Comments by "TheEvertw" (@TheEvertw) on "Berlin's Plan to Seize Homes from Landlords: Nationalising Property - TLDR News" video.

@acarriere8534 A wise government taxes the rich to support the poor. Unlike the rich, the poor immediately return that money into the economy, so everybody gets richer. If a government allows the rich to accumulate wealth without bound (as has happened in e.g. the USA), they will squeeze the poor so living conditions and wealth for everybody will diminish. The USA is currently a stain on the world for how many of its people struggle from day to day. This is economics 1.0.1. As the Dutch say: "Geld moet rollen!"
12
Exactly. Progressive taxing on property held, with perhaps an exception for non-profit organisations. Like, 4% when owning up to 1M€, 6% between 1 and 5 M€, and up to 50% for 50M€ and up. And for holding companies, the same tariffs yet again on the properties of their subsidiaries.
10
@MrTrevorDidier What you say is absolute nonsense. The main reason the USA is such a mess today is because they do not pay enough taxes to e.g. maintain their infrastructure or schooling system. Before you reply "The USA is the greatest nation on earth" you should do some research. It used to be the only developed nation with a declining life expectancy, but now the UK has joined it. Not coincidentally, the UK also taxes the wealthy far too little.
7
Plebiscite just means "put it before the citizens, the plebs".
2
That happens in most countries. For example when a new highway is planned in my country, the lots over which it is to run are first bought at the public market, but if there are some people who refuse to sell, they are expropriated.
2
That is because these referenda are not a base for serious policy. They are usually the hobby project of some pressure group. As a result, with most referenda the public gets very unbalanced and emotion-laden information and generally lead to terrible decisions. Like the Brexit referendum. And for instance this referendum. As explained, the whole principle proposed in the referendum is probably illegal. This should never have been a referendum at all. A referendum on a point of policy proposed by serious politicians, prepared by impartial and/or mixed experts that clearly explain all the pros and cons, checked by legal experts, as in Switzerland (as I understand it), that is fine. But not these publicly requested referenda prepared by pressure groups. They have the same value as a protest march.
2
For private citizens, YES. For large corporations, NO. But the solution is not expropriation. It is to progressively tax large corporations until getting bigger (or owning more houses) doesn't pay anymore. There must be a point where owning an extra house will cost you more in taxes than it will bring you in revenue, e.g. at 100 houses. The problem with corporations becoming too big is that they also get too much power.
1
Great point. Brexit 2016 was an advisory (non-binding) referendum, except that the Tory government acted as if it was not. Which is unfair: many people didn't vote for or against Brexit because the couldn't be bothered, and the information provided before the referendum was mostly false ("Project Fear", "Britain has enough of Experts"). A binding referendum would / should have been taken much more seriously. Now there will be several decades of severe hardship in Britain, before they rejoin again....
1
@smoothie9931 No it was not binding. I don't understand why some people maintain it was. I was around in 2016, and remember how it was organised and what each side said about it. Everything the Brexiteer side said turned out to be lies, and everything they derided as "Project Fear" is turning out to be true. Certainly within 10 years, perhaps as soon as 2 years, you will be begging to be re-admitted to the SM / CU. The Pound will be so devalued you will be glad to adopt the Euro. Re-admittance to the EU will take longer, as you will need to show yourselves trustworthy first.
1
@smoothie9931 you want me to quote you the brexit law? It was advisory. Lies? How about that text on the brexit bus? How much extra was going to the NHS again? How much did it get in actuality? Brexit has greatly affected your memory, it is not for nothing we call you Brexitards.
1
@smoothie9931 OK, I read the Bill text, it does not mention any consequences for the referendum, i.e. Parliament is absolutely free to do with the outcome of the referendum as it pleases. This is in accordance with the UK constitution which holds that Parliament is sovereign, not the people. I don't know where you get the idea that the referendum was binding, the UK constitution does not have a binding referendum, so unless it was explicitly in the Bill, this was also not a binding referendum. Next time you claim it was, please specify article and verse where it says it is, you have zero authority to make any such claim without such a reference.
1
@smoothie9931 Do you actually understand the difference between an advisory and a binding referendum? With a binding referendum, Parliament and the government are required by Law to act according to the outcome of the referendum. The UK does not have such a Law, ergo all referenda are advisory unless specifically made binding by an act of Parliament. Parliament / the Government may still act on an advisory referendum if they so feel inclined, but are not required to.
1
@smoothie9931 You over-estimate the value of a Tory promise. There is a big difference between politicians promising to uphold the outcome of a referendum, and a Law requiring said politicians to uphold that outcome. Ask the Swiss, they have real binding referenda.
1
@smoothie9931 You can trust Tories to fill their own pockets at the expense of the poor.
1
Expropriation does not mean there should be no compensation. It just means that ownership is taken way without your consent. In "free" countries, this usually happens with a good compensation. Otherwise in many cases the subject would be bankrupted as a result of the expropriation.
1
Mostly because what the People want is illegal...
1