4 ms·

Net worth, as in property value - mortgages? Most 'middle class' people have most of their net worth in their principal residence, so you'd be adding quite a sh

by herge 10y ago

Net worth, as in property value - mortgages? Most 'middle class' people have most of their net worth in their principal residence, so you'd be adding quite a shocking tax bill to a lot of seniors on fixed incomes who own their own house. That's the problem with Mark-to-market taxing. You could start added loopholes to your "block loopholes" law, like "If you reside in the property, it's tax free", but then you hit problems like parents given their kids properties as tax shelters, and the like.

Retric 10y ago
List is as an AMT. Also, $10 million * 0.1% = 10,000$ which is a tiny tax bill at that wealth level. If your paying less than 10k and have 10 million then somewhere something broke down. IMO, you would need a much higher number. A 0.5% wealth tax AMT would = a 25% tax on a 2% ROI or 8.3% on a 6% ROI. From an economic standpoint this is actually a good idea. People with lot's of unreolised income are often stuck with unproductive assets because selling them incurs a large tax bill. With this you can sell a reasonable chunk of your assets without incurring extra tax.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
"you'd be adding quite a shocking tax bill to a lot of seniors on fixed incomes" If there are unlikely seniors on fixed incomes with houses worth more than $10M, then they may pay this tax with shares in said house. When their heirs come into possession of that house, they have to buy those shares back. 15 years of tax will be 1,5% market price.
antisthenes 10y ago
What's wrong with seniors getting hit with a slightly larger tax bill? Besides, you could alwaysexclude the primary residence from the wealth tax to lessen the burden. It would either generate additional revenue or have them move to an area with cheaper houses/properties to avoid paying it, which would make space for young professionals who otherwise would not be able to afford it. I'm also venturing to speculate that a lot of seniors are NIMBYs, facilitating the lack of affordable development and re-zoning, in which case that's another argument to get them the hell out of their expensive suburbia.
- JonFish85 10y ago
  Mostly because the seniors have spent their working lives building their savings (hopefully) to be able to retire, and have a very fixed income -- they can't look forward to getting another job, getting a raise, etc. Seniors as a whole are a very vulnerable group, which I think is one of the reasons that their voter turnout is so high. Think about what that'll do to your retirement. Presumably you're saving and such, and want to get to a point where you can live comfortably (not extravagantly) when you retire: a trip a couple times a year, the ability to take your grandkids to get ice cream, etc. A tax bill can be devastating to your retirement savings & therefore lifestyle.
  - iofj 10y ago
    Think of Europeans, mathematically the idea that Europeans will ever retire doesn't make sense. It'd require 80% or 90% income tax, maybe even more, because there aren't enough kids to split the burden on. Even in the US this is true, except to a less extreme extent. The systems the current seniors have put in place make sure few of the current workers will retire. So why do they deserve it ? They voted in governments that fucked us, so why wouldn't we get to fuck them ?

by herge 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

List is as an AMT. Also, $10 million * 0.1% = 10,000$ which is a tiny tax bill at that wealth level. If your paying less than 10k and have 10 million then somewhere something broke down. IMO, you would need a much higher number. A 0.5% wealth tax AMT would = a 25% tax on a 2% ROI or 8.3% on a 6% ROI. From an economic standpoint this is actually a good idea. People with lot's of unreolised income are often stuck with unproductive assets because selling them incurs a large tax bill. With this you can sell a reasonable chunk of your assets without incurring extra tax.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

"you'd be adding quite a shocking tax bill to a lot of seniors on fixed incomes" If there are unlikely seniors on fixed incomes with houses worth more than $10M, then they may pay this tax with shares in said house. When their heirs come into possession of that house, they have to buy those shares back. 15 years of tax will be 1,5% market price.

antisthenes 10y ago

What's wrong with seniors getting hit with a slightly larger tax bill? Besides, you could alwaysexclude the primary residence from the wealth tax to lessen the burden. It would either generate additional revenue or have them move to an area with cheaper houses/properties to avoid paying it, which would make space for young professionals who otherwise would not be able to afford it. I'm also venturing to speculate that a lot of seniors are NIMBYs, facilitating the lack of affordable development and re-zoning, in which case that's another argument to get them the hell out of their expensive suburbia.

JonFish85 10y ago
Mostly because the seniors have spent their working lives building their savings (hopefully) to be able to retire, and have a very fixed income -- they can't look forward to getting another job, getting a raise, etc. Seniors as a whole are a very vulnerable group, which I think is one of the reasons that their voter turnout is so high. Think about what that'll do to your retirement. Presumably you're saving and such, and want to get to a point where you can live comfortably (not extravagantly) when you retire: a trip a couple times a year, the ability to take your grandkids to get ice cream, etc. A tax bill can be devastating to your retirement savings & therefore lifestyle.
- iofj 10y ago
  Think of Europeans, mathematically the idea that Europeans will ever retire doesn't make sense. It'd require 80% or 90% income tax, maybe even more, because there aren't enough kids to split the burden on. Even in the US this is true, except to a less extreme extent. The systems the current seniors have put in place make sure few of the current workers will retire. So why do they deserve it ? They voted in governments that fucked us, so why wouldn't we get to fuck them ?