Oddbean new post about login | logout "People already pay unrealized gains taxes, it's called a property tax." Property taxes should be abolished. Using property taxes to justify more unrealized gains taxes is not going to sway a lot of voters. People hate property taxes. nostr:note1n5feqtv6nd4lvcrufnjvpdzaer2lv7cf07v38th6zlkzpt0w3e6qcej3vk
In no way is a property tax a tax on unrealized gains. The tax is a fee for protection of the property, end of story. If you don't pay property tax to anyone, you must protect your own property, which is usually very inefficient.
Insurance is a fee for direct property protection. Taxes get pooled and redistributed towards purposes that have nothing to do with your property.
I don't think insurance works without some good guys with guns
I don’t think insurance works at all. I think it’s a tax on people who can’t do math. But in theory, home insurance protects your property. “Good guys with guns” is a feel good mantra to relieve our conscience when paying taxes.
No but really, how can you protect yourself from bad guys with guns, unless you have some guns yourself, or you pay some good guys with guns?
Good question, and one I struggle with personally. Gun ownership yes, but also things like fencing, cameras, dogs, gravel driveway… anything that will alert you of their arrival, and then a well executed self-defense plan. Not enjoyable to think about, but arguably more effective than waiting for the police to show up. Especially in rural areas. I certainly believe funding local police is necessary. But everyone benefits from that service, not just property owners. IMO property tax is not effective or fair, and is just another tax. Now, eliminate income and capital gains taxes, I become more open to property tax. But funds should stay local, and they don’t currently.
Who else is benefitting from the police other than property owners and the people they associate with?
What do you mean by “people they associate with”? Police protect all citizens, regardless of property ownership. Assault victims, traffic violations, vandalism, theft, prostitution, drugs, fraud…… Are you trolling me or driving towards a point?
As in, why protect people who in no way benefit the property owners? It makes sense for police to prosecute other crimes because ultimately that benefits property owners and their loved ones and customers. If someone comes to a piece of property and doesn't bring any benefit to the owners of that property, it makes no economic sense to protect those people. In practice, of course, almost everyone inhabiting a piece of property is associated with the property owners somehow.
I think all citizens deserve “property” protection from law enforcement, regardless of real estate ownership status. “Property” defined more broadly to include goods and body. We started with property tax, which is only levied against real estate owners. I’m simply making the case that property taxes are an unfair form of taxation, especially because of how the funds are redistributed. Thanks for engaging earnestly 🙏
>I think all citizens deserve “property” protection from law enforcement, regardless of real estate ownership status. “Property” defined more broadly to include goods and body. I think everyone deserves protection too, but I think the same thing about food. Just because someone deserves something doesn't mean they're entitled to demand that others provide that good free of charge. If you think some people are required to protect other people free of charge, you are a Communist. >We started with property tax, which is only levied against real estate owners. I’m simply making the case that property taxes are an unfair form of taxation, especially because of how the funds are redistributed. Sure, if funds were only put towards protection of property, that would be a much better situation. Of course, property owners may decide that providing other free services to residents helps protect property in the long run by limiting unrest. >Thanks for engaging earnestly 🙏 Same to you! :)
We agree that services should not be provided free of charge. That’s why I make the case for property tax as unfair- it pays for schools, roads, fire, police, etc that all local citizens benefit from but not all pay towards. A local flat fee would better serve these funding wants from government. In the case of property tax funding services other than property protection, I’m fine with that, especially if the property owners agree, but I’m not fine with everyone getting a vote on those issues. I live in CA, and every election cycle we vote on local bonds that fund a school building, road maintenance, etc. These bonds are repaid thru property tax increases. 100% of local voters get a vote, but only ~60% of us own property. That’s problematic imo.
Sure, I'm not sure I agree that all of those additional services have nothing to do with protecting property. You want people near your property to be safe, educated, and happy if you want to maximize your property's value and the enjoyment you can get from owning it.
It can be used to protect your property and still be a tax on unrealized gains. Taxing unrealized gains means assessing the hypothetical sale price of some asset and demanding a payment in money as a percentage of that assessed value. This is exactly what happens with property taxes. Property taxes are an example of a tax on unrealized gains.
Since you are paying property taxes based on assessed value not assessed value-purchase price its not really a unrealized gain tax.
Well yes, that's how property taxes are assessed, but no, it does not follow that what's being taxed is an "unrealized gain". A "gain" is something that happens when we sell an asset for more than we bought it. If property tax were a tax on a gain, the amount we paid for the asset would have to be taken into account so as to calculate the difference between what the property is worth now and what it cost us to acquire, ie the gain. Since property tax is assessed on the total value of the property, this cannot be what's happening. The reason people buy property is to *use* the property, unless they are speculating. So what's actually being taxed is a "realized benefit" rather than an unrealized gain. The government or security agency says "hey, you're benefiting from that property, and we're protecting it with our guns, we therefore impose a fee that is proportional to the benefit".
I'll concede that the purchase price of your assets affects the calculation of an unrealized gain, but in my mind this makes the unrealized gain tax less intrusive than a normal property tax. It's essentially a property tax with a write-off. At any rate, the justification of a property tax that you're using is fun philosophizing, but the revenue that property taxes generate go into the same pot as any other tax. The state isn't demarcating police or firefighting services and saying "property taxes pay for this, income tax for everything else". You can believe in a land value tax or something as a justifiable tax, but that isn't exactly what a property tax is, since improvements you make to your property increase your tax liability. If you're justifying a property tax by pointing to government services that you consider legitimate, that's fine, but this works for any tax, so it's really a non sequitur to talk about property taxes like this.
But hey!! ”VoTiNg doesn’T matter ”
The people that vote for Kamala do not have assets anyways so they couldn't find a fuck to give about unrealized gains taxes
This is not true. The Democratic party has become the party of the ultra-wealthy. Except for Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, how many tech billionaires are Republicans? Besides, many of these Harris voters do have assets, but they think they're safe because the threshold for this tax would be $100 million. They think their 401k is safe. They're wrong. No tax ever begins by falling on everyone, but eventually, everyone will pay it. Their stance on this issue (and "tax the rich" more generally) is that they're fundamentallu incapable of conceptualizing second-order effects for any decision.
Taxes roll down hill from the wealthy elites to the poor and middle class the rich that vote for Kamala will never pay the bullshit taxes. Shit rolls down hill Just like the income tax
Idk what this means. The wealthy, by a wide margin, pay the most taxes in America. This unrealized gains tax idea would exclusively target that top 1%. It is certainly possible that these billionaire Harris voters expect some loophole to be introduced that they can use, but as of right now, no such loophole has been proposed (at least publicly). Your original statement that Harris voters don't have assets to worry about being taxed is just false. The Democrat party is not the same party as it was for the second half of the 20th century.
Unrealised gains is the end game of fiat.
No one likes any tax. So, ignoring the argument that all taxes should be abolished, I think it makes more sense to say that property tax ( for real estate) will be one of the only remaining taxes in the coming age. Income tax is only possible if transactions can be monitored. In a Bitcoin world, income tax is difficult to enforce. Back in the day, property tax and maybe sales tax were the only enforceable taxes because the infrastructure was visible and coercible by the state. My recent thoughts have been: when money is separated from the state, it will have to revert to old forms of taxation. Property taxes is potentially the oldest form, and the one likely to persist. Thankfully… property values will fall to their utility value overtime as well.
It isn't difficult to enforce with a public blockchain and businesses who don't want to run afoul of the law.
In the future, layer 1 bitcoin transactions will likely not be used for salaries. So payments will not be public. Perhaps governments will ask companies to report all salaries. Like they do today. However, in a world when the government can’t print money, it is an interesting question as to the cost of that enforcement. It may be too high. But you raise a fair point.
I’m can’t wait to vote AGAINST Trump, again, because he is a horrible human being, but this Harris proposal is a fucking disgrace. I can’t believe the campaign is so stupid to propose it.
A vote for Harris is not a vote against Trump.
With only two candidates in the race, how else can I vote against Trump? Educate me.
You can’t “vote against” either candidate. You can “vote for” one or the other. Your vote counts as either one or zero (no vote). Voting against something implies deduction, like in the case of a Prop vote (yea or nay). Separately, your reasoning for voting for Harris is because Trump is a horrible person. This is the lowest level of reasoning. Especially if you don’t know Trump personally. You seem to have found your way to bitcoin, which requires reasoning, so I’d encourage you to utilize that characteristic and make more compelling statements. “Trump bad” is the most cited reason for voting for Harris. This is Trump Derangement Syndrome. Express a positive reason to vote for Harris instead. Apparently you’re not a fan of her taxation strategy, so what attracts your vote to her?
Just don't vote. This version of democracy doesn't work for everyone, so stop legitimizing it. The sooner people realize that voting, even voting poorly, is actually not in their best interests, the sooner we can move on to renegotiating this power structure.
Property tax is not an unrealized gains tax. Nowhere in your property tax bill are they calculating any sort of gain. The tax rate applies to the assessed value of the home. Bharat Ramamurti graduated from both Harvard and Yale. He knows better. Shame on him, and those like him.
Correct. With any luck, this bonehead will accidentally raise support to repeal property taxes.
Every person who pays their own bills and doesn't watch msm hates Democrat policies. This is humanities great battle, all the NPCs on one side vs all the real humanoids on the other side.
I’d call property tax a “wealth tax”, not “unrealized gains”.
No one should consider themselves "free" if they must pay property taxes.