3 ms·

Very weak article, lot's of out of context sentences and missing arguments. For example the rant about "capital gains taxes" doesn't include the reason why you

Very weak article, lot's of out of context sentences and missing arguments. For example the rant about "capital gains taxes" doesn't include the reason why you can't tax something that is not sold yet. It is wrong on so many levels. Suppose you have a home that is going up 10% and is worth +50000 USD. You haven't sold it yet, but you owe a tax out of the blue. Isn't that a bad idea? The out of context part for this particular issue is the qualification of Marc about "yes we know that 100 million looks like a lot, but they won't be able to raise the money they hope and will be forced to lower the threshold". Also she didn't mentioned that 50% of all tax receipts in CA are from the wealthy. So every 50 cent on the dollar are already collected from the most mobile population and they'd leave and this measure won't work at all. You'd find nothing on that in the article.

bananapub 2y ago
> For example the rant about "capital gains taxes" doesn't include the reason why you can't tax something that is not sold yet. that's not some law of nature. if they can borrow against the notional current value of something, why can't they also pay taxes then? and the US already has taxes on something that's not sold yet - stock options.
- freefaler 2y ago
  Then you should tax the borrowed money at the point of borrowing. That's the problem and that's why the law is bad. And stock options law is also bad and should be changed.
dce 2y ago
> For example the rant about "capital gains taxes" doesn't include the reason why you can't tax something that is not sold yet. It is wrong on so many levels. Suppose you have a home that is going up 10% and is worth +50000 USD. You haven't sold it yet, but you owe a tax out of the blue. Isn't that a bad idea? I take your larger point, but for property specifically, we already do have a system in place for taxing unsold assets.

bananapub 2y ago

> For example the rant about "capital gains taxes" doesn't include the reason why you can't tax something that is not sold yet. that's not some law of nature. if they can borrow against the notional current value of something, why can't they also pay taxes then? and the US already has taxes on something that's not sold yet - stock options.

freefaler 2y ago
Then you should tax the borrowed money at the point of borrowing. That's the problem and that's why the law is bad. And stock options law is also bad and should be changed.

dce 2y ago

> For example the rant about "capital gains taxes" doesn't include the reason why you can't tax something that is not sold yet. It is wrong on so many levels. Suppose you have a home that is going up 10% and is worth +50000 USD. You haven't sold it yet, but you owe a tax out of the blue. Isn't that a bad idea? I take your larger point, but for property specifically, we already do have a system in place for taxing unsold assets.