Higher progressive taxation would:
reduce the concentration of very high incomes,
provide resources for housing and infrastructure investments,
and increase the share of economic gains that go to middle and lower income workers.
Progressive taxation can affect inequality and housing costs as part of a broader package of zoning reform, expanded housing construction, infrastructure investment, and policies aimed at boosting wages.
But if the government has no money it can’t do these things. .
You’re sharing with me expected outcomes but not how you get to that result. I’m asking you what would be different about tax policy. Assuming it generates more tax revenue, how would it be deployed to address housing affordability?
Vancouver is literally the least affordable housing community in all of Canada and then also globally. Whatever they have been doing since 1981, it’s not making a massive dent in housing.
Vienna, Austria
Higher top end tax rates
…zoning reform, expanded housing construction, infrastructure investment, and policies aimed at boosting wages.
So, basically, a working government.
You should read our prior thread which covers Vienna or do some further research as to why it has not scaled elsewhere. It’s an interesting read.
Does that mean a wealth tax or just a higher top end rate on income and does it include capital gains?
These are buzzwords. Are you talking about raising the minimum wage? How much? What do you mean by expanding housing construction and infrastructure investment. Is the tax payer going to fund housing projects?
Vancouver WA – 3rd or 4th largest city in WA State, and suburb of Portland OR. Though Vancouver Canada is now starting to build more non-profit public housing due to the accumulating failures of turning it over to real estate developers.
Your head will spin at this Canadian project funded by reparations to native people (Indians)
intercst
Are we discussing low income housing solutions or broad based housing affordability? Communities can and do fund low income housing. It has nothing to do home affordability for average Americans.
I agree with US Supreme court’s position on reparations. Where the group can be defined, harm quantified, and compensation can directly address it, reparations are appropriate.
Whether the housing project will work, it is of course another question. Canada’s housing problems are in many ways far worse than here. I’m sure the fact that the policies are even more progressive has nothing to do with it.
I’m not a tax policy expert. I don’t even play one on TV. So, I’m shooting from the hip. But since you asked, I’ll give it a go.
I’d think a wealth tax on centimillionaires and above and a much higher top end rate. Maybe not capital gains tax until withdrawn. Knock off the ability to live on tax free loans on one’s estate. And do something about huge estates passed on like dynasties.
Buzzwords? Surely, you’ve heard of zoning reforms, allowing builders to build more densely or in areas not used before? Infrastructure investment, as in roads, water, electricity and such that allow people to live prosperous lives?
Yes, the minimum wage needs to be raised to a living wage.
And, yes, the taxpayer, principally the very wealthy taxpayer, will help pay for all these things. And so will industry when they realize they can’t take all the profits and give them to the top guys, and instead be encouraged to put them into r&d, expanded operations, dividends, and, yes, increased wages.
Somehow, I think it’ll work. It’s akin to feeding and watering the roots if you want a healthy garden.
But, please don’t nitpick my suggestions for improvement. I’m no policy expert, just a guy on the internet who thinks things should be a lot better than they are, and could be if we all get together and honestly work on it.
That would help solve theSocial Security ‘shortfall.’
So, you intend to tax unrealized gains. Do you intend to do that annually or just a one time take? France tried it and saw an exodus of capital and millionaires that actually caused total tax revenue to decline. California’s proposed wealth tax has already resulted in more than 1.5 trillion in capital exodus.
I would agree to a change in the tax policy that would trigger tax consequences for those borrowing against unrealized gains.
The problem is without even considering billionaires that would take evasive action by leaving or businesses starting up in more favorable tax regions, it doesn’t raise enough money to solve the problem. The wealth tax at 5% yields 450 Billion. The US is running currently a 2 trillion deficit and a growing debt service at nearly 1 trillion.
Just by some simple math, there just isn’t any extra money to throw at affordability.
If we raise the minimum wage, what happens then to the costs of all things people buy to live and survive? Aren’t you just effectively raising the cost of living and erasing the nominal added wage gain?
shouldn’t the focus be on affordability rather than disrupting the market price for labor?
More importantly, what would you define as a living wage? Why shouldn’t the market define the wage that is appropriate?
I’m not nitpicking your suggestions. I’m suggesting that you look at how these ideas play out in reality rather than in the pretend world of good intentions.
This thread IMO has evolved into a discussion of affordability of housing.
Let’s expand that to an issue of Affordability/Income Inequality in general. Or perhaps I should refer it as a tilted field of play for the wealthy & professional class.
Mamdani won on that issue in NYC.
So what does this issue the future portend in the future?
Yesterday I listened to J D Vance on Joe Rogan. He has talked to fellow republicans about this issue. If the republicans cannot find a way to address this- the nation will slide further toward socialism.
The Z generation is quite unhappy with the current situation & existing political party system:
It’s no secret that both political parties are unpopular.
This is particularly true of Gen Z, which polls suggest feels like it is set to inherit a political system riddled with partisan hostility and congressional gridlock.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-nearly-half-americans-dont-know-what-americas-250th-celebrating
Gen Z stands out with more who are supportive of socialism (53%) than capitalism (45%). The survey found the “Democratic Socialist” label can both help and harm a candidate about equally. While 39% said they’d be more likely to vote for a Democratic Socialist candidate, 40% said they’d be less likely, and 22% weren’t sure either way. Democrats (61%) and Gen Z (51%) reported they’d be likely to vote for a candidate with the Democratic Socialist label.
Survey showed that most Gen Zers also oppose violence, but that a significant minority do believe it can be justified at times. It also found that America’s youngest voters are skeptical of political institutions and parties.
Thirty-nine percent of respondents told the Harvard Youth Poll that they believe there are at least some instances in which political violence may be justified.
Boomers-can you remember the violence of the Vietnam War protests?
If that is too far back-How about 16 years ago?
And now today: These establishment folks want a new political party.
Donald Trump’s biggest right-wing critics are plotting their political futures. Pictured are (1) Carolyn Grace Moffa, (2) Brian Glenn, (3) Marjorie Taylor Greene, (4) Tucker Carlson, (5) Joe Kent, (6) Heather Kaiser Kent, (7) Thomas Massie
Interesting times ahead.
How about instead of shooting down “the pretend world of good intentions” suggestions, come up with solutions of your own?
Or, maybe you think all is fine as it is?
I don’t know, but I see some stinky problems that could be solved with a concerted and honest effort, for the greater good.
But there I go again, with buzzwords like “greater good.”
Medicare for all.
If it’s labeled “Trumpcare”, it garners the missing 35% needed to get the public’s supermajority approval.
Pair it with government equity stakes in private companies and government subsidized individual equity stakes (Trump accounts), we are on our way to everyone being an owner of capital - we are all capitalists then.
Problem solved.
It’s just branding.
The great Texas populist LBJ would be proud.
Do you think we can keep all of the Bush/Trump tax cuts and balance our budget with spending cuts alone?
Hey what has happened to our trillion and a half defense budget?
No, we have to raise taxes and probably move away from differentiated tax treatment for long term capital gains. I think many very wealthy people would support that effort if it goes to pay down the debt. But simply to pile on more spending to further risk financial ruin and spur inflation, there’s no value and ceding further financial power to the govt.
whether you like or not, there is a tipping point where businesses will move to where capital is treated better. These are the economic realities.
How do you square your position with the “no tax increases ever” held by the Republican Party?