←back to thread

115 points harambae | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.408s | source
Show context
stock_toaster ◴[] No.46208576[source]
Wild idea... Maybe tax wealth instead of income?

Tax break on single home ownership, but significantly increased tax on multi-home-ownership?

It would be interesting to see comparisons between PE ownership in markets with property tax vs markets without.

replies(4): >>46208673 #>>46208780 #>>46208917 #>>46209521 #
gjsman-1000 ◴[] No.46208673[source]
Wealth taxes don't work because wealth gets extremely fuzzy.

For example, unsold stock that I bought 15 years ago; and then got a loan against. I'm wealthy... kinda? But I didn't sell the stock; I have unrealized gains, and you shouldn't tax me beyond income tax on borrowed money? Okay, tax me on my unrealized gains then - but then 2008 repeats itself, stock goes down 40%, do I get a refund? Of course not, I only pay when stock goes up and never down, which is not exactly a fair incentive.

Now imagine artwork I bought 15 years ago from Banksy. Or imagine my video game collection I bought on eBay that contains some rare titles. Or what about my wine collection? Now imagine I'm Elon Musk, on paper worth $400B, but if I sold even 20% of my stock, that paper valuation would be shredded from an excess of liquidity driving the share price down, so you can't tax me on what is physically impossible to realize.

replies(6): >>46208726 #>>46208776 #>>46208788 #>>46209096 #>>46209133 #>>46209507 #
1. 9oliYQjP ◴[] No.46209133[source]
I don't have an economics or finance background. But why could there not be a taxable event for the loan amount when it is made? Sure, maybe it gets taxed at a lower rate than even capital gains to continue incentivizing leveraged investments of this nature. Is there some economic argument for why lenders can realize the value of an asset when loaning out money against it but the tax man can't touch that asset until it's actually sold?