General Discussion

Sure, but be careful with "universal basic income" ,"taxes" and actual national expenses.

What you have there is a wish list. It's a good wishlist, but an actual plan requires planning. Including how the math works out. Which can be done, but you still need to do it.

Thank you for this approximate description of most Nordic countries.

It has no chance of becoming a reality without the help of moderates and liberals who have made it very clear they would rather lose to MAGA than compromise with leftists and progressives.

People have yet to acknowledge the first implications of this. If we believe the numbers of progressives and leftists are growing there will come a time when we begin winning primaries but will lose general elections consistently because moderates and liberals suddenly won't "vote blue no matter who". Which means fascism isn't just a possibility, it's guaranteed.

If moderates and liberals don't make different choices there's nothing we can do.

Are you trying to fix systemic problems of government structure or pass laws? They are different things.

No. You keep treating the symptoms.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Collateral for loan is realized gain

Functionally how would that work? Maybe I'm being obtuse here, but it sounds like a Catch-22.

I think the actions on this list would improve economic conditions for the middle class.

I’ll just say if prostitution is legalized, then there needs to be something that ensures that someone isn’t coerced into it somehow, or sex trafficked into it.

I am actually not sure about the coroprate home ownership point. Here in Germany renting is much more common and accepted compared to the US, and i think there are lots of situations where this makes sense. However both in the US and here in Germany the systems need changes. And i think they should mostly target land ownership rather than the houses themself. What drives up the prices in desired areas are mostly increases in land value, not that building houses got that much more expensive (although that is also a factor).

And most of that value gain are from external factors rather than the owners own merit. If someone builds an architectually great and energy efficient house or develops land, then it is fine if he gains value from it. But if simply owning the property improves the value over time, because society around it builds nice schools, parks and so on. Then the owner hasn't done anything and that profit should be taxed completely away. If that makes sense.

That said there probably should also be a mechanism to support the first home people own to counteract scale efficiencies that corporations might be able to leverage.

Not sure if outright banning stocks for politicians is the way to go, but there should be more points regarding transparancy and conflicts of interest. Also not just during their time in office, but after that aswell.

I'd have no issue with politicians holding a borad market index fund.

Start with one thing, mate. Most impact and easiest to implement.

Why delude yourself with this bullshit fantasy list? Focus on reality.

You could pay for a whole bunch of that with a Land Value Tax.

Legalize all drugs. Keep prices low(street value) with quality monitoring paid for by tax of product. Any further tax revenue from product to be used for addiction treatment.

Again, replace the senate with proportional representation. Bicameral legislatures work, there's no reason to be rid of the senate. Just give it a purpose beyond "you represent a state". Expand the senate to 600 seats, National votes for party reps, 0.5% threshold to gain a seat, 6 year terms, rotate every two years. Then we'll get actual third parties into office, which will break up the two party strangle hold.