You're viewing a single thread.
I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.
Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.
Dont let perfection be the enemy of better
millionares($) wouldn't be able to afford multiple yachts, or even so large of a yacht. billionares, those who offshoring wealth makes sense for, are the problem.
not the docter nor lawyer, but the whale.
millionares pay about 48%-49%, at least where im from.
This statement might be true, but we're not taxing him. Should he just donate his money to the government?
I don't even think you can do that.
Absolutely. We don’t need kings making decisions like this. The downside is the difficulty in forcing government and the anti-help-anyone segment of our society to spend such taxation correctly to actually help people.
I’m also angry he did a good thing despite the government’s abject failure to tax the rich.
anti-help-anyone segment of our society
This is the biggest problem (IMHO) to getting government to assist anyone that is not already rich. The rich get help - i.e. which gets a special tax break:
- Walmart opening a new store (and driving all the little people out of business)?
- The little business owner who hires 2-5 employees?
The haves scream they are being "robbed" if you suggest taking any of "their tax dollars" to help the have-nots. It's not "their tax dollars", it's "our tax dollars".
If every billionaire did this and ended homelessness perhaps they would have a point about their wealth hoarding. I won't be holding my breath for this to happen though. Tax the rich!
Sure there are lots of failures to the way we govern ourselves. This shouldn't be a need. The reality is that it is a need and that person did what he could. Have you?
What makes you think Trump's administration will make better use of that money?
Especially because his unilateral decision is optional. Someone got lucky with his choice vs someone was guaranteed an outcome.
Corruption could make that money go to some people's 3rd, 4rd or their relatives houses UNFORTUNATELY . The question here is: what about those who pay a rent???
Corruption already makes most millionaires' and billionaires' money go to that anyway. At least if it's taxed some of it will actually go to toward necessary housing, maybe even frequently enough that it's not newsworthy when it does, the way it is now.
I did not understand what you said, sorry
You're worried that if we collect money from the wealthy through taxation, it might not be used to reduce homelessness. However, if we don't tax the wealthy, they'll spend the money on their own goals, which definitely won't be to reduce homelessness. While you're right that taxes are largely wasted, they do still fund important things such as fire departments, medical research, and yes, government housing. It's true that we need to implement better tax management systems, but we also need a wealth tax.
I never said we don't need a taxation system, I'm just reporting what's happening almost everywhere.
Alternatively a possibility is to give the public sector to woman, they should be a little bit more immune to corruption (I might be wrong though).
So we're so scared of corruption that (checks notes) we stop even trying for fairness and instead just let rich fucks make all the decisions and hope for the best?
It's clear that a lot of people switched to that way of thinking, thanks to those corrupted people.
That's what current voting results say all around
I see one: he actually did something instead of a council that blows all of the money on meetings
This is obviously way better, come on. Why involve middle men in something like this? Add more layers and it becomes less efficient. Less of the money goes to helping people and it gets spread around to different agencies, or even worse goes to government contractors who can charge ridiculous rates because they know someone and didn't have to compete for the contract. I worked at a place once where we got a couple hundred thousand dollars for a useless study because if the money didn't get used it would make their budget smaller for next year. That kind of thing happens all the time.