Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If that's the case, why don't we steall ALL the money from those that have earned it and give it to the poor?
I don't think you understand the discussion. At least your response makes no sense.
This is about MW and what the effects would be if it was raised. I know many people who get large incomes who basically steal it (game the system to extract it), but I don't know any MW workers in that category.
I don't think you understand the discussion. At least your response makes no sense.
This is about MW and what the effects would be if it was raised. I know many people who get large incomes who basically steal it (game the system to extract it), but I don't know any MW workers in that category.
This was your statement: Shifting money to lower income workers will increase demand.
If shifting money to them increases is, why not go all out and give them ALL the money?
For the record, "basically" stealing is hardly "legally" stealing. Just because you disagree with the methods doesn't make it illegal, and any less their property that is being taken from them. And there are plenty of MW workers that game the system. You just refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Just curious - what people with large incomes basically steal that income? I truly want to know what you consider stealing.
If that's the case, why don't we steall ALL the money from those that have earned it and give it to the poor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
Oh, surely you have heard of diminishing returns/diminishing marginal utility? (leaving aside your questionable use of "stealing")...
Income Redistribution by any other name is still theft.
Theft is simply the taking of property with the intent of depriving the rightful owner of it.
Giving it cute names like "taxation" doesn't alter the fact that it is still theft. At the end of the day, you have deprived someone of their property to enrich another.
I don't think you understand the discussion. At least your response makes no sense.
This is about MW and what the effects would be if it was raised. I know many people who get large incomes who basically steal it (game the system to extract it), but I don't know any MW workers in that category.
Well it IS possible for many MW workers to game government programs. There was a local newspaper article several years ago about a youngish guy (~30 I think) who worked about half time (instead of full time) in order to keep his income below some limit for subsidized housing. I worked with a guy who did the same thing; he worked exactly two (8-hour) shifts a week and lived in subsidized housing.
Income Redistribution by any other name is still theft.
Theft is simply the taking of property with the intent of depriving the rightful owner of it.
Giving it cute names like "taxation" doesn't alter the fact that it is still theft. At the end of the day, you have deprived someone of their property to enrich another.
What about the "rent-seeking" employed by voters who vote (directly or indirectly) for popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction, or split roll property taxes which soak landlords in order to tax owner-occupied homes at preferential rates?
Or homeowners who vote for local policies designed to promote higher property values and greater economic exclusivity?
This was your statement: Shifting money to lower income workers will increase demand.
If shifting money to them increases is, why not go all out and give them ALL the money?
For the record, "basically" stealing is hardly "legally" stealing. Just because you disagree with the methods doesn't make it illegal, and any less their property that is being taken from them. And there are plenty of MW workers that game the system. You just refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Just curious - what people with large incomes basically steal that income? I truly want to know what you consider stealing.
Life itself is redistributive upward and thus regressive. Short of inheritance or gift, nobody starts out owning a home, we start out renting (or mooching off others I guess), which redistributes our income to landlords. Many people are never able to overcome that regressivity.
Income Redistribution by any other name is still theft.
Theft is simply the taking of property with the intent of depriving the rightful owner of it.
Giving it cute names like "taxation" doesn't alter the fact that it is still theft. At the end of the day, you have deprived someone of their property to enrich another.
Ok, well then you need a new word for what the term normally means. I have no interest in these semantic games but if you want to play them it is your duty to invent the new vocabulary.
Just like the Renter's credit... only available if you are renting.
Many laws are targeted... import, export, key industry.
At least Prop 13 doesn't exclude anyone... it applies to all property... so the key would be becoming an owner... many ways to own... invest with others, sole owner, married... you get the idea.
It's a "property tax circuit breaker" which is available to BOTH homeowners and renters.
Except that homeowners get to apply the ACTUAL property taxes billed, while renters MUST use a rent-based formula which might or might not bear any correlation to the ACTUAL property taxes.
For 10+ years I rented below market and was shortchanged $400 a year by the formula; instead of getting a $400 rebate every year I got squat. How is that only available if you are renting?
In (I think) a different thread I asked how 1,000 individuals might each pool $1,000 and buy a multi-unit rental property. I don't think it's feasible under current laws. Tell me how it can be done.
It's a "property tax circuit breaker" which is available to BOTH homeowners and renters.
Except that homeowners get to apply the ACTUAL property taxes billed, while renters MUST use a rent-based formula which might or might not bear any correlation to the ACTUAL property taxes.
For 10+ years I rented below market and was shortchanged $400 a year by the formula; instead of getting a $400 rebate every year I got squat. How is that only available if you are renting?
In (I think) a different thread I asked how 1,000 individuals might each pool $1,000 and buy a multi-unit rental property. I don't think it's feasible under current laws. Tell me how it can be done.
Real estate investment trust?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
