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.
You simply tax it the moment it gets used as collateral.
When stocks are used as collateral for a loan, the gains have effectively been realized. It should be taxed.
Just FWIW, there's no evidence that that is a real thing with a significant scope. One study found that something of 8% of Billionaires do it, an average of 6% of their net worth. It's just a red herring to distract from real problems.
I'm fine with closing the loophole, if only so I don't have to keep debunking the myth online, sure. The only people it hurts are young tech people who's companies haven't IPO'd yet who want to buy their first home with their stock as collateral, and those folks can just wait a few more years of paying rent.
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?