4 ms·
And ultimately the public got a valuable resource. And this is great for the ultra-wealthy, but it would be even greater to allow John or Jane Q. Public to all
by jonhohle 4y ago
And ultimately the public got a valuable resource.
And this is great for the ultra-wealthy, but it would be even greater to allow John or Jane Q. Public to allocate a larger portion of their taxes to specific areas of interest. How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance). Assuming tax rates stayed unchanged, guaranteeing X% of incomes are specifically directed by the people would mean X% has little to no lobby influence.
- listenallyall 4y ago> How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance) Every taxpayer would. Which is why this idea is entirely untenable. Hmmm, would you like your taxes to go to a community park, or to the janitorial supplies budget for a municipal building annex?
- ch4s3 4y agoAs I pointed out, the democratic process at the time was giving us anti-immigrant legislation, the Spanish-American war, literal imperialism, and (edit for typo here)entrenchment of Jim Crow. So factually turning those funds over to the government of 1900 would have been worse than Carnegie building libraries, funding the Tuskegee Institute, and opposing the establishment of oversees colonies.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoNot to pick a nit, but "retrenchment" means reduction. I think the word you meant was "entrenchment". Otherwise, I agree with your statement entirely.
- ch4s3 4y agoYou are correct, I was typing that from my phone. Corrected.