They could do it by way of graduated homeowners' dues. The poorest homeowners would pay nothing and receive "aid" from the HOA, while the owners of the biggest homes would pay 97% of the total.
Then we would have neighborhood-level egalitarianism...if socialism is the greatest system in the world, then it must be great on every level, including the neighborhood level, right?
Your thoughts?
2007-07-21 13:47:57 · 11 answers · asked by Martin L 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Great analogy.
Just like in real life, it will work perfectly until #2 from the bottom figures out what #1 is getting. Then #3 figures he deserves just as much as #2, and so on and so on. Until you get to the top few in the subdivision that will always work and provide for themselves, regardless of what others are doing. They will stay until they find out they can no longer support the other 97%. Then they will move to the country.
2007-07-21 14:04:41 · answer #1 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If everyone is utilizing the amenities the same, and taking advantage of the services that the HOA is offering, the dues should be the same. Living in most areas that have HOA's, you receive a higher standard of living... for those that can't afford it, it may be time to look at other venues.
2007-07-21 20:52:57 · answer #2 · answered by pedudek 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How many of the answer's are aware of the actual question? This is a description of the US Federal Income Tax. If the point is that the system is inherently unfair and counterproductive, I agree 100%. In case anyone wonders, my income is below that of at least 50% of all US households.
2007-07-21 21:56:16 · answer #3 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If pure socialism (such as you're describing) is the greatest system in the world, then why does it fail so easily on every scale it's implimented?
In your idea, by "taxing" the owners of the largest house - all you're doing is motivating them to leave that area and relocate to another area. Or leave their house and move into a smaller house.
Socialism removes all desire from people to succeed. By taxing those who succeed more to benefit those who don't succeed, what motivation does anyone have to succeed?
If you lived in a society where succeeding resulted in more taxes and not succeeding resulted in more aid - which would you be inclined to aim for?
2007-07-21 20:54:23 · answer #4 · answered by theREALtruth.com 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like the association is headed by Hillary Clinton. She wants to increase taxes for the same purpose and take away incentives for people to earn a good living too. Uh....nothing political here.
2007-07-21 21:31:28 · answer #5 · answered by Derail 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your theory would work. Except in my neighborhood, all the houses are nearly equal in cost. So everyone is fairly close in income levels.
Although, some people live in Condos, so they get less services and pay less dues.
2007-07-21 21:55:17 · answer #6 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Uhh no.
And I'm definately in the lower 'class' as hubby is military and they don't make much.
The rich would really snub the other owners then.
2007-07-21 21:14:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
LOL....I'm thinking what your neighbors will be thinking. If you can't afford the dues you can't afford the neighborhood and it would be best for you to relocate to a neighborhood more suitable to your budgetary needs.
2007-07-21 20:52:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
NOOOOOOO WAAAAYYYYY. Why tax the "richest" in the neighborhood because they are successful.
2007-07-21 20:58:17 · answer #9 · answered by HAGAR!!! 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Take a cold shower and you will feel better.
2007-07-21 20:52:47 · answer #10 · answered by Jane T 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋