Predatory property taxes were a part of how so many black American farmers lost their land: https://archive.is/exkhR

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.

> 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.

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.

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

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.

It's interesting to see the level of discourse change across time as these same points are brought up again and again.

It seems there are many many more people heavily invested in preventing land tax all of a sudden and are very informed whereas when that guy made a land tax visualizer a few months ago... crickets.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45425770

> but I struggle to even conceptualize what land value means

One of the first comments. Now there are dozens of people who are suddenly well versed in "georgeism"?

"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.

no more obvious than taxing against the whole value of the asset rather than just the loan.

Security backed loans for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?

You misunderstood. The discussion was not about income qualifications for a loan but about collateral.

wealth taxes solve the problem that the ultra-wealthy will find a way to make their income untaxable, and focusing on these loans is a red herring. its how theyre doing it now, but not how theyll do it an hour after you add this tax. That the ultra-wealthy propose this as the solution means theyve already planned the next work around.

they dislike wealth taxes, which are an old roman concept predating socialism, because the wealth tax covers all the work arounds they can think of.

it is a proper solution to the overall problem which is extreme wealth concentration.

the obvious alternative is nationalization of all assets worth more than 100M.

DOGE has pretty conclusively proved that the government has been incredibly efficient with spending and doesnt have an addiction to wasteful spending. instead the problem is wasteful monopolization and wealth concentration. society writ large has an addiction to giving a small cadre too much power and control, and they arent the government

Is Larry page borrowing “up to $50000”?

That may be a perfectly viable solution. Seems like an easier path to me, at least. But the point is that these assets are a lot more fungible than you imply.

> It is not a good measure of the money someone may be able to realise.

And as such, when you get into the higher ranges, net worth is quite a good indicator.

However, the bank is happy to extend the loan infinitely for people with enough assets. It's questionable that whether such loans are cash flow neutral.

In theory, maybe, but in practice that is not what happened over the past decade(s). Instead our retirement funds are paying it back.

When the market grows it makes the collateral worth more, which lets the borrower keep refinancing the debt instead of selling assets and realizing taxable gains. As long as the assets appreciate faster than the debt grows, the borrowing can effectively roll forward for decades. Eventually the estate pays the debt out of the assets themselves, but this is not necessarily out of taxable income earned during the person's lifetime. The US markets has seen exceptional genuine growth, but the trillions of 401(k), IRA, etc money flowing in to them over the last 40 years is no small consideration.

And even so, you could say it all settles out in the end, but that ignores the fact that there have constant constant efforts (and successes) in eroding away the e̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶x̶ "death tax" during this same period.

The framing was slightly glib, and you're correct that current rates impacts the equation, but there has been real damage caused by how extremely attractive this strategy has been over the past decade. We sitting on an unprecedented peace time deficit due to a failure to properly tax an economy that has been massively prosperous during this same period. This strategy is small part of it, but it is a real part.

The net worth is simply the sum of assets minus the sum of liabilities. Take away the assets and you take away the net worth. I can't think of an asset category that you can't transfer if you are willing to sacrifice its value (which presumably doesn't matter, because it's not real anyways)

In the rare cases where contract law makes the transfer impossible legally the government could trivially step in to make it possible

which thing of mine are you saying is worth a billion dollars? the lawnmower? take that then?

whats the complication? if its not worth anything whos gonna worry, especially if the government then compensates you in dollars

You take control of the shares and distribute the proceeds and make it impossible to leverage them for loans, credit etc.

Is it Zuck's networth or salary that makes it possible for him to own his ranch in Hawaii?

Why not? Net worth is the estimated sell value of a list of assets. It is entirely possible to take those assets, or charge a tax based on that estimated sell value. Why would it even be a little difficult, let alone impossible?

And certainly ceejayoz was being a bit glib by suggesting we take all of it, but it would not be remotely insurmountable to tax billionaire wealth.

the government seizes dollars in the form of taxes, which are still assets, no?

these other assets like musk's stocks are still quite divisible, and theyre as liquid as the government wants them to be. just because musk hasnt written the liquidity into his government sponsored contracts doesnt mean the government cant say yes, 10% of your private spaceX stock is liquid and belongs to donald trump now

its real and thus it is taxable

> Because that would involve seizing assets?

Oh, are those real now?

which is also part of the idea of wealth taxes? to diffuse wealth?

Charitably speaking: I suspect the commenter above you was indicating that the government should have a stock portfolio you can transfer stocks to to pay taxes in a non-taxable event type scenerio.

you confused liquidity and wealth.

illiquid wealth != unreal wealth.

as I said, if it were unreal you wouldn't mind losing it.

if it is illiquid, you clearly do.

economic illiteracy is not the best foundation for arguing against taxing the wealthy. by pretending the wealth "doesnt really exist" and "isnt there" to tax it highlights the underlying greed motivating the argument.

if you dont agree, perhaps elucidate on a more legitimate reason you might have had for confusing unreal with illiquid?

id say it usually is.

most people have very little illiquid wealth, and its generally in the form of a house.

billionaires are a tiny propertion of people, and their situation is as atypical as it comes. theres no reason to make super special accomodations for them, when theyre responsible for making their own dumb situation where they have too many assets to make them liquid on a hurry