Do we need King Trump? What if he carries out this policy list?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (19)
sorted by:
"How many people would loose their retirement plans because they invested in rental properties for their income?"
What about the 75% of society which can barely pay their bills? Why are your concerns always about the rich in society?
Banning foreign investment in property as well as banning investment firms such as Blackrock and Vanguard from being able to scoop up large swaths of real estate. That would be a good start.
Limiting property to X per person is the next logical step on this line of thinking. You are half way there.
Rich? Don't make me laugh. People invest, pull out mortgages on paid off homes to purchase investment opportunities. I've learned enough that, if you have enough acumen for it and can recognize what the market is like, even middle class can pull off the tactic.
Besides, making distinctions between rich and poor and class distinction is a purely communist/socialist thing to do. The bigger issue are the billions upon billions worth of residential property that have been bought of by entirely FOREIGN investment firms. Why begrudge hard working Americans a chance to become wealthy just out of spite for those who have been successful?
Isn't the goal to remove obstacles so that anyone could become wealthy? Imagine if the foreign owned property were back on the market proper and no longer inflated housing prices? What if government restrictions and excessive regulations were stripped back to bare necessary levels so more housing could be made where needed? What if the illegals were deported and the houses they currently occupy were back on the market? I'd wager we already have the recipe for a massive housing surplus in this country and plummeting home values that would put homes easily in reach of people who were more poor.
Beyond that, removing excessive government regulations, much needed tax reform were passed. Even lower class would find themselves with something like $5000 extra per month that would be more than enough for good housing, especially combined with increased economic activity and inflation being lowered through decreasing energy costs.
Frankly, I am poor but my objective is to change that.
.>"Besides, making distinctions between rich and poor and class distinction is a purely communist/socialist thing to do."
So you don't believe in progressive taxation? The rich generate income through their property. Why not limit the amount they can own, so everyone else has a chance to fulfill the american dream?
That is the very foundation of socialism, communism, Marxism, and has led to unparalleled strife, starvation, mass murder, and more. Time and time again in history. It is an evil ideology rooted in the belief that, rather than removing barriers to prosperity built up by excessive bureaucracy and other factors, that people who have worked hard or have been successful must be penalized for it so they are not as far ahead. Just look at the no child left behind policy. Gifted and talented classes in schools have been outright removed because it gives those students an 'unfair advantage' over the ones that can't perform to that level. This rather than address what failings are preventing other students from being more successful.
It is the same argument that murderous dictators have used, time and time again, to justify unrest and slaughter of those who oppose them. So, no, I do not believe in the progressive taxation or any other progressive model. Throughout the world, wherever it's been used, you have one thing that is consistent. People who earn enough to put themselves in the higher tax brackets, where some 70 or more percent of their income is stolen, they simply stop producing. They go on vacations, halt work in the things they own, and more because if they cross that threshold, they will take home less than if they stop producing, even if they had continued working with their maximum effort.
Who benefits from that? Halted productivity harms the people under those who, justifiably quit working rather than have some 70 percent or more of their earnings being stripped away. Jobs are lost or never made available to those in need of them. Historically, graduated income taxes left the US top tax rate at 94 percent.
Likewise, if I have a small business that becomes successful, I would be working my ass off to grow and expand it. During that, I'd be crossing over graduating tax thresholds, finding myself with less money to run and grow my business. The very notion of a graduated income tax is to protect those already at the top, who have full access to every loophole, from the threat of growing competition. It's how you get the untouchable elites and oligarchs who can charge what they want for things without fear of something better being introduced into the market that could easily grow and challenge their place of dominance.
What if they inherited everything they have. Also, like I said earlier, the rich's income is mostly extracted through property ownership, not through productive labor.
The nation state has every right and incentive to limit this extraction.
The proposals in the OP are not "Marxism" etc.....they are a compromise and they finally put limits on unrestrained greed of capitalism.