3 ms·

True, though it's irksome how the chart conflates "Rich" with "High taxable income." These are not the same, which is exactly the problem! eg: The #1 most wea

• twoodfin 1y ago
  Capital gains absolutely have tax implications. Just like my house rising $100K in (unrealized) value over a year.
  • cherrycherry98 1y ago
    Capital gains receive favorable treatment under US tax code but are also a realized gain by definition. That is you actually have to sell the asset and are taxed based on any profit earned. An increase in the estimates value of your real estate holdings does not trigger a capital gain. Your municipality, however, may use it as an excuse to increase their assessment of the value of your property, which is used to calculate the tax they charge.
    • triceratops 1y ago
      So you admit that many people do pay unrealized gains taxes on their largest asset (their house)?
      • cherrycherry98 1y ago
        Yeah it functions like a wealth tax, but the claim was that it was a capital gains tax, which it isn't.
• tracker1 1y ago
  What do you think should happen to you if your house is more valuable in a year than the year before, even if you aren't selling or otherwise leaving that house?
  • happyopossum 1y ago
    This varies wildly depending state you live in - some states adjust property taxes for current value, some don’t (or do but with severe limits)
    • tracker1 1y ago
      But do they do income-like taxes on the added value? This seems to be what people (GGP) are wanting from the increase in stock values, ie, unrealized capital gains.. which is frankly terrifying.
      • ambicapter 1y ago
        They increase property taxes, so yeah, you're getting taxed on a capital gain that you haven't realized yet (and won't until you...sell your house).
        • tracker1 1y ago
          What do you think should happen to people's retirement accounts each year then?
          • triceratops 1y ago
            Nothing. Retirement accounts are tax deferred or tax free. What a weird question to ask.
            • tracker1 1y ago
              Well, if you want to tax the stocks that the wealthy own.. why wouldn't you want to tax the stocks that many regular people own? Where do you draw the line between the two?
              • triceratops 1y ago
                Wealthy people's stock in retirement accounts would also not be taxed. This can be considerable: Peter Thiel's Facebook investment was made in an IRA. I imagine there'd be some net worth number, excluding retirement accounts, that policy wonks could work up. You draw the line between "wealthy" and "regular" there. Or, more likely, several lines because there would be wealth brackets similar to income brackets. Without that it would be a regressive tax.
• cherrycherry98 1y ago
  His net worth increased due to asset appreciation. Nobody physically transferred him any money and it can fall back down tomorrow. Should he get a refund if Oracle stock tanks?
  • triceratops 1y ago
    He pays less next year because Oracle stock is worth less. Just like property taxes on people's houses. The math on taxing unrealized gains or losses doesn't work out for the reasons you pointed out. Property taxes, on the other hand, have been working for a long time.
    • cherrycherry98 1y ago
      > He pays less next year because Oracle stock is worth less. Just like property taxes on people's houses. Does he get a refund if he loses money or is it just tax if you win, tax if you lose, tax if it doesn't move? I'll give a few feelings about property taxes. They are known up front when the purchase is made. There's an expectation that they remain reasonably consistent year over year. In that way they can be consistently planned for, enough that it's seen as more of a maintenance expense for upkeep of local services rather than a wealth tax. If my neighbor sells their comparable property for double what they paid for it a few short years I don't expect my tax bill to have a massive jump. In my experience the city's assessed values tend to lag the true market value pretty significantly. The goal appears to use the assessed value as a means to have some graduated component to the property tax. Being a local tax, any significant jumps are seem to be avoided by design, lest it trigger angry residents showing up at town hall meetings. With a wealth tax it can be highly variable year to year and out of one's control. If stocks go way up you're on hook for paying those taxes. Especially if you're Larry Ellison with a controlling stake in Oracle, you could find yourself in the situation of having to liquidate assets to pay taxes, thereby reducing your control of your own company. My main objection to a wealth tax is many of its proponents see it as a means of reducing inequality and "leveling the playing field". I find these positions to come from a place of envy and reject them of those grounds. Many arguing in favor also assume that federal confiscation of wealth inherently benefits the public, as if its some benevolent charity. The reality is more mixed. There is seemingly no limit to politicians' ability squander money on nice sounding projects that give them good headlines while enriching cronies and delivering questionable actual value. It's nice to imagine that all that money is going to roads, bridges, schools, and research, but a whole lot is also going to spying on the populace, subverting foreign governments, and blowing people up.