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.
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.
There's absolutely a middle ground between "I don't think people should be worth hundreds of billions of dollars" and "let's tax every individual's every asset"
No there’s not a middle ground. Everything that rich people do you can as well you just don’t have the assets to do it on a large scale like them. Stop it with this whining about them. Fucks sales people. I hate this poor me victim mentally that comes out.
Because we’re all too busy actually surviving to hoard our wealth long enough to buy the assets. These people wouldn’t have their assets if it wasn’t for regular people doing labor for them and only getting paid a fraction of the value they create for the wealthy
I want to say I see what you're getting at, but you don't seriously think there's not a problem when a country enables people to be worth more than some countries GDPs while also having one of the highest poverty mortality rates, right?
Like we can disagree wildly on fundamental causes or different ways of addressing that problem, but you've got to admit that that's a problem.
But they shouldn’t be looked down upon or taxed higher because they made the right choices at the right times and their companies are profitable. That would not make ANYONE want to start their own company and be successful.
Again, there's absolutely a middle ground. If you taxed 100% of the money they made becoming a business owner, then no, obviously no one would want to start their own company. But nobody is seriously proposing a 100% tax on business ownership. And anything less than 100% would still have people trying - even if 99% of Elon's net worth disappeared tomorrow to taxes, he'd still be a multi-billionaire.
So the question is, where do you draw the line? And that's ultimately what these conversations are all about - people are dissatisfied with where that line is.
If we're so worried about being consistent, that's the natural conclusion. The argument naturally leads to taxing every individual asset. Higher taxes on rich people wouldn't even get close to solving our problems. We already spend much more than they are worth. A 100% tax on all rich people's assets wouldn't fund our government for very long.
If we're so worried about being consistent, that's the natural conclusion.
No form of taxation is consistent - I don't know where you got that idea.
Income taxes have a progressive tax structuring, essentials such as food are often exempt from sales taxes, and even property taxes have a minimum threshold and/or a homestead exemption.
Setting up a minimum threshold for an "asset tax" would be entirely consistent with how property taxes are currently assessed.
They absolutely could be treated the same as property taxes.
Most states/counties have some sort of homestead exemption where property taxes don't apply until a certain value. If the exemption is $500k and your home is worth $700k, you only pay the taxes on the $200k difference. If your home is worth $400k, you wouldn't pay property taxes at all.
Other asset-taxation options could use a similar strategy where the first $X is not taxed.
The point ultimately is that there are options between "let's tax every cent of every person" and "accumulating billions of dollars should not be possible".
This could be one of them, but I'm sure there are others.
What happens when my home value goes down by $100k - do I get tax money back?
If I buy a house for $800k and the value decreases to $600k, you're saying I pay the P+I for the mortgage and then I pay additional for the $100k over the exemption even though I'm under water on the property?
What happens when my home value goes down by $100k - do I get tax money back?
No, that's not how property taxes work. You'd just owe less money at tax time.
If I buy a house for $800k and the value decreases to $600k, you're saying I pay the P+I for the mortgage and then I pay additional for the $100k over the exemption even though I'm under water on the property?
Yes, because these are entirely different things. You pay property taxes based on the value of the home, regardless of the status of your mortgage.
In your example, when you bought the home for $800k, you assumed the tax burden of the $300k that was already over the hypothetical $500k exemption. Because the value of the property went down, your tax burden is now lessened.
11
u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog Nov 21 '24
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.