3 ms·

The scale of property value and wealth value isn't remotely comparable. For the most part, property values are pretty low, and hence the tax that you might pay

by bhupy 6y ago

The scale of property value and wealth value isn't remotely comparable. For the most part, property values are pretty low, and hence the tax that you might pay on property is also fairly low. The US State with the highest property tax is New Jersey (2.47%), and the median home value is about $330,000. The annual tax on the median home there is around $8,100 — definitely steep, but still well within reach for most families, especially those that are fortunate enough to own homes. In contrast, if you were to take an individual worth $10 billion, whose entire net worth is derived from the ownership of their stock, and were to tax them 2% of their wealth annually, they would have to somehow come up with $200 million every year to pay the tax. This is a different proposition altogether, since none of these billionaires have that much money sitting around in cash (or any other asset for that matter). They're just wealthy on paper. The only way to pay that tax would be to either liquidate their holdings, or for their corporations to pay enough in dividends to cover the tax, which is an odd (IMO bad) incentive to create for corporations in general. Even the owner of a $300 million business who owns (say) 30% of their company at a $100 million net worth would have to come up with $2 million in cash every year. Very few CEOs have that kind of cash coming in on a yearly basis, and you're essentially just creating an incentive for corporations to inflate the compensation to their founder CEOs just so that they can maintain ownership in their own company. A big reason for this disparity between the top 1% value of corporation vs the top 1% value of property is that, unlike land (which is fixed), corporate wealth is NOT zero-sum, it's created. This is a very important distinction, because a lot of the rhetoric around wealth is sometimes based around the idea that there's some fixed amount of wealth in the world, and the rich have just been stealing all of it — no the aggregate wealth has been created at historic levels. Also Federal property taxes are unconstitutional, which is why it's applied entirely at the state / local level.

learc83 6y ago
You're the one who came up with a house analogy. >In contrast, if you were to take an individual worth $10 billion, whose entire net worth is derived from the ownership of their stock, and were to tax them 2% of their wealth annually, they would have to somehow come up with $200 million every year to pay the tax If your $10 billion dollar asset isn't returning you much more than 2% per year, it has a terrible ROI, and you need to divest. >corporate wealth is NOT zero-sum, it's created. Not absolutely, but the power represented by the percentage of the world's wealth one controls is finite. At the limit if I own 99% of a countries current wealth, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the rest of the citizens of that country to decide that I have amassed too much power and to rectify that by taxation and redistribution.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > If your $10 billion dollar asset isn't returning you much more than 2% per year, it has a terrible ROI, and you need to divest. That's not how corporate ownership works. It's not about the ROI, it's about ownership in the company you founded / are running. If your goal is just ROI, then you will willingly divest from your own company, at which point your wealth is taxed as a capital gain.
  - learc83 6y ago
    For most people they start a company to make money, so ultimately it's about the ROI. They think they'll make more by controlling the company than the alternative When we are talking mutli billionaires like Bezos who may be driven by more grandiose incentives like amassing power, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to effectively remove some of their control.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      That's a pretty broad generalization, and you've basically taken what's in reality a spectrum, and characterized it by the two extremes. In reality, there are loads of people in between: founders of medium size businesses. The wealth tax is imposed on everyone in this spectrum. The capital gains tax is only imposed on those that amass the most amount of power.
      - learc83 6y ago
        Even the most aggressive wealth tax that is proposed is for a tax on wealth of over $50 million. So the founder of businesses valued up to around $100 million dollars would reasonably be able to maintain control without paying any wealth tax. So I'm perfectly OK saying you can't single-handedly control a business larger than $100 million without paying the rest of society extra compensation for maintaining that kind of power. Seems perfectly fair to me. Power is finite in the same way land is. If controlling a company is valuable to you in some other way other than just amassing power, say you are really behind the mission of going to space, you can reorganize into a non profit.

by bhupy 6y ago

learc83 6y ago

You're the one who came up with a house analogy. >In contrast, if you were to take an individual worth $10 billion, whose entire net worth is derived from the ownership of their stock, and were to tax them 2% of their wealth annually, they would have to somehow come up with $200 million every year to pay the tax If your $10 billion dollar asset isn't returning you much more than 2% per year, it has a terrible ROI, and you need to divest. >corporate wealth is NOT zero-sum, it's created. Not absolutely, but the power represented by the percentage of the world's wealth one controls is finite. At the limit if I own 99% of a countries current wealth, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the rest of the citizens of that country to decide that I have amassed too much power and to rectify that by taxation and redistribution.

bhupy 6y ago
> If your $10 billion dollar asset isn't returning you much more than 2% per year, it has a terrible ROI, and you need to divest. That's not how corporate ownership works. It's not about the ROI, it's about ownership in the company you founded / are running. If your goal is just ROI, then you will willingly divest from your own company, at which point your wealth is taxed as a capital gain.
- learc83 6y ago
  For most people they start a company to make money, so ultimately it's about the ROI. They think they'll make more by controlling the company than the alternative When we are talking mutli billionaires like Bezos who may be driven by more grandiose incentives like amassing power, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to effectively remove some of their control.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    That's a pretty broad generalization, and you've basically taken what's in reality a spectrum, and characterized it by the two extremes. In reality, there are loads of people in between: founders of medium size businesses. The wealth tax is imposed on everyone in this spectrum. The capital gains tax is only imposed on those that amass the most amount of power.
    - learc83 6y ago
      Even the most aggressive wealth tax that is proposed is for a tax on wealth of over $50 million. So the founder of businesses valued up to around $100 million dollars would reasonably be able to maintain control without paying any wealth tax. So I'm perfectly OK saying you can't single-handedly control a business larger than $100 million without paying the rest of society extra compensation for maintaining that kind of power. Seems perfectly fair to me. Power is finite in the same way land is. If controlling a company is valuable to you in some other way other than just amassing power, say you are really behind the mission of going to space, you can reorganize into a non profit.