Kath wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 11:16 am
Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 11:14 am
I understand what you are saying. I don't think your analogies are convincing.
Okay. Maybe look at it this way.
Seattle: We need to raise taxes to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle now: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. What will the results be? Impossible to know, really, since we've never tried this before.
This is where the wires are getting crossed.
You seem to think that I don't understand that that is how
you are looking at this problem.
I have tried to explain how
I view the problem, and it hasn't really gotten a lot of converts.
Some of that patented DB sarcasm, which I do always enjoy, though.
Just to summarize though:
1. I view municipal taxes on business as legal, and as nothing more than business overhead, which isn't 'theft from the rich,' since the consumer of the product is freely choosing to purchase said product, and the business is free to leave.
2. There is no silver bullet solution to the problem of homelessness. I am not convinced that the market will just sort it out, even though I understand the theory behind that argument. As such, given the very low investment cost
per consumer, I think we tolerate quite a lot of risk with different experimental solutions.