Tax the 1%...

This is actually a good idea...at the state level. Each state that has been wanting subsidies from the Federal government can simply raise taxes on their 1% and finance their corona-response themselves, and eat the rich at the same time!

Win/Win

 

People can live off of mainly fruits and veggies and have meats and grains here and there. Poor people can afford to eat healthy foods. Most people eat unhealthy because it’s easier. People are f’ing lazy.

 

Rich Democrats should be the first to have their stuff taken away. Blue states should just make having over x amount of wealth illegal, then confiscate the rest.

 

Says the guy who wants the government to confiscate people's property because they support the communist policies of Bernie Freeshit Sanders.

Everybody ought to pay a flat tax, whether you make $1 thousand or $1 billion. So pick the tax rate you want to pay and we'll have a discussion.

 

Thus is hilarious.

So the govt would own 10% of Amazon, microsoft and beerkshire? Hell inside of 5 years all 3 would be running in the red and have 2 trillion in unfunded pensions.
.bad idea.

 

We'll get a lot more out of em by just simplifying the tax code so theres less loopholes and deductions for their teams of lawyers to find.

 

Yes, they do..

 

The 1% want the other 99% of the world to die. They got the 2.0 contagion ready to launch. It’s going to be rise of the anti christ just as foretold. Trump
Or Clinton, made no difference. it was inevitable outcome.

 

It's as if human nature doesn't exist. As if you think everyone is exactly the same. Do you tolerate ANY deviation from your proscribed response to such monies? What about those who choose to blow it all gambling, thus remaining in poverty? Or those who spend it on travel? Or obscenely high rents in expensive coastal cities? Or on pointless Arts degrees that will never get them a job? Or on drugs? Or on fast food 6 nights a week? Or tattoos? Or hair stylists? Or $300 shoes?

If people are determined to remain in poverty, you can give them all the pay increases you like short of millions, and they'll stay that way. 99% of those who move up from the working to the middle class do so by CHOICE, not windfall. It's not a lucky accident, it's choices.

 

This, to the power of ten!

It's all choices. The cheapest food is the healthiest. Rice, beans, seasonal fruit/veg.

 

They are NOT victims, and we absolutely do blame them. Nothing is preventing them from buying bulk rice and beans, and supplementing it with whatever fruits and veg are in season and therefore very cheap. Nothing but their own preference for easy, calorie dense foods.

PS: every urban dweller in America is probably within an hour of a supermarket. Anyone who says they have to eat processed and convenience foods because the supermarket is a 20 minute drive away, is having a lend of you.

 

No, but existing property taxes are consistent and comparatively low, a known factor that is already taken in to account in property values. You're proposing a new, massive, one-off cost for owners of high-value property. How can you imagine the announcement of such a policy wouldn't immediately impact the values of those properties?

Also, you never explained the core details of how your proposal would actually work. Are you talking about the government taking part ownership in the property or demanding money equal to that 10% of the value? They would be two very different prospects.

 

Absolutely! Regressive taxation means the poor paying for the wealthy.
To quote a famous Middle Eastern personality, "From those how have much, much will be required".

 

First, it's not an annual tax, it is a one time assessment.
No expert on around the country but when building a house here in Florida the assessment can total into the 10s of thousands depending on the location and property size. Those assessments do not deter building nor lower property values.

Heinlen proposed we allow the property owner to set the assessment value of their properties with but a single caveat. That the owner can be forced to sell the property at the value claimed. Seems a very fair method of taxation.

Details? We're now at the high level can it work stage. But:

Let's say you have a property and owe property taxes.
You can choose to pay the tax in cash or you can choose not to pay the tax.
Should you choose to not pay the tax then the property will be taken and sold at auction.

Now let's say you owe income taxes.
You can choose to pay those taxes in cash or choose not to pay the tax.
Should you choose not to pay the tax the IRS will take cash and property to settle the debt.

The processes for implementing the tax are already in place.

Why not just call it a one time tax increase if it will make you feel better.

 

Yes, and a large one at that, that's what would make it's impact fundamentally different to existing property taxes on an economic and social basis.

Well, indirectly they probably do impact building and pricing - if there were no property taxes, people could afford to own slightly more and more expensive property and the market would respond to that. We don't notice that impact because it is largely consistent and long established - it's already taken in to account in the planning and pricing of new builds and sales of existing property.

You're proposing something very different. People who currently own high-value property would be faced with a new, sudden expense and presumably anyone they sold it to would face that cost instead. Therefore, between the policy being announced and the tax being paid, nobody would want to buy any of those properties without a much lower price to cover the cost of the one-off tax they'd then have to pay.

What would probably happen is that the property-rich but cash-poor (such as lots of elderly people, charity organisations and the like), would be forced to sell their properties to those who are cash rich as massively reduced prices. The cash-rich could then pay the one-off tax and then have a whole range of valuable properties to profit from. That's the very opposite of what I assume you're looking to achieve.

Because you're not proposing a tax increase, your proposing a large one-off hit. If you were simply proposing a tax increase on the top property tax rates, there wouldn't be an issue.

 

For federal government to subsidize anything should be illegal.

 

Up to the present, the "war for survival" our ancestors fought from the beginning of time as dictated politics, economics and war itself.
The "cold war" was a smaller-scale replica of this kind of thing. We made the mistake of not being able to change once the "cold war" ended.
Well, guess what! The "war for survival" is over (has been for a long time, as it turns out) and we won.
Now, we can do things differently. Now, we can do things humanly. Now, we can do things rationally.
There is enough for everyone. We know where everything is. We know where things are needed. We have the transport capacities to take things where they are needed.
The earth belongs to everyone. What is the point of playing as if a few could exchange some money in order to reserve resources exclusively to their benefit?
Tax the rich? Not necessary. Let them keep what they have now and take over what's left.

 

Wow take 10 percent of their property...then what are you gonna do with it? Set up "Educational Centers" like Castro did? Bernie loved them.

 

Idiocy...

 

Exactly what property? Land oh wait the value of that land drops almost overnight, expensive art like wise fancy cars and so forth and so on. None of that stuff has an intrinsic cash value. It is value only to the extent people are willing to pay for it. And if they are fairly certain that a you coming back for another hit because the first one didn't realize as much cash as you expected, likely less than half, they'll be out of the country so fast it'll make your head swim. And remember you tried this crap before and damn near destroyed the New England tact building business, and did destroy the S&L business and force the middle class to abandon their little lake front cottages.

 

Tax you.
Tax those who feel they have the right to other people's stuff

 

Totally insane. That money you would steal from the rich would only be a drop in the bucket of the hole the fools in congress have put us in.

 

Don't care what it is.

 

Why insane?
This has nothing to do with the debt.
This has nothing to do with the deficit.
This would be a permanently self funding program that would increase neither the debt nor the deficit.

Besides, you could go after Soros, Bezos, Gates...Wouldn't that feel good. Knocking those libs down a peg or two?

 

All state and local governments tax....everyones property, both real and personal

The US Constitution limits the power of the Federal Govt to tax....specifically on direct taxation...which is what you are wanting to do.

That is a direct tax on property, by reason of its ownership.