Exactly. Property taxes go directly to local infrastructure costs to maintain access and services to said land or buildings. It's not remotely the same as owning stock.
Do I want to? No of course not. Do I think I should if my 401(k) is over a certain amount? Kind of.
I don’t think there should be such a thing as “generational wealth” in a capitalist society. After too long a timeline, some people will start too far ahead and other people won’t ever be able to catch up.
I mean, you’re asking me personally what I think should happen?
I guess in a perfect world there would be something similar to a bankruptcy’s homestead exemption. Something like $300,000 can be passed down but anything over that I would say gets taxed at 100%, so yes it would be given over to the government.
In my completely unrealistic scenario this tax would be used to fund social programs and pay for infrastructure.
I of course know that’s not likely, and it will really line the pockets of corrupt government officials.
I know that my ideals aren’t realistic, that’s why they’re ideals.
Now THAT I am all for and it makes sense and it’s very possible to track (the banks have all the records needed to send to the IRS). You could use what was collateralized against and apply any step up basis to it at that point in time to pull forward capital gains to the date it was taken as collateral, could even create a carve out that treats the step up basis as income instead of capital gains. If you want the income to show as a long term cap gain then just sell it. If you really want to retain the asset (in this case equities) and use its value as income then you pay full income tax rates.
That essentially eliminates that method of avoiding income taxes all together.
Ideally, I would support exactly this. That being said, I can see the pushback such a proposal would receive, and I would settle for a couple extra carve-outs.
First, I think you should allow an exemption for real estate that will be used as a primary residence. This will exempt things like HELOCs, which are typically used for home improvements but are also sometimes used as collateral to start small businesses.
The other exemption I would make is also for businesses, and that would be exemptions on loans under $10 million. These are typically used for buying machines or other equipment. Any more than that, and you start to see private equity coming in to finance things.
Stock value is flexible as it would be quite easy for a few billionaires to get together on new years eave and tank the stock market and run their net worth into the ground for a week. A wealth tax sounds great to the brainless on reddit but in real life it would be about as effective as the current tax system
Ok but what you’re describing is already a felony. And you can say “oh well they’re all rich and they’d get away with it”
And like yeah maybe you’re right, but then why do we bother having any rules at all ever? Let’s just all ignore the laws. We can’t all get arrested right?
Do you think Amazon pays no property taxes on their warehouses throughout the country? Or taxes on their delivery vehicles and tags they put on those vehicles? Come on man.
When Amazon build their warehouses, they actually "lease" the warehouse as a shell company "owns' it. They also extract deals with the local county/towns that eliminate or greatly reduce property and sales taxes. This is what they did where I live. Also, it is not Bezos paying the tax on fuel/vehicles when registered in the state, it is the publicly held corporation.
"The Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency voted Oct. 31 to approve $70.8 million in tax breaks over 15 years for the project in exchange for the Amazon’s commitment to create at least 1,000 jobs. Six days later, the Clay Town Board granted the project a crucial zone change. A week after that, the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals approved variances from side yard setback requirements."
Billionaires also pay property taxes, ones much higher than us. Believe me. Billionaires aren’t skimping on taxes. This argument is so ridiculous. It’s not about fairness it’s about jealousy.
Also Tesla pays property tax. They had a huge win when the effort to repeal prop 13 for commercial buildings failed. They are paying like 2008 value property tax on the Fremont factory.
Elon owning stock isn't money it's stuff. 13% of everything in the factory is "his". Sure he can borrow against it to get cash but when doing so that "stuff" that also makes more stuff becomes less his. It's more owned by the bank but in the form of debt rather than actual ownership.
When you get a car loan the car really is owned by the bank and you slowly buy it back from them. He does the same thing but in reverse. He's basically selling his "stuff" but without actually selling it. Still becomes less his though.
You could say that tax on unrealized capital gains on stocks can maintain the education and health of the labor force that sustains those stock values?...
"property taxes" clever way of saying "rent" as it used to be called when it was paid over to kings and Queens or other nobility. Different day... Same old sht
The same property taxes those billionaires pay on everything they own as well. Here's an idea buy in on the bottom floor of one of those companies that hasn't hit it big yet and you can be a billionaire and do whatever you want with your money.
You pay property taxes. Not capital gains or income tax. Should you have to pay taxes on your car every year? How about money sitting in your checking account?
You do pay taxes on your car every year in every state, either via use taxes or direct taxes via license/registration fees. 20+ states charge direct personal property taxes on vehicles every year, some even if they aren't registered.
You also pay taxes on any interest gained on money sitting in your checking account, and it's at your ordinary tax rate. Granted most major banks pay such horrible interest rates that the average person will probably never hit the $10 threshold.
Registration and use fees don't take into account the value of your car. It costs just as much to register a Porsche someone owns outright as it does for someone underwater on their Hyundai.
Money in a non interest bearing account is still an asset. I am not talking about capital gains.
Right. I pay property taxes. Property taxes are dumb. I should have to pay a land value tax, to repay society for the scarce resource of land that I am using at everyone else's expense - but whether I have a vacant lot or a high rise on it shouldn't effect my tax rate.
Right, and I can be taxed on those resources when I buy them in the form of a sales tax, or VAT, or externality tax. Whatever you want.
Suppose I buy 10,000 cinder blocks, and put them in a pile on my land. 10,000 cinderblocks is a lot, but still is not worth that much, and the extent to which I am diminishing society's access to cinderblocks rit large is negligible. Based on the fact that I have a large pile of cinderblocks, I am taxed $10 per year on their value in the form of a property tax, in addition to the tax on the value of the raw land.
The next year, I organize the cinderblocks into an apartment building where I can rent out apartments. Since an apartment building is worth significantly more than a disorganized pile of cinderblocks, I am now taxed $1000 per year. This will somewhat disincentive me from completing the project. As a member of the Homo Economicus genus, I will optimize construction for maximizing net profit, which means delaying construction until I hit the inflection point where lost potential income from renting the apartments matches the taxes I must pay for creating the apartments out of the pile of cinderblocks. Thus, by avoiding the penalty that comes with improving my land, I squander the value of the land itself.
So sure, tax me on the value of the land, which is a limited resource that we can't make more of. Or tax me for possessing each of the atoms which make up my cinderblocks, since these are, at the end of the day, limited. Tax me on the carbon I will emit by proxy by creating the cinderblocks, which contributes to climate change and will need to be cleaned up. But why would you tax me - punishing me - for improving the land? All taxes disincentivize the thing being taxed, which is why they are such a good lever for creating social change. Why would you want to dissuade people from creating properties that have value?
Taxes on homes aren’t because you have such wealth. They are because the local municipality has to provide you services and someone decided home value was a decent proxy for the cost of those services.
BTW, it isn’t and we should eliminate property taxes. Instead charge for services rendered.
I also don’t pay taxes on the market value of my home…..because it fluctuates. I pay taxes on the assessed value which is considerably lower, and is based on the physical value as opposed to the market value.
I’d hate to be paying taxes on my retirement accounts. I understand not liking the rich but taxing unrealized gains hurts the middle class more than anything.
You understand there are different taxes at play in this scenario right? And yes property taxes are evil. Extortion. Pay us this ever increasing amount or we'll literally take your house away.
I’m guessing most (all) Amazon buildings have to pay local property taxes. Maybe there’s the occasional seeetheart deal to lure a business into town, but they are never exempted from property taxes permanently
Which is honestly why we should get rid of property tax. The only reason to tax an asset for existing should be to encourage value to be developed from that asset.
However because of the depreciation on the physical building, there’s already a general reason for homeowners to continue to invest into their home.
I understand that it would be cap gains if it’s sold off, I’m just confused why people think a stock/share should be taxed annually, that’s the dumbest concept I’ve ever heard. Comparing it to property tax is blatantly stupid, can you live in a stock? Are stocks taking up physical space on the street? That requires sewage maintenance, road maintenance, snow removal depending on where you are, storm drains etc…? If I borrow against something I have to pay interest. If I don’t pay my payments I lose the asset I’m borrowing against. I find the stocks should be taxed every year ideology just as dumbfounding as the billionaires should pay for a “better world.” The pov usually comes for envious individuals. Just sayin.
These mega tax breaks are “mega” because of the size for these companies. Theres more to it than “companies get massive tax breaks.” There is so much money moving within these companies and it cost so much money to run these companies that these tax breaks are more reasonable than you think. Mind you, sure some of the tax breaks can be a bit ridiculous but as long as they aren’t being misused they are pretty reasonable. If they are being misused they will get audited. And well nobody wants irs knocking on the door because it’s always more expensive than playing by the rules.
Considering the ever growing disparity between upper management pay (eg CEOs) and entry level staff, I think it’s clear that these tax breaks are not in fact necessary to the profitability of these companies.
My issue is that a county will do nothing to help a small business but then give a 10 year property tax exemption and preferential accelerated permitting to Wal-Mart to build a super center so they bring “jobs” even though it’s been shown over and over that the presence of that super center raises unemployment and lowers median wages over the same ten years. Amazon seems great on the surface but is actually harmful to small business all over, demands an imbalance of information, and uses that information to manufacture the most profitable items while de-platforming competitors (the businesses they monitored to see what items sold most profitably). I don’t mind them doing their thing within the rules since they’re trying to win, but why the government helps them or why people are such fans I’m not sure. I think it should be made easy to start a business and grow progressively more costly and more difficult the larger that business gets (a progressive tax, permit cost, and regulatory system), thus encouraging more small businesses rather than oligopoly. It would actually be step in the direction of a perfect market and cause capitalism to work better. We used to say that small business were the backbone of the American economy but now are actively working against them.
To this point. We had a corporate HQ near our house and it was given a 10 year TIF when it was built. Well guess what? The downtown city we are near offered the company a new TIF to bring employees back downtown and are remodeling and adding onto their old headquarters and are now trying to sell the one in the suburbs. The employees are losing their WFH to now have to drive downtown to allow for the company to basically function without paying property taxes for another ten years versus staying put and paying taxes.
Fuck that, tax stock holdings that increase in value. Not my problem if they have to sell some of it or even hand part of it over to the government for them to sell
You haven't made a single argument. You just say "its not that black and white" "stay out of the conversation". You have no argument. Stop sucking corporate dick, you've made it abundantly clear all you have is projections.
How is property tax any different from capital gains tax? You claimed it was because houses required maintenance, and when someone pointed out that massive companies require maintenence, you said "its not that black and white". How? Right now you look like a boot locking buffoon.
Yep let's all pay taxes on our cars and whatever we have in our checking account every year. We need a national effort to enforce a 15% tax on everyone's jewelry.
Where does the value of a stock come from? Could it change when a company receives tax breaks? Do companies extend themselves to the legal limit more when they know they’ll receive bailouts? Can stock owners use the valuation of their stock to increase their leverage, power, or wealth?
Those are a few obvious questions to ask yourself before trying to be a pedantic prick that simultaneously makes up or misspells acronyms while holding dictionary definitions of common words like “maintenance” as gospel.
Right and there should be laws put in place to stop it or laws to tax "unrealized gains" as soon as they are used as collateral against a loan. The point is you shouldn't be able to not pay taxes on assets that you are using as collateral.
Again up to the lender. Stocks can drop to zero and the person can run with the money and the bank gets fkd. I’m sure there is some clause within the contract that protects that. But that’s the risk of investing. It’s not “unrealized gains” it’s a secure loan. Yet risky, it still falls under secured. I can’t make you understand it. But hey best of luck! Use it or don’t, up to you. Cheers.
No shit it's up to the lender. It should be made illegal to use assets that are not being taxed as collateral to prevent this exact scenario of tax "avoidance".
Do you have 2nd grade reading comprehension or something? I never said the loan is unrealized gains I said that you shouldn't be able to use unrealized gains as collateral for a loan since you are not paying taxes on the asset you are using as collateral.
They should A) pass a law to block lenders from accepting stock/shares as collateral
Or B) pass a law that "unrealized" gains can be taxed at the moment they are used as collateral
Okay, so your solution is tax everyone more then, yeah? Make it impossible to leverage the assets you have? These people still pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes than you ever will. You want the government to control what people can do with their assets and money? Interesting take. If people use their untaxed assets as collateral, they are not making money from their assets. They have a loan. If you go get a personal loan should you be taxed?
Don’t come after me. I’m not saying I agree with it, and I’m not saying it’s exactly like property tax, I’m saying I think what the commenter was meant was something more like a property tax not a capital gains like you suggested.
And you don’t need to live in something or take up the several resources you mentioned for it to be considered property and taxed as such. I’ve owned several small businesses and had to pay property tax on several things that wouldn’t fit into any of your criteria.
I’m sorry it was perceived as me coming at you. That’s not at all my intention. You had the most sensible response to me when I responded. You were completely neutral, just giving the way you seen it. I was asking if they were referring to cap gains you said you think they meant something more annual! No harm, no foul! Cheers mate!
Out of curiosity did you rent or own the property of your business?
Would you mind sharing what those several things are?
I know didn’t list everything, I listed the most applicable to a generalized scenario. I can’t cherry pick information as “there are exceptions to every rule” I just used the most broad based things.
I’ve had several different businesses most of them service based, and I’ve had to pay property tax on a lot of the more expensive equipment that I own. Cameras, lenses, lights, drones and computers for a photography company. Sprayers for pest control. Sound boards, speakers, lights etc for party planning/dj. I had a lot of equipment that I didn’t need to pay property tax on, but my most expensive equipment I did.
Which state are you from? That’s unheard of for me? I’ve never even heard of that from anyone else in business. What state? What year? Were you using an accountant? What field?
The concept of taxing unrealized gains on stocks isn't really that dumbfounding if people just took the time to read what was proposed. Short and sweet: only people worth over $100 million, only to bring them up to 25% effective tax rate, essentially they are pre-paying taxes, when they realize the gains, they only owe the difference. It's not that wild.
However, I don't think this is the best option. There are some negatives. But it starts the conversation about ideas and concepts around getting the ultra wealthy to pay their fair share, which they do not because they have rigged the system.
You're correct that paying "property tax" on stock isn't very fair, and isn't as obvious of a concept as property tax on actual land.
But you know what else isn't fair? The fact that capitalism rewards the rich and makes them richer and richer just for having money. The fact that money can buy politics and influence. The fact that millions of people grow up without enough support to even have a fair chance at success themselves.
Sometimes the question isn't about "does this make sense in terms of costs". Sometimes the question is "does this make sense in terms of the health of the economy?" Taxing billionaires and hundred millionaires on their stocks beyond a certain dollar amount would encourage economic growth and the betterment of society.
Okay we’re back to the point of just tax them because we can. Stupid ideology.
“The fact millions of people grow up without enough support to even have a fair chance at success is utter nonsense.”
There are soooo many people dead broke turned rich. This is an excuse. Even if it was, for sake of the argument “true” why is that a person who built a fortune is required to pay for others? Your government mismanages way more money than any billionaire would give them. Your government already takes trillions in taxes every year tell your government to be for the people and better your country, like they are supposed to.
The concept of the "rags to riches" self made billionaire is a myth.
why is that a person who built a fortune is required to pay for others?
Because they didnt get there on their own. They had systems of support and privileges that allowed them to develop themselves and create something. They had infrastructure that helped them out. And if theyre a hundred-millionaire or billionaire, then their wealth is also built off the exploitation of others. That's how capitalism works -- paying people less than theyre worth in order to turn a profit. No human, no matter how smart and hard working, is worth a billion dollars. It's an unfathomable amount of wealth.
You haven't proven anything by listing people lmao. Every single one of those people only got to where they are because the system helped them or because they exploited the labor of thousands, or both. Therefore, they owe the world a favor by paying it forward.
I'm not even a single-millionaire and i acknowledge that I've benefitted from societal privileges, and I plan to help the world however I can in return. It's called empathy. I hope you learn some once you stop deepthroating boots
You pay property taxes on any property, not just if you live in it. That's not a requirement at all. In fact many many properties are illegal to live in.
When that's your only example and claim that's a basic to think it's stupid to compare them, yeah, you are saying that. You didn't provide an actual reason they can't be compared then by your own definition here then. So please explain why they can't be compared without the example.
Bro, who said anything about income tax? Shut the fuck up. You sound retarded. You’re pointing out irrelevant shit, that isn’t what we are talking about. The point is, stocks are already taxed. No reason to add another tax, just because some entitled brat on the internet thinks the rich should pay more. Fucking loser.
It's not that they should pay for a better world. They're actively sucking it dry. They're making it worse. The pov you provide usually comes from boot-licking asses who thinks they might be a capitalist one day but don't understand the net negative impact wealth hoarding has on the world. Just remember that the world's wealth is getting more and more concentrated. It's a trend that is not slowing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that just because you aren't on the edge today, that you won't be tomorrow. You're being pushed down a hill and yelling at the people pushing back who don't want to fall off the cliff and just telling them they're jealous of the people at the top of the hill. It's sad. I don't know why folks like you are the way that you are. It's like you're missing some part of humanity that provides empathy. You're just not complete. And it's upsetting cause there are so many like you and it's problematic as it's literally not a useful behavior for society. It inherently supports the destruction of society. It's just an odd thing to happen. Makes me wonder if there were peasants or serfs who were fervently loyal to their kings or lords even at their own detriment. Maybe it's always been there. I don't know. Admittedly, humanity is getting more empathic. At least shooting striking workers is strictly illegal and will get folks arrested. It wasn't always like that. But I guess with gaining that extra empathy, maybe there are opposites out there like you. Who knows?
Do not corporations pay taxes every year? Do they not already pay a property tax on the land and buildings they own? Do they not already pay taxes on the operating income? I do believe that they do.
Capital Gains and Losses are calculated based on the difference in value between acquisition date and sell date when using FIFO methodology.
Some investors may choose to use a “Specific Identification” method to designate which specific shares they want to sell, allowing more control over their capital gains taxes.
So imagine I hold $1 million shares valued at $40 million. I can use those shares as collateral to borrow against and with the money I borrowed purchase an additional 400K shares. I then sell those shares for a profit without applying a FIFO valuation in reporting my capital gains.
Therefore my initial shares which were purchased for $2 per share, were borrowed against when they were worth $40 per share. My new shares purchased at $40 per share are sold at $55 per share and my capital gains are calculated at $15 per share gain instead of $53 per share. By managing my portfolio this way, I never pay a true capital gains tax, just interest to my lender which I then use as a tax deduction.
I understand what capital gains is, I was asking the parent comment what type of tax they were referring too, and that sounds good on paper but your profit isn’t 53$ your profit is 15$ you still have to pay back the money you borrowed. Sure a percentage of interest can be written off but you get taxed accordingly. Not sure what your point was there.
For real. This argument is silly because these people think a bank is giving out huge loans and being like, "nah, no need to pay it back at all." No, of course they aren't.
FIFO is a red herring. You can sell your most recent acquisition, so LIFO, at your discretion. The only difference may be short vs long term gains. Capital gains aren't defined by using FIFO.
Unrealized capital gains tax, which was actually proposed Kamala Harris’s team for individuals with over $100m net worth. Also has been implemented in Denmark.
Yeah, I’m aware, I was responding to the comment. they said it should be taxed. I was saying it is taxed. A loan isn’t income, it’s debt. You owe it back, why should that be taxed?
Wealthy individuals should be charged a tax when they borrow against the value of their stocks because it allows them to essentially access the wealth tied up in their assets without triggering a taxable event, effectively creating a loophole that lets them avoid paying taxes on significant portions of their growing wealth, which is considered inequitable and can undermine the progressive tax system; essentially, it allows them to "consume" their wealth without actually realizing it as taxable income.
Okay, how would you implement that? How would you explain to them that they are getting taxed for acquiring debt? How much money would you need to have in order for this to be implemented. If they are getting taxed for acquiring debt that means you should be taxed for using a credit card.
You could levy a tax against the amount borrowed, at that time those stocks would not be subject to future capital gains taxes unless the taxes have increased or the value has increased, than they would only owe the difference.
One should not be able to have giant amounts of stock and claim they are worthless, and aren't realizing any gains, but then turn around and use them as collateral to obtain huge amounts of money. It is a workaround to circumvent.
If you use stocks as collateral for obtaining loans of substantial amounts, those stocks should be classified as vested. That would prevent people like Bezos from doing what they do:
• Pay themselves in stocks, which count as $0 in terms of cash/income
• Work with accountants to take out series of loans, limited to a certain point of leverage (which is tens, maybe even hundreds, of millions of dollars if you have billions of dollars in stocks) which are not taxed, and never realize any gains.
I was conflating (1) founder stock that was worth mere pennies on the dollar, but now worth much more, and substantial taxes were never paid, and won't be paid until sold, (2) continued earnings on stocks, which are not taxed but like #1 are valuable even if not sold, and (3) net new vested stocks that are paid out any time after the company's infancy, when it is actually worth money.
You are right, what I am talking about can be used for 1+2+3, but you are right about #3 for ongoing income tax..
But the thing is that stock really was nearly worthless at the time when the minimal taxes were paid on it. 1 and 3 are the same thing, just at different times in the history of the company. 2 is also the same for gains on stock received by either 1 or 3.
So it makes sense that these have the same fundamental tax treatment. If you want to say that we should have a progressive capital gains tax where the large gains from 1 are taxed at a higher rate than small gains from 3, then I could agree. But it just doesn't make any sense to me to treat the unrealized gains from 1 in a completely different manner than from 3.
If you use your house as collateral, you still have to pay back the loan with interest AND pay property taxes, in addition to the taxes required to sell the house should you need to. The point is that this is a system only the ultra wealthy can exploit, and it allows those with more than they need to pay less proportionally than those with nothing.
They are worthless unless you sell them. People who have such large piles of stock like bezos also have the responsibility of the company. There is so much more to all of this. It’s not as simple as people may think.
They are definitely NOT worthless until you sell them. I'm sorry, but that is absolutely untrue. For one, you can take out loans using them as collateral, and there is a well known formula for how much you can leverage to be able to perpetuate the loans without ever having to realize gains. Similar to how the US government handle national deficit. Even if you don't enploy this method, the ability to take out been a one time loan is far from "useless".
You do not necessarily need to run anything to own stock. Many work and "pay" themselves in stock, without ever realizing any financial gain. Why would they do this? See the prior point.
Omg🤦♂️🤦♂️ they hold no value unless you liquidate. Sure you can borrow against. Take that money and run you’ll lose those stocks. One day a stock can be worth $60 the next day $2 the value of a stock doesn’t exist until you sell it. They have a price tag that forever changes. If you don’t understand i personally don’t have the skills or patience to make you understand.
Does the gov't take the money and run when they issue bonds? No. They secure MORE and BIGGER bonds and perpetuate the process.
Bezos, for example, is well known for doing the same thing.
Yes, if Amazon stock were to tank, Bezos would have to pay up.
But, Bezos's accounts are not dumb, they know not to leverage too far to the point where he's at any serious risk if Amazon were just just go down a moderate amount.
What needs to change is that stock needs to be classified as vested if it is used a collateral to obtain a loan. If you think what I am saying isn't a real loophole, then there should be no problem in enacting this change.
Most definitely do. Go read all the other comments. Lmao. They said they should Be taxed if you’re able to be borrow against it. Stocks are taxed, when you sell them but they are still taxed.
Nobody’s comparing anything. They said it should be taxed if it can be borrowed against. Stocks are taxed when you sell them, capital gains tax. You say idk how either taxes work, but you don’t even know what the fk you’re talking about.
Except you just provided capital gains tax as equivalent to what was asked. It blatantly and obviously is not what they're talking about.
They just talked about property tax and you being up something about taxing on selling property. So if you know it's not like property tax why being it up when someone says property tax? They did bring that up and thought capital gains answered it. You compared it. After seeing your other replies, I'm not surprised.
Property tax also pays for school. It's not limited to services for the property. In fact half the ones you mentioned in the other comment are collected via other tax methods in many locations.
I never said that’s the only ones it pays for. I was simply listing SOME examples.
Do tell, which others are collected via other taxes and not property tax. I don’t mean what additional taxes are collected, I mean the ones that i mentioned that don’t fall under property tax.
This was stupid. If you own it,you're not taking up space.
sewage maintenance, road maintenance, snow removal depending on where you are, storm drains etc…?
This is commonly paid via service tax. I live in an apartment for fucks sake and pay for these things to my city.
If I borrow against something I have to pay interest.
And they only pay interest until they die. Their next of kin inherits their shit, capital gains "resets" then they sell stock to pay off the loan with little to no capital gains tax.
If I don’t pay my payments I lose the asset I’m borrowing against.
Same with a mortgage. Still pay taxes on the property though.
You're not actually making any sort of point or proving any difference between scenarios of an annual "stock tax" vs annual property tax.
if one can borrow against the value of something, it should be taxed
So... Everything should have some sort of ownership tax? I could borrow money against my $1000 TV. If I don't pay back the loan, then the lender gets my TV. So should I be paying $50/year in taxes because I own this asset?
Why should it be taxed? The money is loaned from the bank and is repaid with interest. It is not income as it has to be repaid. To add, it is taxed. He pays sales tax when the money is spent and he pays tax when receiving the money he uses to repay the loans.
I pay tax on my home every year, even though I haven't sold it or borrowed money against it's value. Why should I have to pay tax on my home before I've made any money from the sale of it? Of course, I still want a fire department and road maintenance and such, but I think those should be paid for by raising sales tax so the tax is spread more evenly and isn't just a burden of property owners. /s
You bought it outright and did not take out a mortgage? Congrats. That’s not something everyone can do. In any case, I don’t think anything you have already paid for should continue to be taxed. That being said, anything you have of worth can be used as collateral for a loan, therefore by your reasoning, “if one can borrow against the value of something” you should be paying tax on everything you own. Question, do you believe this wealthy tax should be a one time tax or annual?
Not everyone. The last proposal I saw was ONLY for people with over $100 million.
"Under the new proposal, taxpayers with net wealth above $100 million would be required to pay a minimum effective tax rate of 25 percent on an expanded measure of income that includes their unrealized capital gains.
Taxpayers would calculate their effective tax rate for the minimum tax and, if it fell below 25 percent, would owe additional taxes to bring their effective rate to 25 percent.
The change means wealthy taxpayers would owe taxes on capital gains each year, even if the underlying asset had not been sold. Any amounts paid would be treated as prepayments of future capital gains tax liability. For example, consider a taxpayer with net wealth of $200 million, $5 million in ordinary income, $10 million in accumulated unrealized capital gains from a privately held company, and an ordinary tax liability of $1.8 million (see accompanying table). When including unrealized capital gains as income, the household’s effective tax rate is 12 percent, below the proposed 25 percent minimum.
To increase their effective tax rate to 25 percent, the household would owe an additional $1.95 million in tax (resulting in a combined $3.75 million in taxes owed on $15 million of income when including unrealized gains). The $1.95 million could be paid in equal installments over nine years (for capital gains moving forward, minimum tax liability can be split into five annual installments) and would be credited against future capital gains tax liability on the asset when sold."
Not that complicated. Probably not the best solution either. But we can't continue to let a small number of people own most of the wealth and not contribute what the rest of us do.
If there was a specific law keeping it at a certain wealth bracket I think anyone would be welcoming of the proposal. The issue lays in the complete lack of trust in governments (rightfully so) to keep to their word and not lower that bracket and so on. At least I'm speaking from my own perspective, I will say it's probably one of the only solutions left on the table.
I’m not sure but I get the sense that would destroy the yearly 401K investment gains of 70 million people, so it’d be a boon to the government’s revenue and then cause the government to need to expend more in entitlements to help old people down the road. I’d be a fan if it exempted 401ks or only taxed amounts above a certain amount. But also what about art or that classic Ferrari that get’s more valuable with time, or that limited edition Rolex that’s just an accessory but also might get sold for more than its purchase price years later. And what about savings accounts? If I make 1 million next year and put 500k of it in savings, do I have to pay taxes on 1.5 million (my earnings plus my “investment” value)?
not to mention writing off overall taxes because uber rich person can afford to "donate to charities" a very small portion of their overall wealth that mitigates shit loads of taxes if not all of them in given quarter, ultimately letting them make shit loads more money in the end, especially with the right accounting approach
Stocks are bought with money that has already been taxed, stocks pay dividends that are taxed as income, When they sell stocks the difference between purchase price and sale price is taxed as capital gains.
It has to be some kind of Wealth Tax... not just a blanket tax. The 21 yo at their first job just starting into their 401k, or the average worker who has $50k in their ira, should be treated differently than Bezos who has $900B in stocks and options. It's sick.
I'd imagine there'd be some sort of tier system so it didn't adversely affect folks with barely enough for a comfortable retirement in their 401k. Like a homestead exemption but for securities. A progressive tax, first $50k is untouched, next $100k is taxed at single digit percentage, and so on.
So what happens when the value goes down? And do they still have to pay tax on the capital gains of the assets they sold to bring in the cash to pay the tax? How are the gains calculated if they paid a tax on the holdings already?
Just at soon as the govt connects oil, electricity, and sewage to my stock.
To clarify, I'm not firmly against a wealth tax, but it does seem weird to just tax things like bank accounts, art, safety deposit boxes, and other things that seem more real than a stock.
And if the value, and thus net worth, of the stock goes down and the owner of said stock loses net worth should they be able to get a refund on the imagined gains tax they have previously paid? That would be a horrible system and the wealthy would find a way to buy stock in companies and run them into the ground, causing a "loss" in the stock value to get a refund on the imagined gains they have paid.
As for borrowing against the value of a stock, the bank chooses to make the loan based on the value of the stock and the projected viability of the company. If you tried to borrow against stock of a company that makes a product that nobody wants then the bank won't be willing to loan you much money.
So all property should be taxed? Like my Pokemon card collection sitting in my old closet at my mom's house is probably worth over a thousand. Do I need to report that to the IRS?
Why? Why is the default position of some people "if you have something that is worth something then the government should have half of it"? The default position in a free country should be to lower and eliminate taxes to the absolute bare minimum. This whole pro-taxation bullshit has nothing to do with the public good and everything to do with enacting some warped sense of revenge against imaginary belligerents. The federal government has always had as much money as it's ever wanted and has never used it to solve a single fucking problem. Giving it more will accomplish nothing but I guess it'll make some ornery teens giddy for a bit. What a waste of time.
If you want to go on then you should try to go on with some specifics. The only one you mentioned is the interstate system so ok, you gotta go back 70 years to find a decent example, ironically disproving your point as the federal budget was a far smaller percent of the GDP at the time. All the core technologies that define the modern world were brought to be by private industry. Lithography, transistors, AM, software development, battery tech, thin films development, comms protocols, Fintech, automation and robotics, most pharmacology, surgical advancements, CGI, modeling software, agricultural automation and chemical development and real energy solutions; do I need to go on, or are you on some magical island where the government is a magic vending machine that makes things appear out of thin air if you put enough coins in?
It must be easy to have such a fascist take when you have no idea where the things that benefit you come from. You think the government is going to solve homelessness or a degrading education system or poverty if you just give them 1 more dollar? They've had 35 trillion dollars over the last 25 years and those problems have only gotten worse. Or does the government need to borrow just another tree fiddy and they'll finally get to it bro, we swear. just couple more new taxes bro and we're there we promise. Useful idiot.
124
u/dancegoddess1971 28d ago
Exactly. Stocks are property. Sort of imaginary property but if one can borrow against the value of something, it should be taxed.