This is the what if edge case we ware talking about before, it’s a worst case scenario based on the assumption that majority of people are racist and don’t want to help each other, and even though I don’t belive that is the case and my opinion is supported by the countless amount of charities and non profits, sure, potentially that is something that could happen. The reason why this is an acceptable risk is because the alternative is what we have today, corrupt, wasteful, broken system of extortion where poor stay poor and rich get richer and puting more money into it won’t fix it.
And the current tax funded system clearly doesn’t prevent that and putting more money into it seems to only make it worse. Maybe if the people in those neighborhoods could decide how they want to invest their money and the money given to them by charities and donations instead of being dependent on their racist mayor doing the right thing and investing in their community instead of taking the money for himself and his community that would change.
Yes, we have already established that the system as it is now is not fair.
Maybe if the people in those neighborhoods could decide how they want to invest their money and the money given to them by charities and donations instead of being dependent on their racist mayor doing the right thing and investing in their community instead of taking the money for himself and his community that would change.
They don’t have money to invest because they’re poor. You do understand what poverty is, yes?
The poor pay taxes too, in fact they pay the highest percentage of their income because they have to spend most of their income and can’t afford to invest or save. By removing the burden of taxes you give them additional funds that they could invest, save or spend on necessities and let charities, non profits, donations fund infrastructure. What’s more beneficial to a poor person, extra 2 meters of road in their neighborhood or doubling their paycheck?
Sales tax, gas tax, utilities tax, property tax directly or included in rent, excise, all of the taxes imposed on businesses and their owners trickle down to the consumers because they have to increase the price of their products and services to cover what they pay in taxes. Every single tax is always pushed onto the last link in the chain - the consumer, and the poor have to spend the biggest part of their paycheck on consumption.
It’s like saying that a water powered car would be better than a gasoline car if only it was working.
The reality is that it doesn’t distribute money to the poor but to the politicians and corporations.
My system might not be perfect but at least it can’t be abused to the point that a tax system can and is a lot more efficient.
As I said, your system allows racist majorities to deny poor minorities any improvements in their community.
Why are you okay with that?
This is the what if edge case we ware talking about before, it’s a worst case scenario based on the assumption that majority of people are racist and don’t want to help each other, and even though I don’t belive that is the case and my opinion is supported by the countless amount of charities and non profits, sure, potentially that is something that could happen. The reason why this is an acceptable risk is because the alternative is what we have today, corrupt, wasteful, broken system of extortion where poor stay poor and rich get richer and puting more money into it won’t fix it.
Yes, racist Southern towns with poor black neighborhoods are totally “what if” cases and not the norm.
And the current tax funded system clearly doesn’t prevent that and putting more money into it seems to only make it worse. Maybe if the people in those neighborhoods could decide how they want to invest their money and the money given to them by charities and donations instead of being dependent on their racist mayor doing the right thing and investing in their community instead of taking the money for himself and his community that would change.
Yes, we have already established that the system as it is now is not fair.
They don’t have money to invest because they’re poor. You do understand what poverty is, yes?
The poor pay taxes too, in fact they pay the highest percentage of their income because they have to spend most of their income and can’t afford to invest or save. By removing the burden of taxes you give them additional funds that they could invest, save or spend on necessities and let charities, non profits, donations fund infrastructure. What’s more beneficial to a poor person, extra 2 meters of road in their neighborhood or doubling their paycheck?
The poor, at least in the U.S., are exempt from income tax.
Sales tax, gas tax, utilities tax, property tax directly or included in rent, excise, all of the taxes imposed on businesses and their owners trickle down to the consumers because they have to increase the price of their products and services to cover what they pay in taxes. Every single tax is always pushed onto the last link in the chain - the consumer, and the poor have to spend the biggest part of their paycheck on consumption.