• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Why have the Democrats never advocated for federal progressive real estate tax?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
I don't support it, but it would achieve their goal of "soaking the rich"... so why haven't they advocated it considering that the current income tax code is as progressive as it can get?

They could also achieve their goal of creating more ethnically diverse neighborhoods by a progressive residential real estate tax and a residential real estate tax could not be evaded, unlike the death tax, or a cash or stock savings tax. They could also charge $1k per acre of land, and that would then assume that all land was rented from the federal govt. I don't support that, although it's more progressive than the income tax and the payroll tax.

The only other thing I can think of is an IQ tax, except maybe it would be 1hr per year of forced public work for each iq point over the average than a tax for each iq point over the average. I don't favor that either, but I've never understood why the Democrats don't have any original philosophy other than maybe kucinich and sanders, although sanders is an independent.

The problem with the income tax is even if it were not evadable, there would be less incentive to work when top marginal rates are super high unless there were a lot of deductions and if the top marginal rate started at the highest .01% of earners... which was the way it was in the past, so there was no egalitarian utopia.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
First, they might not have thought of it. Second, it would adversely impact many of them since many liberal enclaves have expensive real estate, both due to clustering of high-pay jobs (law, finance, etc) and often due to their own liberal policies of limiting "sprawl," imposing rent controls, and similar practices that artificially raise prices. Lastly, liberals seem to want to target "the rich" but exclude themselves from the category - you can see from all the complaints from liberals here about red states "getting more back" in federally paid benefits than blue states even though that's what you'd think they would want.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
First, they might not have thought of it. Second, it would adversely impact many of them since many liberal enclaves have expensive real estate, both due to clustering of high-pay jobs (law, finance, etc) and often due to their own liberal policies of limiting "sprawl," imposing rent controls, and similar practices that artificially raise prices. Lastly, liberals seem to want to target "the rich" but exclude themselves from the category - you can see from all the complaints from liberals here about red states "getting more back" in federally paid benefits than blue states even though that's what you'd think they would want.
thank you:) That's what I was thinking as well since they make it so the tax code doesn't apply to them. In that case, egalitarianism truly is a revolt against nature since those who say they want egalitarianism don't even advocate for it.

I'm guessing sanders and kucinich haven't thought of it though or they really think the income tax can "soak the rich" even more as they aren't hypocrites... they're the only two liberals I can think of though that aren't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY