Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

On the CBCEarlyEdition, Mayor Ken Sim said: “Stephen, let me ask you a different question. Can you name a government anywhere that is so efficient it cannot find a couple of percent in savings?” Because in Vancouver, Mayor Ken Sim and the ABC Majority are doing exactly what residents...

12,525 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Today was an incredibly important day for Vancouver. Mayor Ken Sim and your ABC Vancouver team moved forward a public safety plebiscite that will give YOU a voice on October 17th, and the opportunity to vote for tangible change in our city. Tangible change in how we enforce open-air hard drug use in our shared public spaces. And tangible change in how healthcare is delivered to people suffering from severe mental health and addiction disorders, getting people the real medical care they need, breaking the revolving door of crisis, and easing pressure on our emergency rooms. Unfortunately, Councillors Sean Orr, Pete Fry and Rebecca Bligh chose to walk out of the Council meeting rather than participate in the vote. They didn’t abstain. They didn’t vote no. They walked out. That’s disappointing. They were elected to represent Vancouverites. That means listening to the full debate, participating in the democratic process, and casting a vote — even when the issue is difficult or you disagree. Mayor Sim and your ABC Vancouver team chose a different path. We stayed. We listened. We debated. We voted. And now Vancouverites will have their say. We believe there is a strong majority of people in this city who have felt unable to speak up about what they see happening in their neighbourhoods and who know the status quo isn’t working. On October 17th, their voices will be heard. Now we have an opportunity to seize that future together, to re-establish social expectations around hard drug use in our shared public spaces and get people suffering from severe mental health and addiction disorders the real help they need. This is your city. This is your voice. And now, this is your choice. #ABCVancouver #PublicSafety #Vancouver

Mayor Ken Sim

15,342 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten