upvote
Taxing capital assets by taking large portions of their value destroys value by forcing liquidity events. Think forcing sales of farms, factories and domain names.

I much prefer land value taxes (and similar taxes on non capital wealth like jewellery) and leisure taxes (ideally taxing people for every hour they don't work). Of course these are difficult to administer in practice, but British business rates and US overtime tax discounts effectively approximate this.

reply
The idea of taxing people for not working an hour sounds incredibly dystopian.
reply
I had the same reaction. It also seems easy to pull apart. What about disabled people who are unable to work?

I think something more like "investment income should be taxed at a higher rate than income earned through labor," accomplishes similar goals but is more intuitive and less problematic.

reply
If your goal is to reduce investment that creates jobs for labour, then you should do that.
reply
This is a false dichotomy. Laborers could just as easily invest in job-creating endeavors as passive income earners. All taxes cause economic drag, not _just_ business and investment income taxes. The economy includes every participant, and laborers are not an externality.
reply
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Yes, people who are labourers could also somehow creating funding pools that are big enough to start companies, but so what? That doesn't negate the fact that they will be disincentivised to do so by a tax on investment income.
reply
What will they think of next? tying healthcare to employment that you lose the moment you get fired to meet quarterly profits? Madness i tell you!
reply
Not as dystopian as the ability to get wealthier without working and pay no taxes (and even IF you sell to realize gains, your tax liability is still lower than someone who made money through labour)
reply
Your definition of "wealthier" is stupid, though, because it relies on a measure that doesn't actually apply to the person in question. A share's price is just "the last sale price of the same type of share", and that is multiplied by the person's shareholding to get their "wealth". However they don't have any more money by this happening - it's just a huge assumption that the share price would stay the same across all their shares if they sold right now.

The time we actually know what money they would make, making it concrete for tax, is when they sell. And we already do this.

reply
There's multiple advantages to making money from equities that people who make money from ordinary income simply do not have, favourable tax rates, the ability to choose when and how much to realize, the ability to loss harvest, compound interest, everything around how we tax these 2 forms of income is set up to beget inequality.
reply
> everything around how we tax these 2 forms of income is set up to beget inequality

No it's not. Most people don't pay capital gains because things like houses don't have capital gains applied. I.e. the rules are set up so that most people avoid capital gains tax when they gain capital. Everyone pays income tax with the same rules, and some people pay capital gains tax as well if their risks pay off. We tax the profits and let investors absorb the losses.

reply
> Makes sense IMO, much better to tax wealth than discourage transactions.

It's much, much worse to tax wealth.

reply
I disagree with you in the other thread, so I want to balance that by saying that I strongly agree with you here.
reply
If the government forced transfer of ownership %, instead of forcing a sale, it would be not as bad?
reply
It's identical really. It's just instituting the nationalisation over time of all businesses.
reply
In an ideal world, the government would sell some of whatever shares it gets at good times to pay off debt, for example when interest is high just before a tranche of government bonds expire
reply
They could accept either I suppose
reply
Apparently not. Googling, no one seems to actually do it in spite of some politicians talking about it.

It seems quite a bad idea from a practical point of view.

Not so much because it's socialist but it leads to all sorts of extra paperwork for no good reason. Like say you buy some utility company share for your retirement in 20 years and it fluctuates. Do you want to be valuing it and paying tax and then claiming it back when it goes down every year for 20 years or just declare the gain at the end?

reply
Well, it is socialist in that the government basically gets to own more of everything you own every year.
reply
Really? How? Show me a country that taxes wealth and is prosperous. Taxing unrealized gains results in owing tax on money you don’t have and makes starting a funded company impossible.
reply
and on the other hand we have trillionaires who spend their wealth on fascist party propaganda and censorship
reply