> You own an asset and this asset is valued by the rating agency as more expensive than before. Now you have a liability that you need to pay...

Isn't this exactly how property taxes usually work? (In the absence of caps like California Prop 13, that is.)

The realization principle is a hallmark of income tax law, but many taxes are not income taxes.

▲

freefaler 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

In some states there are, which is also a bad & unjust practice. The difference is that the rates are between 0.49% and 2.5% and reassessment period differs between the states/localities (these are local taxes). This is way less that the proposed Norway taxes and "value" can be established much more justly than a "startup shares".

▲

vidarh 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

> This is way less that the proposed Norway taxes and "value" can be established much more justly than a "startup shares".

The Norwegian wealth tax is 0 up until ~$150k, then 0.7% local tax and 0.3%-0.4% to the state.

So 1%-1.1% above the threshold. But this is of taxable value which for shares is discounted 20%, so the actual tax rate is ~0.8%.

But again, for unlisted companies, the taxable value is the taxable valuation of company assets excluding goodwill, so in practice, it's even lower than that.

▲

asadotzler 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

So, it's OK if it has rules and the Norway laws don't have any rules... is that what you're saying here/

▲

freefaler 7 months ago | parent [-]

The principle of taxation without value exchanging hands will lead to bad consequences, this is the point I'm trying to make.

What will Norwegian's representatives do they will do. It's stupid and will lead to bad things down the road. Norway is rich and can afford stupid politics for now.

It's also morally wrong, but morality and taxes are not the same.

	▲	vidarh 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Norway has done this for many decades. It's worked just fine. Morality is subjective, so it's meaningless to argue it is morally wrong without making an argument for why.

▲

dzhiurgis 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes and property taxes are terrible.

Tax. Vacant. Land.

▲

tzs 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

In the US property taxes largely go to fund public schools, local police/fire/emergency medical service, parks, roads, sewer, water, and trash collection.

Generally the amount you need for such services is more a function of how much non-vacant land you have in the area than how much vacant land, so unless switching to just taxing vacant land was accompanied by some tax on something else to cover the aforementioned things it would not work very well.

▲

HPsquared 7 months ago | parent [-]

The fairest system would be a flat tax per person, surely. Each person will use a pretty average amount of state resources. It's expensive to live in California, after all.

▲

grakker 7 months ago | parent [-]

I can remember when people actually advocated for a flat tax with a straight face. Freaking hilarious idea supported by shallow thinkers.

	▲	vidarh 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		It wouldn't surprise me, though I've usually seen that applied as a reductio ad absurdum to show that the notion of a flat percentage as "fair" is arbitrary because surely a flat tax would be even fairer - on the basis that it highlights how flattening out the tax curve can make the burden on the poorest unsustainable.

▲

no_wizard 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Land value tax is the most effective tool in creating market conditions for real estate

▲

cardiffspaceman 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Put. A. Farm. On. Each. Plot. Of. Land.

Locally people dodge the remit of the California Coastal Commission by converting land to farms because you can convert a farm to anything.