• MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yes because there’s no chance that this would end up having to be paid by every homeowner whose house has gone up in value since they bought it while rich people would just find another loophole to avoid it, while the government would piss all that extra money away on wasteful spending without addressing any actual problems.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        They’re not wrong. The people who would write these laws are paid for by the people who would be negatively impacted by them, so I guarantee they’d be full of loopholes.

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s income, not assets. Anyone who’s house increases value from 9 million to 10 million wouldn’t have to pay it.

      • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Unrealized gain is by definition not income, that’s what “unrealized” means.

        Let’s say you buy a house for $300k and the value goes up to $400k. But you don’t sell it because you want to keep living there. Too bad, now you have an unrealized gain of $100k and you owe taxes on that. At the current rate, if your regular income is between $47k and $518k, this would cost you 15 grand. Not to mention you’d have to pay this tax every year that your house appraises for more than you bought it for.

        Still sound like a good idea?

        • bitwaba@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, you don’t magically have to pay income tax on unrealized gains. You pay income tax on income. That’s why it’s called income tax.

          Too bad, now you have an unrealized gain of $100k and you owe taxes on that.

          You owe property taxes on it, if it’s an asset property, and your location has property taxes. If it’s stocks and bonds, you wouldn’t have the same problem.

          • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah, you don’t magically have to pay income tax on unrealized gains. You pay income tax on income. That’s why it’s called income tax.

            This was a hypothetical, because thread OP was suggesting a tax on unrealized gains. I was just trying to explain the possible consequences of such a tax.

            In order to tax unrealized gains, they WOULD have to be treated as income, even though they really aren’t, because if you didn’t sell an asset, you didn’t make any money. Unless you rented it out, of course, but rental income is already treated as such.

            As far as stock or bonds go, it’s the same. Imagine you buy some stock to hold for the long term. Well, if it goes up, and there’s a tax on unrealized gains, you’d be owing taxes on every dollar it has gone up from the purchase price, EVERY YEAR that you hold it. It would almost be like having to pay rent on something you already own, and of course that would make long term investing extremely unattractive, not to mention it would basically eliminate any chance that normal people have at building any wealth whatsoever.

            Also, if long term investing becomes unattractive, that means people would likely just try to sell everything the same year they bought it, meaning there’ll be a lot more short term trading (and thus rampant speculation) going on. Even if you put generous exemptions in place to avoid penalizing the lower and middle classes with this, taxing unrealized gains would lead the super rich to engage in more short term speculation, which means the markets would become much more unstable. It’s literally the dumbest idea anyone could think of unless their goal is to just cause as much pain and chaos as possible.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think you lost the thread. The grandparent post here said “There would need to be a mechanism to tax unrealized capital gains”

        We’re talking about someone thinking we ought to be taxing things that aren’t income. What is currently true is not relevant to that discussion.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes because there’s no chance that this would end up having to be paid by every homeowner whose house has gone up in value since they bought it

      A chance? Sure. But it would require willful malicious writing of the bill. Many (most?) states have homestead protections for homeowners up to a certain conservative value. That protection could pivot to capital gains trivially. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to tax valuation skyrockets in excess of (say) $500,000. The government can depreciate those value skyrockets, and we’d still honestly be paying less than our due since property value skyrockets cause property tax decreases (in most (all) municipalities, property taxes are just the town’s expenses divided by property value).

      while rich people would just find another loophole to avoid it,

      In real state, that “loophole” is a law that exists in most states specifically saying you don’t have to pay tax on property gain if you follow a specified process to reinvest into property in the same calendar year. But it’s not a loophole if it’s the damn law. The only way people are dodging real estate taxes now is because they wrote laws to. A law that says “fuck off, you still have to pay” would absolutely work.

      while the government would piss all that extra money away on wasteful spending without addressing any actual problems

      Across the world, tax rates are largely proportional to health, happiness, and quality of life of the citizens. I prefer to trust the numbers over someone’s distrust of the country they live in.

      • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        A chance? Sure. But it would require willful malicious writing of the bill.

        Have you been keeping track of politics AT ALL? You’re if fool if you don’t EXPECT precisely that to happen. The vast majority of politicians will foam at the mouth at the prospect of passing another tax and then happily add a few provisions to make sure their top donors aren’t hurt too much by it. Or do you think it’s just a tragic accident that the majority of taxes keeps getting paid by the poor and middle classes?

        Across the world, tax rates are largely proportional to health, happiness, and quality of life of the citizens

        I don’t have any data to prove or disprove that claim, but assuming it’s true, then there’s certainly better ways to achieve that, like increasing income tax rates on the wealthy. Yes sure, they’ll try to avoid it by deferring or offsetting gains where they can, but in the end, whatever they own, they’ll still have to convert a certain amount of it to cash in order to spend it, and that can be taxed. No need for such harebrained schemes as taxing unrealized gains.

        • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Have you been keeping track of politics AT ALL? You’re if fool if you don’t EXPECT precisely that to happen.

          I largely disagree. I don’t wear a tinfoil hat, sorry. I have seen successful execution of homestead related profit protections, and there are very few “gotchas” in it, if any, for non-millionaires.

          I’m an American, so blame my patriotism. But I like to think if EVERY other country can do it, we’re not so pathetic as a country that we cannot.

          like increasing income tax rates on the wealthy

          There’s a ceiling on the revenue potential in that. The wealthier you get, the less your income is “income”. The wealthy don’t even try to “avoid” it, it’s just not relevant to them. Bezos wasn’t lying that year he only made $80k in income. His unrealized capital gains simply were not taxable unless he chose to sell off lots of Amazon stock (which has non-tax-related repurcussions for him).