3 ms·

They're both trying to do wealth taxes, rather than (more) income taxes. I suppose that could be interesting for wealth that isn't liquid?

Clubber 2y ago
When you tax wealth, like say land or stocks, if the person is illiquid, they have to sell their assets to pay the tax. I would imagine that markets would crash every tax cycle due to people trying to pay their tax obligation.
- andy_ppp 2y ago
  Is this impossible to work out?
  - Clubber 2y ago
    Well, say you inherited 185 acres in the middle of nowhere that is valued at $500K. You make $150K a year. You can't really do anything with the land, it's all scrub brush by now and the government wants 30% in wealth tax to tune tune of $160K. What do you do? Say you put all your savings into the market. You have $400K in assets and the government wants 20% of it ($80K), you either tighten your belt or you sell assets. The wealthy, of course, will be in much better shape to handle this than your average guy who invested some of their income.
- aaomidi 2y ago
  If the market is crashing once a year it’s no longer a crash. It’s arguably a prevention of a bubble forming.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  And the more they sell, the more they have to sell after, driving the prices even lower. It's definitely a good recipe to crash the markets.
eikenberry 2y ago
Seems like it'd have to mean nationalizing some percentage of the corporations owned by the wealthy?
- andy_ppp 2y ago
  You could call it a sovereign wealth fund
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    There's a big difference between a wealth fun and managing nationalized businesses. As a business owner, you're directly invested into your business doing well. And you have lots of knowledge about your business details. Some government clerk who ends up controlling your business doesn't have either. This happens every time. Socialist government nationalizes businesses, drives most of them into the ground.
  - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
    You could also call it USSR.
theamk 2y ago
yep, the comment above mentioned that [0]: > "They were asking me to pay taxes on money I didn't have," Payre said. "I had no choice but to leave the country." > 1997, he owned shares that were worth $110 million -- on paper. French tax authorities required Payre to pay a wealth tax of 2.2 percent on the shares, based on what the shares would have been worth had he sold them at the market's highest point. > But Payre said that he didn't have access to them because of stock market regulations that limited his ability to sell and that, in any case, a market dip had devalued the shares below that peak. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43394015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43394015
exmicrosoldier 2y ago
I am sure the governments can work it out the same way billionaires with bankers do. Take possession of parts of their stock in a blind trust and just get dividends or take out loans against the stock and use that cash.

Clubber 2y ago

When you tax wealth, like say land or stocks, if the person is illiquid, they have to sell their assets to pay the tax. I would imagine that markets would crash every tax cycle due to people trying to pay their tax obligation.

andy_ppp 2y ago
Is this impossible to work out?
- Clubber 2y ago
  Well, say you inherited 185 acres in the middle of nowhere that is valued at $500K. You make $150K a year. You can't really do anything with the land, it's all scrub brush by now and the government wants 30% in wealth tax to tune tune of $160K. What do you do? Say you put all your savings into the market. You have $400K in assets and the government wants 20% of it ($80K), you either tighten your belt or you sell assets. The wealthy, of course, will be in much better shape to handle this than your average guy who invested some of their income.
aaomidi 2y ago
If the market is crashing once a year it’s no longer a crash. It’s arguably a prevention of a bubble forming.
bufferoverflow 2y ago
And the more they sell, the more they have to sell after, driving the prices even lower. It's definitely a good recipe to crash the markets.

eikenberry 2y ago

Seems like it'd have to mean nationalizing some percentage of the corporations owned by the wealthy?

andy_ppp 2y ago
You could call it a sovereign wealth fund
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  There's a big difference between a wealth fun and managing nationalized businesses. As a business owner, you're directly invested into your business doing well. And you have lots of knowledge about your business details. Some government clerk who ends up controlling your business doesn't have either. This happens every time. Socialist government nationalizes businesses, drives most of them into the ground.
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  You could also call it USSR.

theamk 2y ago

yep, the comment above mentioned that [0]: > "They were asking me to pay taxes on money I didn't have," Payre said. "I had no choice but to leave the country." > 1997, he owned shares that were worth $110 million -- on paper. French tax authorities required Payre to pay a wealth tax of 2.2 percent on the shares, based on what the shares would have been worth had he sold them at the market's highest point. > But Payre said that he didn't have access to them because of stock market regulations that limited his ability to sell and that, in any case, a market dip had devalued the shares below that peak. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43394015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43394015

exmicrosoldier 2y ago

I am sure the governments can work it out the same way billionaires with bankers do. Take possession of parts of their stock in a blind trust and just get dividends or take out loans against the stock and use that cash.