• almost_genocide@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    This is a wealth tax, not an income tax. We don’t currently have a wealth tax to decrease; we would be establishing a new one. I would propose 1% per year.

    We don’t need to call it something new. We already have property tax. It’s an average of 1.1% around the United States.

    Stocks are property.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Real Estate property taxes are assessed at the county/parish level, and apply only to land and improvements on that land. Securities would not be considered “real property”. They are generally considered intangible personal property, which is not currently taxed. Further, the tax I am describing would be assessed at the federal level.

      We certainly do need a way of distinguishing between existing real estate taxes and the proposed securities tax, even if the rates for the two taxes are identical.

      Parent comment refers to “dramatically decreasing the tax rate”, but does not describe what tax rate they are decreasing. Parent comment crunches some numbers in which they assume a 3% tax rate, not a 1.1% tax rate comparable to real property taxes you describe.

      They did not indicate what tax rate they meant when they said it would need to be decreased. They certainly aren’t referring to a real property tax rate when they suggest a decrease. I believe they were referring to either Federal Income Tax or Federal Capital Gains tax, which are approximately 25 to 50 times higher than the tax I was considering. Given the considerable discrepancy between what I meant and what they heard, I felt it important to indicate that this tax would be entirely separate from the existing taxes, and that it would be enacted for an entirely separate purpose.

      I didn’t (initially) define a proposed securities tax rate, but I did provided context for calculating one:

      "stocks, bonds, real estate, and other financial assets (the “ownership of the means of production”) should only be valuable to the working classes

      I would tax those securities held by corporate interests and the obscenely rich at a rate equal to or greater than their expected return on investment, so that the benefits of securities ownership convey primarily to working class investors. From Parent Comment’s ROI (5%) and inflation (3%) numbers, the context I provided would allow for at most a 2% securities tax rate.

      The securities tax rate I had in mind was 1%.

      • almost_genocide@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Securities would not be considered “real property”.

        I’m not interested in what billionaires would consider “real property”.

        Stocks are property.

          • almost_genocide@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            This is me pointing to the headline.

            “The rich convinced us that taxing them is too complicated but everyday people can be taxed pretty easily”

            Stocks are property. Easy.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Maybe I’m an idiot, but I am just not understanding the ramifications of your argument.

              Yes, Stocks are property. They are a specific type of property: “intangible personal property”.

              That type of property is not currently taxed. I am describing a method in which that type of property will be taxed.

              What does your distinction bring to the discussion?