• San Francisco is taxing the rich to pay for free community college
    34 replies, posted
[vid]http://ht3.cdn.turner.com/money/big/news/economy/2016/11/22/mitch-daniels-op-ed-student-debt-income-share-agreements.cnnmoney_1024x576.mp4[/vid] [quote] San Francisco will be the first city in the nation to offer free community college to all residents starting this fall, Mayor Ed Lee announced this week. The city will pay for it by taxes on properties selling for more than $5 million. The real estate transfer tax, as it's called, was increased last year for both residential and commercial properties. The hike was approved by voters in November. The tax starts at 2.25% and goes up to 3% for properties worth at least $25 million. It's expected to bring in an average of $45 million a year, according to the city controller. But the money goes into the city's general fund and is also expected to be used for affordable housing and senior support services. The free tuition plan is expected to impact about 28,000 residents who currently take classes at City College of San Francisco and encourage more people to sign up. Chancellor Susan Lamb said the school has the capacity for 85,000 students. It's difficult to predict how many more people will enroll, and how much the free-tuition plan will end up costing. San Francisco has committed $5.4 million a year for the next two years, and then will have to reassess. That includes a one-time $500,000 stipend to City College to help handle an influx of students. [/quote] [URL="http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/10/pf/college/san-francisco-free-community-college/index.html?iid=surge-story-summary"]CNN[/URL] Taxing the rich to help lift society? Nah, it'll never work. /s
great plan sounds like the only drawback would be having too many students
[QUOTE=lum1naire;51808759]great plan sounds like the only drawback would be having too many students[/QUOTE] as well as the potential for wealthy property owners to move to avoid the tax nationalizing a plan like this would take care of both issues
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51808778]they'll just move out of the us[/QUOTE] globalize the plan then :v:
No qualms here
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51808778]they'll just move out of the us[/QUOTE] tax the business properties; it's less profitable to simply leave
low income and homeless is more of a problem though in san fran. Hopefully they'll tackle it more.
[QUOTE=Ithon;51808815]low income and homeless is more of a problem though in san fran. Hopefully they'll tackle it more.[/QUOTE] more accessible education addresses it in the long term, though I do agree
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51808778]they'll just move out of the us[/QUOTE] Can't have income inequality if there's no rich people!
This is pretty cool.
[QUOTE=bitches;51808775]as well as the potential for wealthy property owners to move to avoid the tax nationalizing a plan like this would take care of both issues[/QUOTE] It's San Francisco. Every property owner is wealthy.
2.25-3 percent on properties that expensive isn't a whole lot, bottom line is I doubt it will grind a high value property market proper to a halt or even dent it.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51808778]they'll just move out of the us[/QUOTE] Businessmen [I]do[/I] seem to grow attached to their surroundings. Trump could barely be convinced to not live in Trump Tower. How likely is it that they'll leave their glorious Californian home just to avoid taxes
If you own private properties worth more than $5 million USD, then you really should be taxed more.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51808778]they'll just move out of the us[/QUOTE] Where to? US has some of the lowest taxes in the world.
[QUOTE=bitches;51808775]as well as the potential for wealthy property owners to move to avoid the tax nationalizing a plan like this would take care of both issues[/QUOTE] they can move but they cant move the property, which will not go unsold in SF
[QUOTE=bitches;51808775]as well as the potential for wealthy property owners to move to avoid the tax nationalizing a plan like this would take care of both issues[/QUOTE] They won't. Minnesota raised taxes on the rich and those fears didn't materialize.
I can see this working well. The more contributions that can be made to reducing inequality the better.
To be fair, you have to either really rich or really poor to live in SF. The whole of SF bay is becoming too expensive for most people to live here.
[QUOTE=bitches;51808791]tax the business properties; it's less profitable to simply leave[/QUOTE] GENIUS. Trap them by making it too costly to pull out, THEN we move in for the kill like a pack of clever girls.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51808778]they'll just move out of the us[/QUOTE] Force them to surrender a huge portion of their wealth before they're allowed to leave the country then. If they try to leave anyway, arrest them. Not that this would be a likely outcome anyway. Like others have pointed out, they tend to grow attached to their surroundings like everyone else does. The point is that there's workaround solutions that could easily be instituted in that situation to force them to pay what they owe.
[QUOTE=Govna;51809153]Force them to surrender a huge portion of their wealth before they're allowed to leave the country then. If they try to leave anyway, arrest them. [/QUOTE] This is a joke, right?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51809033]They won't. Minnesota raised taxes on the rich and those fears didn't materialize.[/QUOTE] I think that fear is overstated. Personally I find moving a incredible hassle and I'm a poor student, I can't imagine how it is with a decent disposable income.
[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;51809213]This is a joke, right?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Govna;51809153]The point is that there's workaround solutions that could easily be instituted in that situation to force them to pay what they owe.[/QUOTE] [editline]12 February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;51810614]And you dont see a problem with going "oh you want to leave the country? Give us all of your money now"[/QUOTE] Not if you're trying to leave the country just because you don't want to pay what you owe in taxes despite the fact you're a millionaire or billionaire, no. There's no excuse. You have more money than the rest of us do, that gives you more power than the rest of us have; therefore, you will be held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of us, and you will be expected to contribute more back into society with your money. You have every means of doing so, and you have no valid reason not to-- especially nowadays with the middle class shrinking out of existence and a handful of people at the top controlling the same amount of wealth that a huge number of us at the bottom together have. That's not right. In other words: it's only fair that the rich be expected to pay higher taxes than the rest of us do, and if they have a problem with that... well, that's too bad. You will do it, or else we will punish you. That's how it should be. It's a very simple way to run things, and it isn't hard to understand as far as social contracts go. There's no need to make things overly-complicated here like so many people seem intent on doing.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;51808778]they'll just move out of the us[/QUOTE] The US is in the wonderful position of being so desirable economically that businesses simply can not afford to up and leave. The most they can do is move their business assets out of country, but if we reformed our tax code to prevent taxable assets from being shuffled out of country to avoid taxes, then they'd actually have to choose between paying their taxes or losing access to the US market. And they'd overwhelmingly choose the taxes. So yeah, maybe they will just move out of the US if all we do is raise taxes- but that's not an unsolvable problem.
[QUOTE=ironman17;51809053]GENIUS. Trap them by making it too costly to pull out, THEN we move in for the kill like a pack of clever girls.[/QUOTE] poor rich people! they'll starve without 3 percent of their 10 million dollar house's value!
That is if you are wealthy enough to even live in San Francisco in the first place.
Just because someone has a property worth millions doesn't mean they're rich my any means. A small business could very well have a property worth that or more while the owners still only make a modest middle class wage. Big corporations are one thing but this would just suffocate small business even further out of existence. It's clear everyone here advocating such a measure has never tried to do anything but work for someone else.
Can't wait for Republicans on cspan to cry bout it
-snip woah i fucked up lol-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.