General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf the rich HAD to give some of their money back, where would you prefer it go?
Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Rather than a straight tax increase, say the Government said that those making more than $5 million a year had 4 choices as to where they could send 10% back. Where would you prefer that money go?
6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
The Arts and other cultural projects (symphonies, museums, etc) | |
0 (0%) |
|
Social services/charities, etc | |
1 (17%) |
|
A special fund for Infrastructure improvement | |
0 (0%) |
|
To the government as part of their taxes | |
5 (83%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Catherina
(35,568 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Preferably fruit and nut bearing species to provide local food security, increase biodiversity, and improve local carbon capture potential or land.
Feed the world and heal the world
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)Hasn't it been shown that the rich almost always donate to charities that benefit themselves?
Art museums and opera houses as opposed to food banks and shelters?
I would expect that if they had a choice it would result in the same thing.
charlie and algernon
(13,447 posts)Particularly limit it to those that do help the poor and disadvantaged.
As for the first choice, while I do agree that it's more important to spend money on food banks and shelters, I also think we absolutely do need to keep funding the arts. And I'd much rather the rich give their 10% to the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra as oppsed to getting the latest private jet.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)because it would both employ people, who would spend money in their community, and it would improve the community. Dumping it into a tax pool would just send more money to the Pentagon.