Here is what you do even without foreign movement.

Buy a crapload of gold. Hold it in some safety deposit boxes.

Let them try and tax that.

The issues in consequential movement of wealth, and the idiocy of enforcement of a tax on wealth, and the idiocy of enforcement of a tax on *unrealized* wealth is just so stupendously brain dead to not even involve ourselves in a rational conversation of whether to do it.

Its nothing more that a prog/redistributionist wet dream.

(03-11-2023 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- there is one very significant difference in the rationale behind a real property tax and that behind a generalized wealth tax.

Scarcity and efficiency.

One of the philosophical underpinnings of taxes on real property is two fold --

First -- raising of revenue for local purposes that inherently allow the productive use of the land -- avoiding the 'free loader' issue by imposing costs of externalities on others.

Second -- real property tax has been recognized by many of the great political philosophies of Western governance (think Rosseau, Montesquie) as imposing a regime the detracts from accretion and promotes the highest and best use of the property.

An internal 'friction cost' requires that the property be put to use, and with a finite supply of real property that isnt such a bad thing. That same internal friction cost imposes roadblock on the the problem of accretion -- without taxation someone that buys has zero incentive to dispossess ever, nor are there costs to holding, nor is there incentive to use property to its fullest extent.

A generalized tax on wealth lacks every single aspect of above.

Wealth isnt inherently limited in nature.

A guy sitting on bonds and stocks is not at all impeding the full use of that asset.

And while it doesnt address the issue of accretion, again -- that is offset in part by the non-limited aspect of wealth overall. Who the **** cares if a guy sits on 10,000 shares of Boeing?

The philosophical underpinnings on real property tax are fundamentally at odds with the now current philosophical underpinnings of a tax on general wealth, let alone the even more obvious stance on taxing 'unrealized' wealth.

The latter two have zero basis in any of the underpinnings of the philosophical genesis (and now generally accepted Western practice in the West) that are inherent in the issues that serve as the foundation of taxation on real property -- which is to help ensure efficient usage of property and to remove the hoarding issue inherent in a cost free possession of the same.

Today's calls for generalized wealth tax and unrealized gains tax is simply a social envy philosophical offshoot of the progressive / distributionist faction of the left in modern society.

(Belated thanks to my Property Law professor in law school for a 2 class excursion into the political philosophy the underlies the concept of private property and property law in the US political system. I didnt think I would ever have a use for those two classes, but lo and behold after 30 years there is finally some use to be gained from those class sessions. The classes didnt roll into taxation rationales, but the rationales become clear as day when one understands the basis of the concepts of modern US property law.)

Hope this helps your excursion into the issue.

It absolutely does, was an interesting read, and added a new perspective that had not been previously discussed. I think the excursion into the philosophies was quite illuminating. Appreciate the reply.

(03-11-2023 04:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2023 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-10-2023 11:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It doesn't really matter if someone like Lad thinks that taxing unrealized gains on stocks is a good idea or is in any way comparable to property taxes.... this is the sort of lunacy from the left and pointless argument from the right that needs to stop...

It doesn't matter because it is so easy for a wealthy person to avoid. All they have to do is not hold these assets in the US and/or outside of some sort of tax exempt trust... of which there are innumerable opportunities.

If you have 50k in a Schwab account, you're easy to tax. If you have 50mm in an offshore trust, you're golden.

You can't very easily move your real estate off-shore, but you sure as hell can move your stock offshore.... or better you move these easily valued assets into a special purpose corporation along with numerous impossible to value assets... and then you hold stock in that privately traded company... worth who knows what...

So who gives a damn if its comparable to real estate in some way or not?? Because the biggest way it is NOT comparable to real estate taxes is that you can't easily hold real estate offshore without taxation,

This is actually why I think it’s an interesting and good conversation to have. If they’re similar on a base level (taxing gains that aren’t realized or illiquid assets), what is different about them that makes one palatable and the other not.

Different strokes for different folks when it comes to how they like to tackle questions and problems, it seems.

Oh I realize that you revel in the pointless and don't care for the meaningful... and then you completely misrepresent that you are somehow 'tackling questions and problems' by engaging in comparisons.

Hint... as I said... whether or not it is in any way like property taxes doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is a good idea for at least the very simple reason I gave you... I can't move my land, but I absolutely can move my investments.... in numerous ways.

So please enlighten me as to what question or problem you have 'tackled' by comparing ONE tax on 'valuation' to another tax on 'valuation'?

Services (like schools or fire departments or sewers or roads) are directly related to pieces of land that might need those services. No such similar connection to an investment in shares of a company exist... and the company is already taxed for those services... So please tell me how taxing the company for usage and then taxing the owner of the company for the same usage is anything like property taxes...

And the whole reason why cities and municipalites give tax breaks to get companies to locate their sort of explains why this is such a moronic idea.... because if companies have to pay property taxes, they don't locate there.... but instead go somewhere else where they DON'T have to pay property taxes.

I mean Jesus... the answer is right there.

How do you get a company to invest their money in your jurisdiction? Offer them a tax break. How do you get them to leave? Increase their taxes and they find a place that won't tax them. Property tax 101

Let's not even get INTO the tons of money already spent on arguing about valuations on property... or that now we have another game to be played by the wealthy with art... where you can now trade someone your land for a piece of art... recognizing no gain and now you don't own the asset that has gained in value so you don't pay this tax... and the guy who bought it from you hasn't gained... so he pays no tax... and the 'art' isn't taxed because it isn't liquid... and next year you trade back or trade with someone else.

Just more of the same BS where democrats propose something that sounds good to 'uninformed' people because they don't understand how wealthy people think... and then when you EXPLAIN to them how they think, they don't believe you because their ignorant... or they argue with you that 'they won't do that' (and you spent decades doing it for them) and Biden's 'tax the wealthy' sounds so much simpler

It's dumb because it creates more loopholes and drives investment AWAY from the US

Tax their spending, as we've been saying for decades now... because they can't enjoy the fruits of BEING here without spending money here... but they CAN enjoy the fruits of being here without investing in liquid, appreciating assets here.

Cool post, bro.

It's dumb because it creates more loopholes and drives investment AWAY from the US.

The entire point of this thread, in one sentence.

Actually could have reduced it to the first two words.

(03-11-2023 07:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Cool post, bro.

Stupid response, child

You're not even informed enough to see the significant similarities between Tanq's much more erudite post and my much more simple and direct one. Tanq has clearly learned that certain sectors of the left will listen to anything a European Philosopher says, and I recognize that other sectors of the left aren't smart enough to understand simple concepts like 'what you tax, you get less of...' and the leadership of the left exploits that every day.

(03-13-2023 08:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2023 07:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Cool post, bro.

Stupid response, child

You're not even informed enough to see the significant similarities between Tanq's much more erudite post and my much more simple and direct one. Tanq has clearly learned that certain sectors of the left will listen to anything a European Philosopher says, and I recognize that other sectors of the left aren't smart enough to understand simple concepts like 'what you tax, you get less of...' and the leadership of the left exploits that every day.

You're too full of it to realize Tanq didn't start his post with:

"Oh I realize that you revel in the pointless and don't care for the meaningful... and then you completely misrepresent that you are somehow 'tackling questions and problems' by engaging in comparisons."

(03-13-2023 08:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're too full of it to realize Tanq didn't start his post with:

"Oh I realize that you revel in the pointless and don't care for the meaningful... and then you completely misrepresent that you are somehow 'tackling questions and problems' by engaging in comparisons."

Oh I agree, I added facts that he didn't. Surprised you don't value that as an academic discussion.

Since this thread is about Taxes, this has been brought back up..... and I don't recall a lot of discussion on it here... the source is of course biased, but the comments are verified on house.gov

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/six-break...committee/


So it seems that as part of Biden's 'Modernization Plan' with $80byn going to the IRS (AND THE SOLE SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE ENTIRE BILL) involves continuing to allocate 90% of audits towards people and small businesses earning less than 400k.

Seriously, why do Democrats fall for this BS?? I mean, I certainly expect that the 10% they get from those earning more than 400k will likely be even greater than what they get from the 90%, but doesn't that only scream that we might really only need to target/increase the 10%??

If your 'target' is to 'tax the rich', then why are we even bothering with those earning less than 400k?? And if 90% of the audits already target people/businesses earning less than 400k, and Biden says we're going to tax million/billionaires.... then it also seems obvious that a decent percentage of even the 10% would be targeting those earning between 400k and 'millions'.

Now when you throw in how often someone might sell a business or otherwise make a ton of money in one year, and then they might go for another 5 making little or nothing.... Meaning that despite one big earning year, they aren't really 'wealthy'.

And the left buys it.... even when the solutions are so simple.

Serioulsy.... the left won't even call out Biden for his claims of 'taxing billionaires' by using more than 90% of the services of their expansion to tax people who certainly make good incomes, but aren't billionaires? How simple would it have been to cut back the 'targets' to only be people who make $400k+??

The problem of course with that is that they are all but admitting that they can't fund their other projects, hidden in those bills.... without targeting 90% of their weapons on people that they are OPENLY CLAIMING that they aren't targeting??

Quote:

Quote:Joe Biden just can’t stop lying about his policies that have crushed the American people.

How long has he been telling us that he only wants to go after the “rich” people with his phalanx of thousands of new IRS agents? A long time it seems. Anyone who knows Joe Biden knows what malarkey his claim truly is and we’ve pointed out some of the lies surrounding this claim in the past.

But Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen finally admitted under grilling on Friday by Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE), the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, that 90 percent of the new audits were going to be on families and small businesses — lower and middle-income people making under $400,000, and not on “billionaires and tax cheats,” as Joe Biden has claimed.

Smith’s grilling revealed what deceitful characters the Biden people are.

“There’s been confusion about the meaning of the directive that you cited in the letter last August and then repeated here today,” Smith told Yellen, referencing her August 2022 letter in which she directed that the IRS shall not use new personnel or auditors “to increase the share of small businesses or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels.”

Yellen’s letter stated that “contrary to the misinformation from opponents of this legislation, small business or households earning $400,000 per year or less will not see an increase in the chances that they are audited.”

Ah, no increase. That’s good, right? Then it’s not targeting us poor schnooks (even though it’s still wrongly targeting people for making more). Not quite. Read on, there’s a problem there.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has said that the majority of IRS audits fall on people/businesses below $400,000.

So Smith asked what are they talking about when they’re talking about “will not see an increase” — did she mean the total number of new IRS audits or a proportionate number based on historic levels?

“I’m talking about the proportion of those small businesses and families,” Yellen responded.

“Okay. So the proportion, I mean, just for the record, the proportion is 90%,” said Smith, referencing the GAO report. “So 90% of the new audits will be, you know, according to the data, that we can expect up to 90% of new audits to be on those making less than $400,000.”

Oh, so they were playing word games with us. They’re still going to have 90 percent of the new audits falling on us. What weasels. Not that we didn’t know that Joe was lying, but they are such slimy liars, particularly playing these word games.

Meanwhile, let’s listen to Joe Biden chuckle as he talks about who the IRS agents are going to be going after.

Biden does that weird whispering thing again saying the IRS agents are going to check out the accounts of the “superwealthy.” Sorry, Joe, Yellen just gave up the game, you can’t sell that lie anymore.

“I don’t know,” Biden says about the Republicans objecting to this. “We just have a very different value set.” You can say that again.

Link