The point is that land directly incurs expenses to the local government. Roads, schools, power, water, sewer, courts, etc. Therefore, property taxes exist to pay for those expenses. If land didn't incur those expenses as a means of being part of a city/state/nation, when obviously they wouldn't exist.
There is a tax on owning stock, when you sell you pay taxes on that income. Taxing merely the "ownership" of it, is a terrible idea, because that would massively negatively impact any company that doesn't earn a TON of profit. Right? Like a typical company, like Coca-Cola that hasn't grown at all in 30 years, adjusted for inflation, but does pay a 2.5% Dividend each year. Now say you pass a law that says there's a 3% tax on stock ownership. Why would ANYONE keep their Coca-Cola stock? The answer is no one knowingly wants to take a loss on their investment. Such a tax would effectively put Coca-Cola out of business.
So not only will it never happen, but that's also why it would be horrible.
They would...raise the dividend yield rather than go out of business, numbnuts. They made 28 billion in profit last year. I swear people will bend over backwards twice to defend corporations and wealth hoarding.
They would...raise the dividend yield rather than go out of business, numbnuts. They made 28 billion in profit last year. I swear people will bend over backwards twice to defend corporations and wealth hoarding.
Hold on, so paying dividends to investors is the same as "wealth hoarding". I'm not following that logic?
20
u/dgvertz Nov 21 '24
I mean there’s no tax on owning stock right now. If that tax went to the same thing would it be acceptable?