“Tax property” has finely enumerated rules completely spelled out in the letter of the law in hundreds of different variations across many states and cities. You can certainly disagree with it, but its a fully formed and executed system that is funding many schools today.
What you’ve got so far in this discussion is “stop what is currently in place and make someone else pay somehow”. Thats not even fully formed thought much less an argument that can be defended. Your first statement, and now this follow up tell me you’re really interested (capable?) of proposing a better alternative.
I’m not going to “finely enumerate and spell out the letter of the law in hundreds of variations” for you.
Income and wealth taxes also have hundreds of variations and fine tunings. Saying I have to invent a whole new system on my own right here and now or else I’m not serious is not serious.
I’m not going to “finely enumerate and spell out the letter of the law in hundreds of variations” for you.
I didn’t ask you to. I asked you to add some actual substance to what you’re proposing instead of simply hand waving “someone should do something somehow” which is useless and ineffectual. Your stance will mean the status quo is maintained, and I personally don’t want that.
Income and wealth taxes also have hundreds of variations and fine tunings. Saying I have to invent a whole new system on my own right here and now or else I’m not serious is not serious.
How about even just one part of your propose solution? You’ve given absolutely nothing except “rich people”. You’ve offered nothing that can be acted on. If you want change, you have to be able to talk about what change you want. If you can’t talk in reality, then yes, you are not serious.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 days ago
“Tax property” has finely enumerated rules completely spelled out in the letter of the law in hundreds of different variations across many states and cities. You can certainly disagree with it, but its a fully formed and executed system that is funding many schools today.
What you’ve got so far in this discussion is “stop what is currently in place and make someone else pay somehow”. Thats not even fully formed thought much less an argument that can be defended. Your first statement, and now this follow up tell me you’re really interested (capable?) of proposing a better alternative.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I’m not going to “finely enumerate and spell out the letter of the law in hundreds of variations” for you.
Income and wealth taxes also have hundreds of variations and fine tunings. Saying I have to invent a whole new system on my own right here and now or else I’m not serious is not serious.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I didn’t ask you to. I asked you to add some actual substance to what you’re proposing instead of simply hand waving “someone should do something somehow” which is useless and ineffectual. Your stance will mean the status quo is maintained, and I personally don’t want that.
How about even just one part of your propose solution? You’ve given absolutely nothing except “rich people”. You’ve offered nothing that can be acted on. If you want change, you have to be able to talk about what change you want. If you can’t talk in reality, then yes, you are not serious.