@mike69 saidMike, what a banal and obvious comment. Just like sh76, you are choosing to make the "well, this thing exists so deal with it" argument, instead of engaging in debate.
Let me know if the rest of your life has worked out to your plan and what did you want to do then?
Figure it out, life isn’t perfect or easy, sorry you have to find this out this late in life.
Like, say we start a debate about whether or not squirrels are good for forest ecosystems. I know I can count on you to chime in with "Yeah, squirrels exist so figure it out." Thanks a lot for your input.
Do you have anything substantive to contribute? I've yet to hear any one with a solid argument as to why it's a good thing. Or as sh76 put it, rich people make things "nicer" while swiping past the higher cost of living through increased taxes by saying "well, move then." That's also obvious and not at issue here.
It's fixable, policy wise. The middle class shouldn't be forced by the uber wealthy elite to move their 8th grader out of their school district, in which they've invested time and energy to make the neighborhood a better place. The government incentivizes rapid property turnover because it benefits developers, investors, and increases the amount of taxes the government gets. The sad losers of this current system are home owners who want to raise families and make friends with neighbors and coach soccer.
Change the incentives, change the outcomes.
@wildgrass saidTell me your ideas, do you live in the US?
Mike, what a banal and obvious comment. Just like sh76, you are choosing to make the "well, this thing exists so deal with it" argument, instead of engaging in debate.
Like, say we start a debate about whether or not squirrels are good for forest ecosystems. I know I can count on you to chime in with "Yeah, squirrels exist so figure it out." Thanks a lot for your input. ...[text shortened]... ies and make friends with neighbors and coach soccer.
Change the incentives, change the outcomes.
@wildgrass saidSo you’re just a talking head. Apply your standards, quality of life, goals, and are you giving the same opportunities and freedoms to those you complain about.
Yes. Tax wealth, reduce primary residence property and income taxes.
@kevcvs57 saidThey will not be children anymore, they will be adults, living in a society which they create. So prices of everything will seek their own level, in their society. So I truly do not get your point, like, is there something that we should all do now to make our children happy when they are adults in the future. ??
It will drive up your property price and amenities follow the money but it will also drive your children out because they won’t be able to buy in the area when their time comes. It’s basically the death nell for any inter generational community already established there.
@wildgrass saidWhat do you think you’re doing???
I dont complain about anyone. You're not making sense.
Are your ideas restricting others of their right to live how they choose based on your reality.
@mike69 saidNo. Where did I suggest adding restrictions to how people live? Current policy restricts others. Are you suggesting that any change to policy to support specific economic behaviors is a complaint on individuals who are exploiting skewed policies? I assure you that is not the case.
What do you think you’re doing???
Are your ideas restricting others of their right to live how they choose based on your reality.
I have no personal feelings against what rich people are doing to middle class suburban neighborhoods. They're reasonably exploiting bad government policy. I am also suggesting, arguing, that policy changes are needed to support people within those communities who are being overburdened with taxes as a result of skewed policies. These existing policies force families (especially those with young children) to make decisions that are not in the best interest of their family. They are not good.
I'm complaining about the policies, not the people. I know there is a tendency to say "why do you hate rich people?" whenever wealth taxes are proposed, but policy wise that is not the intent. The idea is to reduce tax burdens on middle class families.
@wildgrass saidReread your post, think deeper, you’re not a victim quit lying to yourself.
No. Where did I suggest adding restrictions to how people live? Current policy restricts others. Are you suggesting that any change to policy to support specific economic behaviors is a complaint on individuals who are exploiting skewed policies? I assure you that is not the case.
I have no personal feelings against what rich people are doing to middle class suburban nei ...[text shortened]... but policy wise that is not the intent. The idea is to reduce tax burdens on middle class families.
The people that consider you rich and wish you would move out so they could afford a similar life for themselves but can’t?
@mike69 saidDo you consider that a deep thought?
Reread your post, think deeper, you’re not a victim quit lying to yourself.
The people that consider you rich and wish you would move out so they could afford a similar life for themselves but can’t?
It looks like you took a random word generator and did your best to fit it into a semi-complete sentence.
If I'm reading it correctly, you are thinking (deeply) that my property value decreases when rich people move in, then I sell my house to someone for less than I paid for it? Or something?
Thanks.
@averagejoe1 saidI think that Kev should respond to my logical post. I answer all of his questions, after all.
They will not be children anymore, they will be adults, living in a society which they create. So prices of everything will seek their own level, in their society. So I truly do not get your point, like, is there something that we should all do now to make our children happy when they are adults in the future. ??
@wildgrass saidHow would a wealth tax (especially combined with a decreased income tax) prevent gentrification?
Yes. Tax wealth, reduce primary residence property and income taxes.
@sh76 saidSilly me, I thought having wealthy people in our society was good for society. Good for everything. Starting with yacht builders and salesmen on down.
How would a wealth tax (especially combined with a decreased income tax) prevent gentrification?
If you tax their wealth, which money would have already been taxed when they earned it, it may cause wealth to dissipate, and my first para hereinabove would no longer apply. Downer.
@sh76 saidIt's a pretty well understood concept (maybe not in your circles), and the only reason I can see it has not been implemented is extremely high investment in political campaigns by wealthy people. If municipalities were relying on other sources of taxes than property, then they wouldn't have to jack up the price for existing homeowners. The higher taxes is what forces them out of their neighborhood. Does that make sense?
How would a wealth tax (especially combined with a decreased income tax) prevent gentrification?
Find a new source of income for governments other than middle class families of five.
Tax the rich does not mean hate the rich. I love the rich (not their spoiled kids though). It would only signal a shift in policy regarding what is valued in our society.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087416666959
23 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidLOL If you give some of your wealth to a yacht builder then it would not count as your wealth anymore.
Silly me, I thought having wealthy people in our society was good for society. Good for everything. Starting with yacht builders and salesmen on down.
If you tax their wealth, which money would have already been taxed when they earned it, it may cause wealth to dissipate, and my first para hereinabove would no longer apply. Downer.
Hoarding wealth. That's what is taxable with wealth taxes.