Remix.run Logo
cherrycherry98 5 days ago

His net worth increased due to asset appreciation. Nobody physically transferred him any money and it can fall back down tomorrow. Should he get a refund if Oracle stock tanks?

verteu a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Should he get a refund if Oracle stock tanks?

Presumably it would function the same way as realized capital gains taxes (no refund on tax already paid)?

triceratops 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

He pays less next year because Oracle stock is worth less. Just like property taxes on people's houses.

The math on taxing unrealized gains or losses doesn't work out for the reasons you pointed out. Property taxes, on the other hand, have been working for a long time.

cherrycherry98 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> He pays less next year because Oracle stock is worth less. Just like property taxes on people's houses.

Does he get a refund if he loses money or is it just tax if you win, tax if you lose, tax if it doesn't move?

I'll give a few feelings about property taxes. They are known up front when the purchase is made. There's an expectation that they remain reasonably consistent year over year. In that way they can be consistently planned for, enough that it's seen as more of a maintenance expense for upkeep of local services rather than a wealth tax. If my neighbor sells their comparable property for double what they paid for it a few short years I don't expect my tax bill to have a massive jump. In my experience the city's assessed values tend to lag the true market value pretty significantly. The goal appears to use the assessed value as a means to have some graduated component to the property tax. Being a local tax, any significant jumps are seem to be avoided by design, lest it trigger angry residents showing up at town hall meetings.

With a wealth tax it can be highly variable year to year and out of one's control. If stocks go way up you're on hook for paying those taxes. Especially if you're Larry Ellison with a controlling stake in Oracle, you could find yourself in the situation of having to liquidate assets to pay taxes, thereby reducing your control of your own company.

My main objection to a wealth tax is many of its proponents see it as a means of reducing inequality and "leveling the playing field". I find these positions to come from a place of envy and reject them of those grounds. Many arguing in favor also assume that federal confiscation of wealth inherently benefits the public, as if its some benevolent charity. The reality is more mixed. There is seemingly no limit to politicians' ability squander money on nice sounding projects that give them good headlines while enriching cronies and delivering questionable actual value. It's nice to imagine that all that money is going to roads, bridges, schools, and research, but a whole lot is also going to spying on the populace, subverting foreign governments, and blowing people up.