upvote
The only reason it works with real estate is because they can put a lien on the house and block the sale of it. They don't have any useful mechanism to stop the sale of a share of stock, but since the government is involved in the transfer (due to the registering of the new house deed) of a house, they can stop that one.
reply
> They don't have any useful mechanism to stop the sale of a share of stock

The SEC exists. As do many other mechanisms by which the government regulates direct and brokered securities trades and sales. You can make the case that some of those controls are poorly/ineffectively implemented, but you can’t claim that it’s not something the government routinely regulates, intervenes in, and sometimes prohibits outright.

reply
Society has deemed it "ok" for a real estate transaction to take days or weeks to process and mountains of paperwork, probably because it is done so rarely in an average person's life. But stock trades are expected to be done quickly in minutes or even milliseconds with high frequency trading. It just isn't feasible to inject government paperwork in the middle of a transaction. Wall Street would revolt if they even tried.
reply
Nah. Look up the SEC’s reporting requirements, specifically form 4. The paperwork requirement already exists.

https://www.sec.gov/files/forms-3-4-5.pdf

Here are Musk’s. https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1494730.htm

reply
Exactly... that's why sales tax and VAT don't exist anywhere -- because there's no way to stop the purchase of goods or services.
reply
This type of low-hanging sarcastic rebuttal doesn't belong here
reply
Why can't govt block the sale of stocks? It's not like you would be selling non digitalized assets, govts often freeze and reverse stock sales/trades when they find it to be illegal already.

It's harder for private companies sure, but who will stand in the way of govts if they said we will sanction your if you buy X or Y company?

This entire argument doesn't really hold IMHO

reply
The main reason real estate taxes work so well is that tax evasion is very difficult.

Because the building is standing right where it is, in the open, lit by the sun every day. If you don't pay your tax, the government can just take it.

This compensates for the several philosophical and moral problems with it, and I've seen several economists declare it the best form of taxation there is.

reply
People absolutely make that argument about property taxes. That's where deferrals or abatements for e.g. elderly or low-income homeowners, or caps on property tax increases come from. Someone may own a home that property taxes price them out of, forcing them to leave their community because they can't actually conjure money from a higher priced home.

I think a lot of tax authorities also don't really aggressively reassess that regularly without a sale, so it also kind of ends up baked in that if you didn't pay that much for the property, it's only theoretically worth that much.

reply
Predatory property taxes were a part of how so many black American farmers lost their land: https://archive.is/exkhR
reply
This is all conceding the argument already. Many of us would happily accept these sorts of limitations on a wealth tax if it means there is a wealth tax.
reply
> It's strange that people always make this argument for wealth taxes, but you rarely hear it about property taxes.

I don't like property taxes either, and at minimum would rather they were called something else, and preferably replaced with per-service charges where possible.

But either way they exist to pay for things, and not to just degrade the value of your property simply because you worked to own it.

reply
Property taxes are use taxes, not wealth taxes. Apples and oranges.
reply
If I sell my house, there's a reasonable expected range of money I can expect for it.

If a majority stock holder in a company sells all of their stock, the price first the first share sold is likely going to be completely different (and substantially less!) than the last share sold.

reply
"It's difficult to accurately value" isn't an argument against taxing net worth. It's like the old (likely apocryphal) Winston Churchill joke, "We already established what type of woman you are, now we are just haggling over price". Just take whatever the proposal is, cut in half, quarter, or whatever fraction you want and you no longer have an argument against it.

Personally my favorite idea for this stuff that I have heard thrown around is to allow people to self value everything. However, that self valuation then becomes a price tag. Let a billionaire's accountants put their own evaluation on their equity in a business. But that becomes a binding offer and some other billionaire could come along and buy them out at that valuation. That creates pricing pressure in both directions, the person is prevented from underpricing their assets due to the threat of another buyer coming in and a person is prevented from overpricing because it increases their taxes. And suddenly all the problems regarding how the government appraises these things disappears.

reply
Forcing people to write a call option on their property without an offsetting risk premium only sounds like a good idea if you neither understand the implications nor the math. Asset values would collapse because risk would go to the moon.

And that ignores that it trivially enables large-scale exploitation and looting by construction.

reply
It's like saying cash isn't real until you spend it. Which is true in one sense but not what they mean.
reply