> It's too expensive, and all the money is pooled into the top .1% of the population, and we don't tax them, and they are busy building rocket ships, so we don'

> It's too expensive, and all the money is pooled into the top .1% of the population, and we don't tax them, and they are busy building rocket ships, so we don't have any money to fix the issue. There may be more impactful things for the likes of Bezos to invest in than rocketships, but the idea that more wealth redistribution via taxation here would help things needs evidence to back it up. In 2021, when the stock market was at its peak and therefore the net worths of billionaires were the most inflated (for which you can blame government policy, anyway), the wealth of all billionaires in the US were around $4T. Even if you confiscated it all and were magically able to sell all of their interests in various holdings without affecting the price, it would pay for two, maybe three years of Social Security and Medicare; forget the rest of the federal government, let alone all the other levels of government. It's been pointed out elsewhere that San Francisco already spends over a billion dollars a year on programs related to homelessness, or around $57k per homeless person. To put it in context, if the whole country spent the same amount on welfare per capita, it would be $19T, which is 3x the current federal budget and over 80% of the GDP. It's a mind-boggling amount of money which would be completely untenable to sustain over time. You would have to rely on a lot of faith to think that lack of money is what is preventing these problems from being fixed.