Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-02-2021, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,111,909 times
Reputation: 4270

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney123 View Post
And when they run out of rich people.. they’ll come for yours.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2021, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,138 posts, read 5,802,841 times
Reputation: 7706
France tried that.
It worked great...they got rid of a bunch of those evil rich people.
They left. Now France collects 100% of nothing.






edit
(I see that's been pointed out. Shouldda read the thread first.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 01:41 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,563,173 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's a local tax that funds local government services: police, fire dept, schools, public works, etc. But I agree, local taxes should not be based on the value of one's property, there should just be a capitation tax. Everyone shares the costs equally to fund local government services. I think the Fed Gov should tax the same way, every man, woman and child is each charged an equal cost to pay for government services.
Shouldn't the poor people pay more? They consume a disproportionally higher amount of police, fire dept., schools, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 01:45 PM
 
1,503 posts, read 607,378 times
Reputation: 1323
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Yup. Those people would never understand that though. The communists will never stop until everybody is equally rich/poor or dead.

Being rich is a comparable concept.

A person with $1 is rich compared to a person with $0.
Actually, it's not.
I mean, current narrative in the USA is exactly what you stated, but it is absolutely incorrect.
There is very simple definition applicable to any country and level of wealth:

Rich is a person who can live off his wealth without working a single day. Another words, if your wealth (doesn't matter big or small) can provide you with a) shelter, b) food and c) clothes for indefinite lifetime, and you don't have to work to get that - you are rich.

In the current realm, taking that maximum savings APY is 0.5%, minimum cost for a shelter is ~$1000 basically everywhere, minimum food is ~$200/mo and minimum clothes are about ~$100/mo, we can say that currently person in the USA is rich if s/he has about $3,130,000 in the savings account (that's if no tax has been applied to capital gains).

In a different country this amount would be different, of course.

If you have to work to live your life, you are not rich even if you make million dollars a day.

As you can see, this is very firm and concrete boundary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 01:52 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13707
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Shouldn't the poor people pay more? They consume a disproportionally higher amount of police, fire dept., schools, etc.
That's true. If we had user fees (and we should) instead of taxes, poor people would pay more since they use a disproportionately high amount of the services. The concept of paying for what one actually uses is fair to all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's true. If we had user fees (and we should) instead of taxes, poor people would pay more since they use a disproportionately high amount of the services. The concept of paying for what one actually uses is fair to all.
No it isn't. You would bleed the working poor of what little money they have That's not right or just
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 02:00 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13707
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
No it isn't. You would bleed the working poor of what little money they have That's not right or just
Everyone should be expected to pay for what they use. That's just.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 02:01 PM
 
14,798 posts, read 17,683,382 times
Reputation: 9251
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's true. If we had user fees (and we should) instead of taxes, poor people would pay more since they use a disproportionately high amount of the services. The concept of paying for what one actually uses is fair to all.
Of course it is the most fair. You pay for what you use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Everyone should be expected to pay for what they use. That's just.
There's no point to public services if the costs aren't going to be socialized
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,480,794 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's true. If we had user fees (and we should) instead of taxes, poor people would pay more since they use a disproportionately high amount of the services. The concept of paying for what one actually uses is fair to all.
and this should be applied at all levels


on the local level of paying for what you use...


on the federal level paying a tax on what you spend instead of what you earn




and even in the min wage argument … pay for performance..not some government set floor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:45 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top