Sahwa@reddthat.com to Not The Onion@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agoOklahoma Town Faces 75% Property Tax Hike To Cover Sexual Abuse Settlementwww.newsweek.comexternal-linkmessage-square141fedilinkarrow-up1612arrow-down13
arrow-up1609arrow-down1external-linkOklahoma Town Faces 75% Property Tax Hike To Cover Sexual Abuse Settlementwww.newsweek.comSahwa@reddthat.com to Not The Onion@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square141fedilink
minus-squareSapphironZA@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10arrow-down1·2 days agoThe school was likely complicit in ignoring warnings. This is why board members should be held personally liable if they are negligent in their duties.
minus-squareexplodicle@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 days agoWouldn’t that increase the financial barrier of running for office?
minus-squareSapphironZA@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·21 hours agoOnly if you plan to be negligent. It might filter out the ones that are in it for the money, rather than the responsibility.
minus-squareexplodicle@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·16 hours agoHistorically that’s been the opposite - if they accept bribes, then they can afford to hold office.
minus-squareAatube@kbin.melroy.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 days agoIt would give them a financial incentive to do their job.
minus-squareexplodicle@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 days agoObviously, but I’m concerned about the unintended consequences of preventing poor people from holding office.
minus-squareAatube@kbin.melroy.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 days agoJust more to the pile of the unintended consequences of capitalism.
minus-squareexplodicle@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 days agoHow are we supposed to abolish capitalism if poor people can’t afford to run for office?
The school was likely complicit in ignoring warnings. This is why board members should be held personally liable if they are negligent in their duties.
Wouldn’t that increase the financial barrier of running for office?
Only if you plan to be negligent. It might filter out the ones that are in it for the money, rather than the responsibility.
Historically that’s been the opposite - if they accept bribes, then they can afford to hold office.
It would give them a financial incentive to do their job.
Obviously, but I’m concerned about the unintended consequences of preventing poor people from holding office.
Just more to the pile of the unintended consequences of capitalism.
How are we supposed to abolish capitalism if poor people can’t afford to run for office?