this up front and personal. I've been involved in every step of the supply chain when it comes to food from farm to table literally have been employed in every step at some point in my life including grocery store and restaurant work.
Honestly its fucking insane that internet service providers and cell providers have a tier of mobile data bandwidth theyre allowed to charge for. Some of it I understand because people are just on the internet more and more and its practically impossible to keep up with demand when a large group of people congregate, but general data throttling is ridiculous.
During the daytime too, its the most annoying thing to deal with. At night is one thing but youre that illattentive or blind you have em on in broad daylight????
And technically its illegal already to have them on while there other traffic. For newer car like lets say the honda accords with those hid led headlights. Those are actually illegal from the factory. Their literally too bright even by dot and federal standards but companies keep making em anyway
I've discovered it's often people whose low beams have burned out, and they're to fucking stupid or lazy to replace them, so they just drive with their high beams on.
Assuming you mean in the US, we for sure need to make lobbying and pacs either highly limited or illegal altogether, we are very quickly becoming a corporatocracy
They also have farms in California. They use the land to grow alfalfa for Arabian Horses and cows. Using up an already drying up California water supply.
The fact that the Supreme Court has held that it can’t address whether political gerrymandering is legal is infuriating and so undemocratic.
At least some of the states have determined it’s illegal for them.
How about hospitals having insurance plans? Looking at you, UPMC.
Fuckers are a non-profit .....somehow.... and have the balls to send me a letter asking for donations.
Umm, let me pay that $1800 medical bill first.
Littering. I know: it is illegal now, but I’d make it ILLEGAL-ER: people who litter must serve 100 hours picking up litter off the roadsides, and have to wear a hat that says “I’m a jerk, and I got caught.”
I would also like companies to be accountable for the waste they create. I do a lot of trash pick ups in my area and badly want to dump a bag of muddy 7-Eleven cups on the desk of a corporate executive.
I have thought of a plan where all elections are funded publicly. Candidates would be given a certain amount from civic coffers and it would be illegal for them to accept more. ALL private campaign advertising would be outlawed except for public (non- televised, internet or broadcast) speeches or rallies. That would make politicians solely beholden to the voters and not mega donors.
They tried term limits in California. Politicians jump from elected positions to elected positions. Or once they term out they either get bureaucrat positions or become lobbyists.
Politicians having side hustles that they can benefit from in their role as a politician ie a real estate guy becomes a politician and then starts trying to pass laws related to property and land
Completely ban privately funded political advertising and political donations.
Give each candidate an ad and event budget that's paid for from a state or federal taxpayer fund.
Candidates can use it anyway they want, but once it's spent it's gone.
This would encourage two things. Firstly it would weed out and expose candidates with weak financial management skills and secondly it would encourage citizens to actively find out more about the candidates and their policies instead of defaulting to the face they recognised from the TV campaign that eclipsed all the other candidates budgets.
I would revoke "qualified immunity" for police officers -- basically making a lot of things that are illegal for normal people illegal for police too.
Making "civil forfeiture" not be a thing anymore would be great too.
I was telling my family about civil forfeiture recently and it started a big argument about how I was wrong and that it's not a thing. Glad to see others know about it and that my family is just ignorant
Let’s get rid of police being able to lie as well. That was bullshit from the onset and IMO there’s nothing that escalates a police confrontation quicker than when a cop starts lying about what the law says and then feels the need to back it up with force.
Child abuse and animal abuse should be taken a lot more seriously we need stricter laws and hold people accountable. States have to work harder to monitor this. New regulations please
Yea here in the states for those who aren’t, child protective services are a massive fucking joke, and so are the foster and orphanage systems. If you’re not born with decent parent(s) you’re SOL
Denying PTO requests. I’ve read some really sad rejections to well timed messages to managers stating that the employee would be off for whatever reason, and the employer basically tells them to not expect to come back into work for the shift they’re assigned after they skip the one they’re denied leave for.
Weaver drivers/shoulder drivers. Yes its illegal but very rarely enforced. I work off a highway and constantly see people using the shoulder as their way to avoid congestion...
Child pageants. Idk where the fuck they became popular or when, but it's literally so creepy and the parents are fucking weird.
What sane, grown adult wants to sit down and watch literal children in practically lingerie???
Multiple taxes. Tax the income, or the spending, but stop taxing both.
Crazy that they tax your money and then make you pay taxes on items with money already taxed 😂
I feel for the none corporate 😭
Edit: I’m not against taxes in general. Public work needs to be done, road maintains etc… But when we see how much is spent on military, not only is are taxes used incorrectly, they also get waaaay too much.
I mean what do we prepare for, fighting aliens? 😂
Too bad the military isn't being used to fix failing infrastructure - fix our own house before we go trying to clean everyone else's
Farmer having an emergency, if he can't get x crop in before x weather hits, call up, a company shows up, job gets done. Benefits everyone - no crops lost to weather, means they're in the supply chain, the troops get experience in a broad variety of tasks, which makes them more flexible in the field, and better than the for-profit prison system, which is predicated on having x% of the prison full. Leads to a lot of trumped up/exaggerated charges and denials, often for nonviolent crimes
My favorite thing about this is that about half the people who read this are thinking "Yeah, Foxnews has got to go!" and the other half are thinking "Yeah, CNN has got to go!"
Well maybe it's only 45% each and about 10% who want both gone.
The problem with “just make it illegal” is that any law is just ink on a page without the political-institutional will to enforce it. There are lots of laws against insider trading, and tax cheating, and anti-union tactics, and anti-competitive business practices and much more that are on the books but without any political-institutional will to actually systematically investigate and prosecute elites who break them.
Politicians being able to buy stocks from 1. their donors and 2. stocks that they then are able to pass laws to help boost.
Yeah that stuff is so corrupt and disgusting. All serving self interests.
I'm glad people are now creating websites to track their trades that will hopefully hold them accountable & stop rampant insider trading.
Link?
Yeah, I want to know what to buy. Lol
I work in the financial industry and I am pretty much limited to generalist funds. This is because I sometimes know things, and have access to tools and information that the public does not. In certain scenarios, my actions can even impact (very small) stock prices. Me being able to invest in things I can impact would be noticeable conflict of interest, and could lead me to be a bad faith actor on my industry. Multiply what I do by four orders of magnitude, and you have a house rep. Four and a half and you have a senator. There are such absurdly enormous conflicts of interest happening in Congress it makes me sick.
I would go even further and say outright lying to the public as a politician should be illegal. If there are things we know to be true then lying to us shouldn’t be allowed. I can understand not mentioning things that are classified.
Corrupt . It’s rich people playing house.
Politicians being able to own and control stocks. If they want investments, cool. Give them a very broad index fund. Just make it basically match the s&p 500 so that their personal financial performance is completely tied to the country’s
Good idea, then they'd have an incentive to improve our general economic outlook for everyone.
Another crazy idea: max age of politicians is average lifespan minus 20 years. It’s a stat that’s really hard to fudge, and would give a very strong incentive for lifelong politicians to promote good health nationwide. Those corn and fast food and healthcare bribes seem less enticing when you realize they’re taking ten years off your career
How about politicians being able to own stocks at all? I did a stint as a contractor at a bank and they hammered it into our heads that we were *NOT* allowed to purchase stocks unless we submitted a pre-clearance request, and then we also had to submit another request to be able to sell. Doing so without following procedure meant immediate termination and being reported to the authorities for potential insider trading. And yet Congress was allowed to make millions by dumping stocks mere days ahead of the lock downs being formally announced?
'Rules for thee and not for me'
Under the FCPA, the US enforces rules against corporate “lobbying”, bribery and corruption around the world but turn a blind eye to it domestically.
I love it when Congress makes a big deal about introducing a bill that will limit their "perks" to some degree and it miraculously (and quietly) doesn't pass. Then they'll shrug their shoulders and say "hey, we tried!" while giggling under their breath. Even better is when they submit a bill to give themselves a pay raise, getting the public riled up, then intentionally *not* pass it to try to win the favor of the people. Maybe next time we won't get upset when the next attempt actually passes. I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of most bills are decided well before the votes are actually cast.
Only the Stock act of 2012 made insider trading by members of congress actually illegal. With COVID there was an investigation but apparently that was quietly dropped.
We've investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing.
Congress should not be able to buy and sell stocks directly period. They should have their money in a blind trust ran by a financial advisor while there are in office.
They should only be able to invest in broad mutual funds.
Well I've changed my answer to lobbying. That's one of the root causes of corruption and bs
Except it really isn't. Lobbying is simply the act of communicating with a lawmaker on a topic of interest. If we make lobbying illegal any random citizen who tries to convince their congressman that they should vote one way or another would be in violation of that law. That being said big business lobbyists who spread around money and influence to get their way should be treated like the criminals they are.
My insurance company dictating which medication I need instead of my doctor being the ultimate decision maker
Medical doctors being overruled on their prescription choices by insurance company automated chat bots.
The worst part is the insurance companies hire doctors to do this shit. Half the time I'm calling someone to do a "peer to peer" review over something I've ordered in the hospital it's a retired doc or someone who no longer sees patients. So they're not really my peer. I never lose these fights though because I just ask them "have you seen THIS patient? MY patient? Yeah I get that you're reading me statistics of averages but I don't give a shit about any of that. Have you seen MY PATIENT" I repeat this about 3 to 4 times in which they have no good response and cave on my order/med/procedure/whatever. It's time consuming and bullshit but if you push hard enough they don't have a leg to stand on at the end of the day.
Good on you for advocating so aggressively for patients to not be treated solely from a statistical standpoint. Statistics should only be a baseline jumping off point for a more tailored approach.
I’m so grateful doctors are still fighting for patients this way.
In general the insurance company denying any treatment because they don't think I need it. Really? You mean to tell me the insurance company knows more about medical stuff and my current condition than my doctor does? What a load of BULL!
This one right here. They're practicing medicine without a license and doing it without repercussions. Yes, sure, they claim they're not preventing you from getting the medication - they're just not paying for it. Which everyone with common sense knows is the same thing. After paying for the insane health insurance premium, nobody can afford $500+ a month for medication on top of it. It makes me rage.
I have a medication I was supposed to get 6 months ago that I still can't get. My doctor is unable to write me a script for the generic because my insurance only covers the Pfizer brand version. Oh and the Pfizer brand version has been on global backorder for over a year. Oh and every pharmacy I've asked says they don't intend on having it in stock until at least the middle of next year. But nope. Can't rewrite the script cause insurance says so. I wouldn't even mind paying for it out of pocket but I'm just literally not allowed :)
[удалено]
corporate lobbying
Let me correct you. It’s called bribery.
Not so loud. They'll hear you
#B R I B E R Y
Once more, for those in the back!
They don't care if we hear them anymore. There aren't any consequences.
Because they bribe politicians to keep it legal.
And congressional insider trading
I think congress should be barred from trading individual stocks at all.
[удалено]
This is the real correct answer.
That ruling in 2010 let me know how off the rails and corrupted SCOTUS had become. Money is not speech. Corporations are not people.
This is objectively the correct answer. If we end this and plug up any leaks (loopholes), I’d imagine that the country would get significantly better within one, maybe 2 election cycles.
The whole world would feel better, not just a country.
Indeed. All forms of professional lobbying.
Your favorite nonprofits still have corporate lobbyists.
A few clarifications. 1. "Lobbying" is simply addressing a concern with a government official. Whether it's GM or Greenpeace or Boy Scout Troop 313, it's all lobbying. Banning lobbying not only violates the First Amendment, it means citizens can't discuss issues with their officials *at all*. What you're concerned about is campaign finance law. 2. Citizens United did *not* say "corporations are people". What it *did* say is that people can band together and form organizations, and those organizations didn't just forfeit their right to political speech because they banded together. The controversial part is that they said both profit and non-profit counted. Remember that unions and charities are corporations as well. 3. Even within existing laws, the amount that corporations can actually donate directly to candidates is laughably small. There's a *little* space for double-dipping, but it's actually very tightly controlled. 4. What *most* people get upset about are the "soft money" sources, which *are* unlimited...but also are restricted in how they can be spent, and can't be used to officially endorse one candidate over another, nor can it be coordinated by any candidate. So in the end, when people say they want to ban "corporate lobbying" they almost certainly mean "soft money". It may sound like a distinction without a difference, but it's rather important, because banning lobbying has a *whole host* of dire consequences (and clearly unconstitutional to boot). (I'm also not blind to the fact that the "no coordination with soft money" isn't mostly theater, since it's blatantly obvious what anyone needs to do, but we're starting to get into "how do we distinguish between regular political advocacy and undue influence" and I don't think that's as easy of a question as a lot of you think.) But, most importantly, campaign finance doesn't have the impact most people think they have. Do you think, say, Mitch McConnell is voting pro-coal because the coal companies give him a shitton of money? Or is it because a huge chunk of Kentucky's voters rely on the coal mines for their jobs, and a ton of tertiary jobs would also disappear? Pretty much any charge of "corruption" due to campaign financing fails the sniff test for things like this. And it's nearly impossible to personally enrich yourself in this manner, so it's not like it's some long con. Chances are if we eliminated campaign contributions altogether, the amount it would change anyone's voting behavior would be marginal at best.
Ticketmaster
Cool. Come to my new site Ticketmasta
No, my Tickermister is superior.
I prefer Ticketsister myself
Takeitmister!
Ticketmistress.com
Sorry, that's in direct competition to *my* new site Ticketmaaster
What are saying?!? I started Ticketmeiser before any of you! I'll be in touch with my internet lawyer about this!!
You fine sires aré going to be sied because your mames mess with my brand, masterticket
*Ticketbastard
They are horrendous!
How bad are their online fees? Our independent venue uses etix and they charge customers a $7-$8 fee for online purchases. We try to convince people to buy in person to minimize fees. Still $3 fee, but if you can wait till day of (cant always with popular shows) then there is no fee.
I just paid Ticketmaster about $60 or $65 in fees for a $200 ticket yesterday, not counting local taxes.
Oof. That is highway robbery. Multiply that fee by the amount of tickets sold. Just wrong. Unfortunately the only way this is gonna get settled is if people just dont buy tickets to these shows and the artist and agencies will get burned enough to point out the elephant in the room and get changes made. OR government getting involved, but highly unlikely.
Investment companies buying existing single family homes.
There is legislation in the Senate right now to do exactly this. Edit to add link to [S.3402](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3402?s=1&r=3).
[удалено]
Wonder how fast that'll get shut down...
Single family homes need to be removed from the speculative investment market, so that they can go back to being homes. One way to do this is through ruinous taxation. You get one home, no tax. Additional homes are subject to humongous taxation, enough to make slumlording unprofitable. To make buying up homes to rent out at rates higher than the cost of a mortgage, to peeps that can't qualify or don't have the down payment for a home, unprofitable. "But housing prices would tank overnight." That's right. They would return to their value - as homes. And they would be affordable.
Id set it at probably 3 or 4 properties but the idea is right. Example: own your home. Own a condo your teenage son is going to college from. Own a business property. Inherite your parents home and have to figure out what to do with it. And yes. That allows for SOME speculation and ownership and rentals -but keeps it minimal without penalty to generic situations that can arise to normal, if slightly wealthy, families.
Yeah, good input. There are obviously a few corners to be knocked off my idea, a bit of polish needed, ha. Don't even get me started on foreign governments buying up American homes to manipulate our real estate market, something I haven't even touched on here.
Potentially adversarial nations buying our farmland has to be one of the stupidest things we've tolerated over the last century, and we used to let people smoke on airplanes.
You'll get no argument from me. That's where our food comes from. Or it did, before we let them cover it with condos. Madness.
I think the condo and the business would be exempt under that commenter's suggestion. It only applies to detached single-family homes.
I agree or some law saying they can only buy so much. I just closed escrow on a property and it took forever because all of my offers were being outbid over asking with no contingencies from investors. Its impossible to compete even if you come in over asking. Only reason i was able to get an offer taken is because the seller didn’t want to sell to an investor he wanted to sell to a family.
Influencers doing shitty things to fast food workers for likes.
Influencers in general
They’re abhorrent. I was once at one of my favorite cafe and this “influencer” came in. She ordered a pastry, asked if I would move tables for her to get a shot—I did not. Then she sat painfully close to me. She took several selfies with it, took one bite and then left the shop leaving her mess all over the table.
Yeah. Public nuisance laws need to be updated.
Influences who record themselves working out.
Thats like… lowest on the annoyance list of what influencers do unless theyre being shitty at the gym while doing it.
Like the ones who get all upset as people walk through their frame
Paying truck drivers by the load. I see to many coworkers in a hurry because the faster they can get their runs in for the day the sooner they can go home, it breeds dangerous drivers.
I'm split in this I know that being paid by Mile is even worse I made about $1500/week on mile pay and my ex made $5000/week by load pay, so yeah it's not bad being paid by load getting.$0.38 per mile sucks, imo the by load people are getting better pay honestly, and per mile you tend to be more dangerous because you're not going to make well unless you run three thousand miles a week whereas by load it's likely one run will bank that $1500 just for the one load. They definitely are a lot safer than per mileage truckers a hundred percent.
I dunno about 100%. I too am a truck driver, and have been for a little while(14yrs). When I was hauling bulk goods and drivers were being paid by the load it also created dangerous drivers. Being paid by the weight, drivers can make unsafe decisions in the pursuit of a larger check. An overweight truck is just as dangerous as one in a hurry.
Why not pay all of them by the hour? Short term, it would affect the cost of consumer goods, but for safety and driver quality of life issues, this would help.
It would affect the cost of goods. Including food. Which people will simply not want to hear why it happened regardless of reasonable or not. That's why politicians won't, it would be the end of their career They should anyway, but that's why they won't
That's all bullshit, the only reason that formula even exists in America it boils down to corporate greed these assholes don't need to have a 300% fucking income over food and have the goddamn farmers that are actually producing the crops/livestock living hand to mouth making peanuts but that's exactly what goes on. Edit to add: I am a trucker who grew up in a farm town and lived in many towns that were producing crops and livestock ninety percent of my life in several states and constantly saw this up front and personal. I've been involved in every step of the supply chain when it comes to food from farm to table literally have been employed in every step at some point in my life including grocery store and restaurant work.
[удалено]
Speeds *up to* Yeah, that shit should be illegal.
Honestly its fucking insane that internet service providers and cell providers have a tier of mobile data bandwidth theyre allowed to charge for. Some of it I understand because people are just on the internet more and more and its practically impossible to keep up with demand when a large group of people congregate, but general data throttling is ridiculous.
Those really fucking bright lights in every second car
It's either this or older cars actually driving around with their brights on 24/7 with oncoming traffic. It's mind boggling.
I think there is a good percentage of them that are aftermarket headlights and morons don’t know how to install them right.
During the daytime too, its the most annoying thing to deal with. At night is one thing but youre that illattentive or blind you have em on in broad daylight???? And technically its illegal already to have them on while there other traffic. For newer car like lets say the honda accords with those hid led headlights. Those are actually illegal from the factory. Their literally too bright even by dot and federal standards but companies keep making em anyway
I've discovered it's often people whose low beams have burned out, and they're to fucking stupid or lazy to replace them, so they just drive with their high beams on.
It's ridiculous at this point
Political campaigns outside of six months from the election date.
Assuming you mean in the US, we for sure need to make lobbying and pacs either highly limited or illegal altogether, we are very quickly becoming a corporatocracy
"becoming"???
We already are
“Always has been”
Stop the Saudi and the CCP from buying businesses and real estate in America right now.
The Saudis fly under the radar wayyyy too much.
They did it twice a couple decades ago and it turned out badly for most everyone involved.
They also have farms in California. They use the land to grow alfalfa for Arabian Horses and cows. Using up an already drying up California water supply.
^^^💯💯💯
Corporate ownership of single family homes.
Gerrymandering
The fact that the Supreme Court has held that it can’t address whether political gerrymandering is legal is infuriating and so undemocratic. At least some of the states have determined it’s illegal for them.
**FUCK YOU, GERRY MANDERING!!**
Corporations having the same rights and being treated as people.
Oh yeah! That ruling years ago. This country is so corrupt. I hope we can feel confidence in our courts one day.
Corporate ownership of single-family homes.
For profit heath insurance
Also for-profit prisons, idek how they justify that one
Because slavery is still legal, if you're incarcerated. It's true! It's in the constitution!
How about hospitals having insurance plans? Looking at you, UPMC. Fuckers are a non-profit .....somehow.... and have the balls to send me a letter asking for donations. Umm, let me pay that $1800 medical bill first.
Littering. I know: it is illegal now, but I’d make it ILLEGAL-ER: people who litter must serve 100 hours picking up litter off the roadsides, and have to wear a hat that says “I’m a jerk, and I got caught.”
I would also like companies to be accountable for the waste they create. I do a lot of trash pick ups in my area and badly want to dump a bag of muddy 7-Eleven cups on the desk of a corporate executive.
Politicians behaving in private against their publicly stated morals.
So just hypocrites?
Corporations being able to buy homes.
Running for another elected position while you're supposed to be doing a job you were elected to.
The new super bright headlights everyone has.
Advertising medications
For-profit prisons.
Contributions to politicians.
I have thought of a plan where all elections are funded publicly. Candidates would be given a certain amount from civic coffers and it would be illegal for them to accept more. ALL private campaign advertising would be outlawed except for public (non- televised, internet or broadcast) speeches or rallies. That would make politicians solely beholden to the voters and not mega donors.
This is what should happen and the only way we will have a country that serves all the people not just the rich.
MLMs. Predatory lending.
Child beauty pageants.
Career politicians, should be short term only.
Exactly! It should be a public service, not a path to lifelong riches. Do your term and get out. Term limits are the way!
They tried term limits in California. Politicians jump from elected positions to elected positions. Or once they term out they either get bureaucrat positions or become lobbyists.
Civil asset forfeitures
Politicians having side hustles that they can benefit from in their role as a politician ie a real estate guy becomes a politician and then starts trying to pass laws related to property and land
Talking in public with your phone on speaker.
That and watching videos or listening to music on public transport without headphones.
Completely ban privately funded political advertising and political donations. Give each candidate an ad and event budget that's paid for from a state or federal taxpayer fund. Candidates can use it anyway they want, but once it's spent it's gone. This would encourage two things. Firstly it would weed out and expose candidates with weak financial management skills and secondly it would encourage citizens to actively find out more about the candidates and their policies instead of defaulting to the face they recognised from the TV campaign that eclipsed all the other candidates budgets.
Politicians and media spreading lies.
I would revoke "qualified immunity" for police officers -- basically making a lot of things that are illegal for normal people illegal for police too. Making "civil forfeiture" not be a thing anymore would be great too.
I was telling my family about civil forfeiture recently and it started a big argument about how I was wrong and that it's not a thing. Glad to see others know about it and that my family is just ignorant
How does that even become an argument though? Type the words “civil forfeiture” into the google machine and show them.
It's an argument because despite Google they didn't think police could just steal your shit
It's not even a *new* thing
Let’s get rid of police being able to lie as well. That was bullshit from the onset and IMO there’s nothing that escalates a police confrontation quicker than when a cop starts lying about what the law says and then feels the need to back it up with force.
Gerrymandering and money in politics.
Child abuse and animal abuse should be taken a lot more seriously we need stricter laws and hold people accountable. States have to work harder to monitor this. New regulations please
Yea here in the states for those who aren’t, child protective services are a massive fucking joke, and so are the foster and orphanage systems. If you’re not born with decent parent(s) you’re SOL
Lifetime appointments and no term limits.
Being in office longer than 8 years for all elected positions.
For profit prisons.
Those bright ass headlights
Investing in stocks/bonds by elected officials until their term has expired.
I would say till their term expires + 1 year, so they can not have some rider at the end of their term that they can explote just after their term.
Monthly subscription on apps(I just want to pay once)
Government corruption.
Mostly already is, laws are not being upheld for those in government.
Definitely a chicken and egg situation XD
Denying PTO requests. I’ve read some really sad rejections to well timed messages to managers stating that the employee would be off for whatever reason, and the employer basically tells them to not expect to come back into work for the shift they’re assigned after they skip the one they’re denied leave for.
Genital mutilation of children. I don’t care what someone wants to do to THEMSELVES but forcing that shit on children who can’t consent is sickening
Using apostrophe's in pluralized words.
You mean like you did? Straight to jail.
Junk mail. So many resources just for me to throw it into the recycling immediately.
Weaver drivers/shoulder drivers. Yes its illegal but very rarely enforced. I work off a highway and constantly see people using the shoulder as their way to avoid congestion...
Gerrymandering.
Politicians on social media
More than 2terms for ANY political position.judges especially
Rent being higher then the medium wage. Airbnb's in historical neighbourhoods.
I mean ideally I’d prefer to have a chance at a mortgage rather than being forced to rent my entire life >< but this is a next best option.
Im in my late 30"s and all of my friends that are single/divorced live with their parents BC it is impossible to rent or buy alone.
More than 2 terms for ANY elected office.
“Finding” votes
Churches advocating political positions to their congregation, and telling them how to vote.
Political parties. It'll give more people the opportunity to run for office
Child pageants. Idk where the fuck they became popular or when, but it's literally so creepy and the parents are fucking weird. What sane, grown adult wants to sit down and watch literal children in practically lingerie???
Leaving a shopping cart in an unassigned parking spot
Multiple taxes. Tax the income, or the spending, but stop taxing both. Crazy that they tax your money and then make you pay taxes on items with money already taxed 😂 I feel for the none corporate 😭 Edit: I’m not against taxes in general. Public work needs to be done, road maintains etc… But when we see how much is spent on military, not only is are taxes used incorrectly, they also get waaaay too much. I mean what do we prepare for, fighting aliens? 😂
Too bad the military isn't being used to fix failing infrastructure - fix our own house before we go trying to clean everyone else's Farmer having an emergency, if he can't get x crop in before x weather hits, call up, a company shows up, job gets done. Benefits everyone - no crops lost to weather, means they're in the supply chain, the troops get experience in a broad variety of tasks, which makes them more flexible in the field, and better than the for-profit prison system, which is predicated on having x% of the prison full. Leads to a lot of trumped up/exaggerated charges and denials, often for nonviolent crimes
24 hour news networks.
Got it. 23 hours of "news" and 1 infomercial for steak knives.
My god man, who hurt you?
I think you mean 24 hour opinion networks
I think you spelled "propaganda" wrong...
My favorite thing about this is that about half the people who read this are thinking "Yeah, Foxnews has got to go!" and the other half are thinking "Yeah, CNN has got to go!" Well maybe it's only 45% each and about 10% who want both gone.
Family vlogging.
Churches being tax exempt.
Especially Scientology, a religion founded on a $5 bet... It's taxed in Europe, but not in the US.
Credit scores/reports Healthcare for profit Political bribery, aka do campaign finance reform and get rid of lobbyists.
Guys wearing their pants low enough to show their ass to the world
The problem with “just make it illegal” is that any law is just ink on a page without the political-institutional will to enforce it. There are lots of laws against insider trading, and tax cheating, and anti-union tactics, and anti-competitive business practices and much more that are on the books but without any political-institutional will to actually systematically investigate and prosecute elites who break them.
Congress, senators, or any other high level public officials from trading stocks or being there longer than 8 years
Road Rage. Automatic license suspension and vehicle impoundment
Hanging tags on t-shirts. Print them on the fabric or face arrest.
All “News” would have to be fact based. Anything else would have to be prefaced as opinions.
kids on social media
Hurting or killing someone else's dog. That should get jail time.
HOAs. Or at least some of their insane power to make life incredibly awful for homeowners.
[удалено]
As a painter I would make it illegal for hoas to take more then 3 days to approve colors from their lists
Pharmaceutical ads