A constitutional ammendment would be ideal, or sweeping tax code reform to make basic human needs tax exempt to the private citizens receiving them.
Anything “For-profit” (e.g. businesses, providers or similar) would not be tax exempt.
Additional examples:
a single family home, owned by the family as their primary residence would be exempt from property tax whereas a rental home, second home, duplex or appartment would still be subject to annual property taxes.
This would include things like Medical care/prescriptions, standard utilities and minimum technology necessary to live and function as a productive member of society based on the current state of the world.
This would ensure that those who seek to profit off our basic human needs pay proper dues for doing so, while enabling those who need their services to better afford them.
As an owner of a single family home and no investment properties, I’d just like to register my dissent. I think when you try to manipulate the market like this, you pretty much always have unintended consequences. Reducing taxes is great. Making taxes more locally decided is great. Picking winners and losers between products I regard with deep suspicion. You have to be at least a 10th order thinker to understand the effects your policy will have.
It’s very difficult to see believe you are being genuine based on your very business-oriented language and perspective. It’s not about picking winners and losers. It’s about recognizing that basic human needs are a priority over someone elses stock options, and recognizing that those who wish to profit from paywalling basic human needs should pay their just dues for doing so
I’m not really sure how to engage with someone who starts their response by calling me a fraud for being too “business oriented.” Are you complaining about how I order my thoughts (down to business), or do you just think that anyone who doesn’t want to crush human development must be a plant from some big company trying to sway things? I neither have, nor work for a big company, but honestly I don’t owe you a defense any more than you would owe me a defense for any number of baseless accusations I could level at you based on your perspective.
I also prioritize basic human needs. I just think that they are best met when we allow free markets. Not markets that are designed to protect inefficient stagnation. I think that taxes should be directly tied to the services they provide. If you tax my home, you’d better use that money to protect my home an nothing else. Likewise if you tax a rental property I secure in the future, you’d better use that money to protect that same rental property, not someone else’s home. Obviously there is shared protection, but my point is that one shouldn’t subsidize the other.
I think when you tie taxes to the services they produce and stop redistributing wealth around to try to keep everyone comfortable where they currently live (even if it’s ghost town that no longer produces as much as it costs to maintain), you make it so more people can provide their own basic human needs, because you’ll have more things being produced generally and that will drive up availability and drive down cost.
The “Fair Tax” has a provision for a credit to cover taxes to pay for basic family needs.
Lower income people and families pay essentially $0 taxes. Higher income earners pay the full amount with no credits and no deductions.
It is based on taxes one is expected to pay for their food, clothing and essentials based on family size and family income.
Households making over a certain amount of money, based on where they live, would not be able to receive a credit.
There is a formula based on the minimum income needed to live reasonably comfortably. It is more expensive to live in New York city than Jackson, Mississippi, it would not favor any one demographic over another.
The concept is plain-and-simple, basic morality. Anyone attempting to argue in opposition would be hard pressed to prove their own pure intent.
It’s my unwavering belief that this very simple concept should be foundational across the board as a matter of ethical concern to safeguard our countries financial policies. Sincere ethics are something our politics have been desperately lacking ever since big money hijacked our government.
Regarding policies intended to solve for inevitable issues of regional wealth inequality, I’m trying to target more of a single issue per bill approach when i post and that would be a related concern to adress separately, but i see no way this would impede.
