New Political Party

60 readers

1 users here now

The community for creating a new US political party, so far our guiding principle is that billionaires are trash, United Health CEO had it coming, The Adjustor is our mascot and our main raison d'etre is to shit on the rich and take back whats rightfully ours.

founded 2 weeks ago

MODERATORS

problematicPanther@lemmy.world

New Dawn, New Political Party (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 weeks ago by problematicPanther@lemmy.world to c/newpoliticalparty@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm taking all comers here. I'm setting this up, but I don't necessarily want to run the show. I have no idea how to run a political party, and I'm not even sure how to campaign, get on ballots, get coverage or anything like that.

But I'm tired of the rich shitting on us, and it's time we shat back.

First and Foremost, this is just our lemmy community. Soon, I'm going to want to set up a website, get registered with whatever body we need to register with, and start ballot initiatives and field candidates wherever we can.

Let's fucking go.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Well, since I hate myself, I have worked at local level Dem politics off and on over the years. It’s been a cycle of jumping to help because if not me then who? Then I get disgusted when reminded of how gamed the Dems are, the grassroots has no influence on the national party and step away. It’s a stupid stubbornness of mine to keep going back because I believe you have to understand these systems to make real change.

So, I suggest we get a sense of some consensus on

a platform of policy goals, like an exponential tax rate.
a clear statement of our goal to shit so hard on rich people that they have to listen in self defense

By the way, we have historical precedent. The phrase “I have to go hang a duke” as a euphemism for dropping a shit suddenly has new relevance.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, damn good that you tried-- thats better than most of us already. And good that you push yourself and the dems for better than the sad corrupt effort the DNC serve up. And we dont even need to talk about the rethuglicans.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't get me wrong. I am a freaking traitor to the dems. My first vote after 18 was for Ross Perot. He explained the game. He warned us about the giant sucking sound that meant our jobs were going to Mexico. But he didn't blame Mexicans. It was the god-damned NAFTA. The man was bat-shit crazy, but I take that as a qualification in the political arena.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

traitors to either party get massive free upvotes for as long as I can remember their username..

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

personally I like the net income = s * sqrt(gross income / s + 1) curve as it provides a universal basic income, with an incentive to work, naturally guides incomes downwards, and all as a single easily configurable parameter you can use to fit to any arbitrary taxation amount, it might be better to get more granular control, but as far as 'janky patch solutions on top of capitalism' go I think it works well enough for how simple it is

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This would be more taxes on the lowest income earners if you don’t put in a tax-free threshold. Will there still be deductions for things like dependents?

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It depends on the scaling threshold but where s=30k, it crosses over at around 50k

Its not of an income thing than a tax thing, if you earn no money you will still get an income of s$

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Personally, I fscking love it.

But I need help with the math. Where in the equation is the velocity of the shit I am expelling on rich people?

So, I know you know, but tell us how this equation shits on rich people.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It’s not all that extreme but with an s of 30k someone who would be earning 20 million now earns 775k, you would also have to take into account benefits, stocks, etc I’m sure

I’m now leaning towards s*log2(x/s+2), it behaves a bit better towards the higher ends imo (280k at 20m and 381k at 200m)

If you want to decouple the starting income and income scale you could use s*logb(x/s+b)

here's a curve you can play around with, if you had a dataset with the number of people making each income you could balance it in whatever way would be ideal