You complain about bullshit manipulation, then spread your own blatant disinformation to try support the billionaires??
The “real tax rate” isnt based on a stable net worth, it is based on the increase in net worth over X years (ie. Income), compared against the amount of tax paid over the X years.
If someones house increased in value at a rate of $1M per year, then they absolutely should be paying income tax on that $1M every year. Once it stops increasing in value, then it would no longer be contributing to income, and therefore would not be subject to income tax. It is pretty simple.
That would be a pretty messed up way to tax people. Like, a place becomes more desirable and suddenly all original inhabitants have to leave because they can’t afford to pay their “income” taxes? What?
Obviously tax law would have to be more nuanced, if you only own a single house then you can’t be expected to sell it just to pay the tax on it, but the tax could accumulate for when/if you do sell it. But someone who owns hundreds of properties which increase in value, could be expected to sell some to pay the tax. The point is to affect people who hide their actual income from taxes like this, just like Bezos does.
Because it is also a messed up way to tax people, to only require people who can’t afford these tax evasion strategies to pay income tax.
on it, but the tax could accumulate for when/if you do sell it.
That’s already how tax works on selling a home (in the U.S.) It’s called a Capital Gains Tax.
You can’t just raise the taxes every year for what a home is worth to the market (I mean, you can, but then if someone has retired you’re forcing them to pay more money every year as their home goes up in value). If you’re just living off of social security, you don’t have that kind of flexibility.
You complain about bullshit manipulation, then spread your own blatant disinformation to try support the billionaires??
The “real tax rate” isnt based on a stable net worth, it is based on the increase in net worth over X years (ie. Income), compared against the amount of tax paid over the X years.
If someones house increased in value at a rate of $1M per year, then they absolutely should be paying income tax on that $1M every year. Once it stops increasing in value, then it would no longer be contributing to income, and therefore would not be subject to income tax. It is pretty simple.
That would be a pretty messed up way to tax people. Like, a place becomes more desirable and suddenly all original inhabitants have to leave because they can’t afford to pay their “income” taxes? What?
Obviously tax law would have to be more nuanced, if you only own a single house then you can’t be expected to sell it just to pay the tax on it, but the tax could accumulate for when/if you do sell it. But someone who owns hundreds of properties which increase in value, could be expected to sell some to pay the tax. The point is to affect people who hide their actual income from taxes like this, just like Bezos does.
Because it is also a messed up way to tax people, to only require people who can’t afford these tax evasion strategies to pay income tax.
That’s already how tax works on selling a home (in the U.S.) It’s called a Capital Gains Tax.
You can’t just raise the taxes every year for what a home is worth to the market (I mean, you can, but then if someone has retired you’re forcing them to pay more money every year as their home goes up in value). If you’re just living off of social security, you don’t have that kind of flexibility.