3 ms·

You are right that the discourse is not nuanced, but it highlights a very basic problem with taxing an asset again and again, especially on unrealized gains. W

You are right that the discourse is not nuanced, but it highlights a very basic problem with taxing an asset again and again, especially on unrealized gains. We gladly support this idea, because it affects "the billionaires" but not when it comes to everyone else and for good reason. Repeated taxation on an asset can erode your wealth really quickly. Here in California, your house gets taxed on the purchase price, but not the current valuation. Therefore you have people sitting on more than one multi million dollar houses that they bought for low 6 figures 3 decades ago. (Ironically this is one of the main contributor to sky high real estate prices and housing crisis) But we don't tax people on those unrealized gains, that too again and again, because if we do, most people would lose all their wealth in a matter of couple of years.

heylook 6y ago
> it highlights a very basic problem with taxing an asset again and again, especially on unrealized gains. Why is it so hard to understand the concept of a floor? If we only tax wealth above $10m or $100m, it will literally never result in "all of your wealth" disappearing. > We gladly support this idea, because it affects "the billionaires" but not when it comes to everyone else and for good reason. > Ironically this is one of the main contributor to sky high real estate prices and housing crisis Right. We support it, but we don't do anything about it, even though it causes one of the most obvious policy problems in the state. > if we do, most people would lose all their wealth in a matter of couple of years. Like literally every other state? I'm sorry, no. This comment is internally logically inconsistent, ignores obvious examples to the contrary, and asserts itself as its own proof.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
Economists actually love recurring land value taxes because they're non-distortionary, but almost all land value tax proposals exclude primary residences under a certain value, for the reasons you've described.

heylook 6y ago

> it highlights a very basic problem with taxing an asset again and again, especially on unrealized gains. Why is it so hard to understand the concept of a floor? If we only tax wealth above $10m or $100m, it will literally never result in "all of your wealth" disappearing. > We gladly support this idea, because it affects "the billionaires" but not when it comes to everyone else and for good reason. > Ironically this is one of the main contributor to sky high real estate prices and housing crisis Right. We support it, but we don't do anything about it, even though it causes one of the most obvious policy problems in the state. > if we do, most people would lose all their wealth in a matter of couple of years. Like literally every other state? I'm sorry, no. This comment is internally logically inconsistent, ignores obvious examples to the contrary, and asserts itself as its own proof.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

Economists actually love recurring land value taxes because they're non-distortionary, but almost all land value tax proposals exclude primary residences under a certain value, for the reasons you've described.