I like this idea a lot, but I can think of an instant devil’s advocate objection. The real estate upon which I pay property tax is literally part of my county, which assesses the tax. I can’t just pack it up and move it to another county. In a sense, you could view my property tax as a use fee allowing me to own this chunk of earth in my county.
Stocks and other forms of wealth aren’t like that. The county (nor the federal government) has no claim on my 100 shares of XYZ. Where do they get off taxing it?
IANAL, and as I said I like the idea, but how can this argument be answered?
I’m not going to lose any sleep over the richest few actually paying a reasonable share of tax. Hell they should be damm proud to pay to the country that allowed them to get to where they are today. The US government provided the currency, regulations & infrastructure that allowed them to flourish.
When NASA was looking to fund Commercial Crew, they estimated that the cost of developing Falcon 9, were they to do it, would be 4.7 billion dollars. They estimated that the private sector, without the inefficiencies of government, could do it for 3.2 billion.
SpaceX did it for about $300 million.
NASA was paying the Russians $140 million per seat to fly its astronauts to the ISS. They gave Boeing $4.2 billion to develop an alternative and provide six flights. They did the same for SpaceX, but only gave them $2.6 billion becase Boeing supposedly had a better infrastructure and was less risky.
Boeing so far has failed. If they succeed, they will cost about $90 million per seat. SpaceX succeeded, is now flying astronauts, and the price is $55 million. Not only are they saving the taxpayer $85 million dollars each time an astronaut goes to the ISS, but SpaceX has given America the ability to launch humans into space again. And that $55 million includes the development cost of the rocket. Future flights after the first six will be cheaper. Probably much cheaper.
Then there’s other government launches. SpaceX is saving NASA billions on Artemis. SpaceX’s bid to supply a lunar lander beat the traditional competition massively. SpaceX will do it for 2.6 billion. The other bids were around 6 billion and 10 billion, for less capability.
So that’s already billions saved by the government because of SpaceX. The savings will continue every year. NASA’s science budget goes much further now that there are cheaper launch options, and competition from SpaceX is forcing other launch providers to lower their launch prices, benefiting everyone.
Then there’s Starlink, which promises to bring high speed internet to poor and rural people around the world. It could do more for education and wealth creation in poor countries than all the NGOs and humanitarian aid combined.
Do we need to talk about how Tesla revolutionized electric cars, made them cool, amd accelerated market acceptance? Or how Tesla’s grid batteries are helping make renewables more viable?
Had these wealth taxes existed when Musk started, there would be no SpaceX. There would be no Tesla, and electric cars would be way behind where they are now. SpaceX barely survived as it is, and Musk nearly went broke on Falcon 1. Had more of his Paypal money been taxed and a wealth tax in place, he couldn’t have done it.
There will be future Musks with capital and new ideas that will change the world. That is, if you don’t let class envy or a mistaken sense of how much you can get by taxing their money away destroy them or their ability to do big things. We will all be much poorer.
It’s completely flipped. Rich people should BRAG about how much tax they pay. Bezos should out Trump by saying “I pay 50% tax, have my own jet and own a majority stake in spaceships. Whadda bout you loser?”
So this is the rightwing populist/puppets rejection of democratically elected governments acting out of responsibility to an electorate of all adults regardless of income level, ethnicity or sex?
Grow up, you starry-eyed snowflakes, and let the supermen naturally rise, unfettered by taxes (or age of sexual consent laws) to make this world. Fuck the voters, it’s the shareholders to whom they only need answer. Those workaday suckers deserves no say, just the big players with real skin in the game.
Do you Musk fanboys not see how this erases centuries of political progress? Do you really want to waive your rights as citizens in favor of being jerked off as consumers, like the Karens of the January 6 insurgency?
Then you also have FICA taxes, state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, etc. A total tax rate of about 30-35% of income for 200k in income is about right.
you need a healthy, educated workforce as well as high quality infrastructure and rule of law to have a working economy. These things require large amounts of public sector investment.
Virtually every developed nation expands its public sector education, infrastructure, and health care systems as they grow in wealth and development. They also all rely on public sector security services like police and military.
But that’s just it; unrealized gains are just that… unrealized. A very simple example is if you own a share of stock in say… GM. You buy it at $50 per share.
Then let’s say that GM announces some whiz-bang new electric car innovation. The stock price goes up to $60/share. Boom… you now have $10 in unrealized gains. Your bank account isn’t any larger and you can’t spend that $10, because it’s not actual money that you have. You own a share of stock in that company. IF you were to sell it, you would realize the gain of $10 when someone pays you $60 for it.
The problem as I see it with taxing unrealized gains is that it’s just part of the picture- if you’re going to tax unrealized gains, the flip side would be to let people take deductions for unrealized losses (i.e. the stock price goes down and you haven’t sold it).
Right now, it’s all based on what you realize when you sell the stock - gain or loss, and you can deduct losses, and you get taxed on gains. If you don’t sell stocks, there aren’t any gains or losses, as there wasn’t any actual income.
I can see someone with a lot of wealth being really jittery about taxation on unrealized gains, even if it’s just because of the accounting headache that could end up being. And I’m not talking billionaires; I’m talking just everyday wealthy people with a few million in assets. Doesn’t mean they’re necessarily unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes, it’s because of the nature of the tax relative to the way that investments work.
If Uncle Pennybags keeps his stocks until his death, his heirs inherit the current value of the stocks, including the gains. What taxes will they have to pay on that ?
Inheritance tax? I’m not sure why we don’t just preserve the cost basis for shares that are transferred to the estate, but the US doesn’t and the only way it is taxed, afaik, is from inheritance tax.