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.
Living within my means, don't eat and sit in a dark room all day. Don't even go the bathroom or take a shower because it uses water. I've already contemplated that enough in the past.
You have student loan debt. See? User pays. And there's no reason whatsoever why you can't live within your means. You just don't want to, like the multitude of others who all seem to think they are "entitled" to have what they didn't earn, merely because they exist.
Where is your evidence they travel more than the average person? I 1000% guarantee that I travel on the roadways FAR more than wealthy people do.
Just deductive reasoning. If they're wealthy from their career then they might be traveling to work more often. Of course some have work from home jobs or have an inheritance in which case they would still likely use the roads more often because they take vacations or participate in other leisurely activities outside the home more often because they can afford to.
Almost everyone who pays zero tax is using the same tax credits that taxpayers use. You get to claim a tax credit for $1,500 and so does the non-tax payer. You want them to not get the full benefit of the credit b/c they're too poor?
They pay more b/c their wealth is more. That's how it's supposed to work. His home is worth much more than yours, so he pays more tax on it than you do.
Now considering that, why should the wealth he's accumulating via owning artwork be treated differently than the wealth you're accumulating by owning property? If he owns a $100k painting why is he paying less of a wealth tax on it that if you owned a $100k house?
If it's unfair to target a demographic, then it's equally unfair to exclude that same demographic from the taxes the rest of us are paying too.
Why should we revisit that? What tax benefit are the poor getting that most tax payers aren't also claiming? Child tax credits? Interest on Student Loan credit? Dependent credits? Standard deduction? All those credits that lead to people paying 0 taxes b/c they're too poor are being used by people who do pay taxes to reduced their tax burden.
It doesn't matter if it's a local tax. It's still a wealth tax. And until some legislation gets passed for a flat tax, we're stuck w/ the system we have, a system where most wealth-holders are paying an annual tax on the value of their wealth.
Property taxes go to fund local governments, schools, emergency services, charity hospitals and community colleges. It's based upon the value of one's real estate. Yes, he pays far more than I do because the value of his property is worth more. HOWEVER, taxing other property like artwork on an annual basis is ridiculous. You pay sales tax on that artwork already when you bought it, same is true for fine jewelry.
I was a republican for decades. Republicans used to care about more than the ultra-wealthy.
The problem is the government is bloated and spends too much. Its not that they don't have enough. And that has been one of the tenants of the Republican party since Reagan and before. I am a Libertarian and I know that. And its never enough money.
Property taxes go to fund local governments, schools, emergency services, charity hospitals and community colleges. It's based upon the value of one's real estate. Yes, he pays far more than I do because the value of his property is worth more. HOWEVER, taxing other property like artwork on an annual basis is ridiculous. You pay sales tax on that artwork already when you bought it, same is true for fine jewelry.
Why would taxing artwork be ridiculous? You already pay a BOATLOAD of taxes and fees when you buy property, so giving a tax exemption to artwork doesn't make sense.
And money collected from a wealth tax would also go towards paying for services the gov't is providing, including schools and medical costs.
Sorry, but they already came for us. We've been paying a wealth tax on most of our NW, but somehow they're trying to convince us that it's fine to give the rich an exemption to that.
I haven't paid taxes on most of my net worth at all because it's invested in my retirement accounts. The part that I have paid taxes on, excluding my house, should not be re-taxed every year. I have a post tax emergency fund sitting in case of, wait for it, an emergency. If I am forced to pay taxes on it every year, it would be depleted within a few years. That would mean the government taxed my earnings at 100% not 2%. Explain how that is even fair.
Lol... so if I call the cops on someone breaking into your house, who's paying for it? You, me, or the criminal?
The criminal. Here's an example for you. My kid fainted at a neighbor's house (we both tend to naturally have low blood pressure which causes fainting upon standing, at times) and she (the neighbor) called 911 for help. A fire dept ambulance arrived and took my kid 1.5 miles to the hospital, administered no meds or any other medical treatment. Guess who got the $700 bill for the ambulance? Me, not my neighbor, because it was my kid. You see, ambulance service in that town, though a public service, isn't socialized. The user pays.
Same thing with municipal water in most areas. Water is a municipal service, but the cost isn't socialized. It's metered. Each user pays a delivery fee and for whatever water they use, whether it's a little or a lot. Sewer service is the same. User pays.
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.