tonka737

tonka737 t1_je5qjjy wrote

At the moment you are agreeing to borrow said space for X amount of time. The proposal seeks to extend existing contracts whether or not the lender agrees to lend said space. If you're saying that the lender has too much power in that dynamic then duh. They are the ones lending the property. If you're upset at the rates then blame the city for creating the situation.

IDC if they detest me. I know what the relationship is from the jump.

0

tonka737 t1_ix3e8nb wrote

You're right. I forgot that only ppl who inherit wealth are subject to the progressive tax bracket. In fact, the ppl who inherited their wealth are the majority of the people affected. It also doesn't affect ppl who get a second job/work overtime.

EDOT: Not to mention its none of your business if the target is not an overachiever.

1

tonka737 t1_ix0qkgo wrote

>>Another way of putting this is, "they don't ask as much from small businesses because they know they can't afford it." Like, no shit. It's a fine on a business. It takes economies of scale into account.

Sure, if you ignore the current timeline it can be viewed as "not asking as much from small businesses". A disproportionate fine on a business for what exactly? They are not anymore responsible for keeping their storefront plowed than any other business.

>>I wonder what you think of progressive taxation. Actually, no I don't.

As you have correctly assumed, I don't think ppl should be taxed/penalized based on their levels of success. The government isn't responsible for anybody overachieving and is therefore not entitled to anything more than what any other citizen owes. People already get charged on earnings, sales, luxuries, property, etc. That should suffice to cover what transpires on the land being governed. If you're going to charge somebody more than you will another than that person should/better receive benefits matching/justifying their additional costs. However that's not to say that I'm against very basic social safety nets.

2