Property taxes are different because you're paying for the services that you get as a property owner. Schools, firefighting, police, snow plowing, etc.
Somebody has to pay for these things, and having the people who own the real estate in the community pay for them makes sense. Property taxes allocating these costs based on the value of the property you own in the neighborhood (which proportionately makes these services more valuable for you) also makes sense.
@sh76 saidour trillion dollar yearly investment in military defense protects your other stuff too, not just land.
Property taxes are different because you're paying for the services that you get as a property owner. Schools, firefighting, police, snow plowing, etc.
Somebody has to pay for these things, and having the people who own the real estate in the community pay for them makes sense. Property taxes allocating these costs based on the value of the property you own in the neighborhood (which proportionately makes these services more valuable for you) also makes sense.
@sh76 saidThat's true for owner occupied housing, but for business and rental property owners it depends on how effective they are at passing the cost off to customers, workers and renters.
Property taxes are different because you're paying for the services that you get as a property owner. Schools, firefighting, police, snow plowing, etc.
Somebody has to pay for these things, and having the people who own the real estate in the community pay for them makes sense. Property taxes allocating these costs based on the value of the property you own in the neighborhood (which proportionately makes these services more valuable for you) also makes sense.
The net effect might be quite regressive.
@spruce112358 saidYou're still ignoring the difference between passive or static wealth, and value-added (income) wealth.
Well, as for the notion of "shaving off a piece" some people see getting paid $100 but "shaving off" $20 for gummint equally annoying. 😆
But I would say that the whole idea of Net Worth is NOT to keep things separate, so the value of the gold bar is combined with your stocks, real estate, bank accounts etc. Remember your income per se is not going to be taxed. So sinc ...[text shortened]... ing the theft because you cannot confess that something is missing! That also seems kind of fair. 😆
I see the point that services have to be paid for, somehow or other. Why don't you see the point that taxing static wealth is ultimately dispossession? If you can't afford to pay the tax on your house or farm, what's the govt going to do? Put you into debtors' prison? More likely force you to sell the property to pay the tax. That's dispossession. That's unacceptable, and the reason I favor taxing only value-added income and transactions.
It should appeal to the very people who want to live self-sufficiently, in self-hewn log cabins out in the boondocks, eat their own home-grown beans, and not pay to support their neighbors' college kids' sex-change operations. You know, people like AvJoe here.
It should also appeal to anyone who has little or no income, such as old age pensioners who have finally paid off their mortgages and do not want to be forced into penury by property taxes.
The population is living longer, so expect lots of old age pensioners who have to live on Social Security. Young healthy employed people are the ones whose income taxes actually pay for the Social Security pensions of those already drawing them. That's why it makes sense to tax those who are young and healthy and working, not old age pensioners' houses.
@moonbus saidYES! I am completely ignoring the difference between static wealth and income-derived wealth because there IS no difference between them! They are fungible - one is turned into the other and back again. 😆
You're still ignoring the difference between passive or static wealth, and value-added (income) wealth.
I see the point that services have to be paid for, somehow or other. Why don't you see the point that taxing static wealth is ultimately dispossession? If you can't afford to pay the tax on your house or farm, what's the govt going to do? Put you into debtors' prison? Mo ...[text shortened]... y it makes sense to tax those who are young and healthy and working, not old age pensioners' houses.
@wildgrass pointed out that property taxes are taxes on static wealth. Is that dispossession? Obviously not. 😆
moonbus: "That's why it makes sense to tax those who are young and healthy and working, not old age pensioners' houses." This was true in the 1930's-60's but no longer. Rampantly higher prices for everything due to unchecked inflation (driving by exorbitant gov't spending since the 1970's) means that the richest people in the US are now the Old while the Young are struggling to buy a home and pay for school. Like an iceberg, the system has flipped.
@sh76 saidAs I said, when the entire reason for holding a stock is anticipating a speculative run-up in price, that's not particularly healthy. Dividends are better. 😆
Ponderable explained why your idea is impossible.
Make Elon Musk and Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos liquidate 7% of their companies' stock every year and the prices will plummet and cause sheer chaos.
I have a little Amazon in my 401k. If I knew that Bezos was going to have to sell 7% of his Amazon in April, I'd obviously dump my Amazon now. Come March 31, I'd sell it short. ...[text shortened]... monies in salaries instead of dividends.
Which are now all tax free under your proposal.
Nice.
And btw, taxing net worth or wealth doesn't mean people won't want to be wealthy anymore! What are they going to do - sell everything and go live in a cave gnawing on shoots and foraging berries JUST so they don't have to pay taxes?
I don't think so. The rich who own lots of stuff will grumble, but they'll pay it and thereby fund that government that protects their rich azzes by paying POOR YOUNG PEOPLE to chase criminals and take bullets in combat for them. 😆
1 edit
@spruce112358 saidI also love the idea of churches FINALLY paying tax!
With the country's net worth standing at $123.8T just charge a 7% tax on net worth per year. 😆
7% of $123.8T is $8.6T. That covers $7T in spending, and we pay off the national debt is 30 years. I mean, we could also cut spending - apparently we hate to do that.
But I love the idea of the bank paying part of my taxes since they partly "own" my house! I also love t ...[text shortened]... o how much they would lose if government protection went away and they lost everything. Makes sense.
I agree 100%. Most of them are not Christian anymore anyway here in the USA. Most are now the cult religion of Trumpian. All you have to do is lie cheat or steal and you're a trusted member of their cult.
@spruce112358 saidThat’s a good reason to get inflation under control, not a good reason to tax static wealth.
YES! I am completely ignoring the difference between static wealth and income-derived wealth because there IS no difference between them! They are fungible - one is turned into the other and back again. 😆
@wildgrass pointed out that property taxes are taxes on static wealth. Is that dispossession? Obviously not. 😆
moonbus: "That's why it makes sense to tax those w ...[text shortened]... the Young are struggling to buy a home and pay for school. Like an iceberg, the system has flipped.
@KingDavid403 saidStart with Scientology.
I also love the idea of churches FINALLY paying tax!
I agree 100%. Most of them are not Christian anymore anyway here in the USA. Most are now the cult religion of Trumpian. All you have to do is lie cheat or steal and you're a trusted member of their cult.
@moonbus saidThere's no such thing as "static wealth"; all assets vary in value over time. And your claim that ad valorem taxes inevitably lead to dispossession is contrary to all real world experiences.
That’s a good reason to get inflation under control, not a good reason to tax static wealth.
@spruce112358 saidA proportional wealth tax ignores the Law of Dimishing Marginal Utility and would reverse the (admittedly) mild progressivity of Federal taxation.
With the country's net worth standing at $123.8T just charge a 7% tax on net worth per year. 😆
7% of $123.8T is $8.6T. That covers $7T in spending, and we pay off the national debt is 30 years. I mean, we could also cut spending - apparently we hate to do that.
But I love the idea of the bank paying part of my taxes since they partly "own" my house! I also love t ...[text shortened]... o how much they would lose if government protection went away and they lost everything. Makes sense.
@no1marauder saidSuppose you have a gold bar in a safe deposit box. That generates no dividends. The fact that the price of gold goes up and down is irrelevant -- it generates no wealth in the way working for a wage does, or renting out a house does. Now, if net worth is taxed, lets say at 7% p.a., then what this means in effect is that the govt may remove 7% of that bar of gold each year, until it is exhausted. That is dispossession. Same goes for a house or a farm or an automobile. The fact that these things vary in price over time is irrelevant.
There's no such thing as "static wealth"; all assets vary in value over time. And your claim that ad valorem taxes inevitably lead to dispossession is contrary to all real world experiences.
2 edits
@moonbus saidYou clearly don't understand what "wealth" means. This might help: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wealth.asp#:~:text=Wealth%20is%20the%20total%20value,either%20absolute%20or%20relative%20terms.
Suppose you have a gold bar in a safe deposit box. That generates no dividends. The fact that the price of gold goes up and down is irrelevant -- it generates no wealth in the way working for a wage does, or renting out a house does. Now, if net worth is taxed, lets say at 7% p.a., then what this means in effect is that the govt may remove 7% of that bar of gold each year, un ...[text shortened]... house or a farm or an automobile. The fact that these things vary in price over time is irrelevant.
The concept is reliant on the market price of an asset.