You could tax them at 100% but it wouldn’t fix the problem. There are simply just not enough of them. While wealth inequality is a problem, this alone don’t fix it. It is just a crutch.
And this would somehow cause a significant number of houses to be built? And if people have more money thru distribution of some sort, would they work harder to build more houses? If they don’t, how does this help?
One way to spot a troll is that they quickly change arguments to avoid accountability. Like how you start by saying that taxation can’t fix the problem and when someone disagrees instead of pulling out data and digging into why, you instead randomly pivot to housing availability, which is currently also a problem related to finances, but distinctly separate from taxation strategies.
I don’t blame this person for not wanting to waste time engaging with you.
after perusing your other comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re a disingenuous right wing troll. I don’t care to educate you on something you’ll more than likely ignore.
So if it’s not a perfect solution it shouldn’t be done?
You may be right that a 90% tax on certain amount of wealth may not solve all the problems but that is a ton of money this country is leaving on the table that could really help people that need assistance.
If you read my post, I did say wealth inequality is an issue. Bit to directly answer your question, if everyone suddenly recieved more money, would they differently be motivated to build more houses or create more cogs to make it lives better? And if they don’t, how does this help us?
It’s weird that you think that tax money goes directly into the pockets of individual citizens…
But when the government gets more income it can be used to fund public programs like WIC, CHIPS, Free lunch program for children, help the homeless, improve infrastructure, etc. You know, government working to support it’s population and not let the country become a shit hole.
If you don’t like how the government is spending the tax money then that is an election argument (vote someone in that supports your views). My way of seeing things is that if this country has given someone the ability to make a 3 comma amount of wealth then arguing that paying back into that system is evil then that person really doesn’t care about anyone but themselves.
You could tax them at 100% but it wouldn’t fix the problem. There are simply just not enough of them. While wealth inequality is a problem, this alone don’t fix it. It is just a crutch.
no, increasing taxes on the wealthy, while simultaneously funding the IRS to go after white collar tax cheats, would 100% fix the problem.
And this would somehow cause a significant number of houses to be built? And if people have more money thru distribution of some sort, would they work harder to build more houses? If they don’t, how does this help?
One way to spot a troll is that they quickly change arguments to avoid accountability. Like how you start by saying that taxation can’t fix the problem and when someone disagrees instead of pulling out data and digging into why, you instead randomly pivot to housing availability, which is currently also a problem related to finances, but distinctly separate from taxation strategies.
I don’t blame this person for not wanting to waste time engaging with you.
after perusing your other comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re a disingenuous right wing troll. I don’t care to educate you on something you’ll more than likely ignore.
The fact you can not answer that speaks volumes. Really it does.
lmao sure, go back to telegram loser
The retort is an insult. Lol.
This isn’t an argument. The fact that they cannot answer a random question does not “speak volumes”. It actually says just about nothing.
Taxes could pay for government hired construction workers/companies to build government funded housing. Easy, try another goal post
Who are these people and what other work does not get done?
Construction workers are people who work in the field of construction. Framers, tapers, plumbers, electricians, etc.
So if it’s not a perfect solution it shouldn’t be done?
You may be right that a 90% tax on certain amount of wealth may not solve all the problems but that is a ton of money this country is leaving on the table that could really help people that need assistance.
So, we can’t tax their “unrealised gains” on stocks, but they can borrow against these same gains?
I don’t understand the connection between my post and your response?
If you read my post, I did say wealth inequality is an issue. Bit to directly answer your question, if everyone suddenly recieved more money, would they differently be motivated to build more houses or create more cogs to make it lives better? And if they don’t, how does this help us?
It’s weird that you think that tax money goes directly into the pockets of individual citizens…
But when the government gets more income it can be used to fund public programs like WIC, CHIPS, Free lunch program for children, help the homeless, improve infrastructure, etc. You know, government working to support it’s population and not let the country become a shit hole.
If you don’t like how the government is spending the tax money then that is an election argument (vote someone in that supports your views). My way of seeing things is that if this country has given someone the ability to make a 3 comma amount of wealth then arguing that paying back into that system is evil then that person really doesn’t care about anyone but themselves.