91–100 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first 250k in profits from capital gains are exempt. It is estimated that this tax only affects the 7000 richest individuals in Washington. Keep in mind we don't have any income taxes here.
These taxes always start off only affecting the richest of the rich, until the government decides it needs more revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think you understand how capital gains work... If you invest a dollar today and get ten dollars tomorrow you’ve gained 9 dollars. When were you taxed for that?
They're saying if that growth occured over 60 years then you've just kept up with inflation. Might as well have just put it in a standard savings account and NOT get capital gains tax. *Well, maybe a standard money market account or bond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be great for the taxpayer if you could do that but the government would lose out on so much revenue. So I think any such proposal is dead on arrival.
I think it’s important to recognize that taxes are not primarily about revenue. The government can just create/inflate as much money into existence as it wants. All taxes are about behavior control and signaling. We’re either trying to discourage a behavior or signal we’re sticking it to some group or other who is getting taxed. Once you see the world through this lens all of these tax laws make much more sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know that most real estate investing is like... buying land and extracting literal rent, right? This is a bizarre take.
Though they do literally seek rent from their tenants, landlords who provide housing (or commercial real-estate) are not rent-seeking in the economic sense of that phrase, which is to seek to improve your economic position without creating any benefits for others . Providing housing or office space is clearly creating benefit for others.
If you buy a house to speculate on housing prices, and then rent it out, _you aren't adding anything_. That's entire point of the phrase "rent seeking". You've dumped capital into a limited-quantity good and then extract rent as it becomes more valuable.
The only exception is those actually expanding the housing supply (which is hugely valuable and should be rewarded!), but this is a tiny tiny fraction of the housing stock! Most commercial real-estate is not any housing-add over if they didn't exist!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though they do literally seek rent from their tenants, landlords who provide housing (or commercial real-estate) are not rent-seeking in the economic sense of that phrase, which is to seek to improve your economic position without creating any benefits for others . Providing housing or office space is clearly creating benefit for others.
No, they don't. Landlords are complete drains on society. They don't 'provide' housing. They limit supply and drive up costs for everyone else.
I recently came across this comment by Philip Greenspun: “if you bought an asset for $10,000 in 2000, for example, the BLS says you spent $15,700 in today’s mini-dollars; if you sell it for $15,000 in 2021 you’ve actually suffered a loss, but will owe capital gains tax nonetheless” ( https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2021/04/29/economic-wisdom... ). I’m not a finance person, and this had never occurred to me. Does he…
Isn't that the same way it works for buying stocks? I don't live in the US, but if I buy stocks for 100$, then sell them five years later for 150$, I have to pay a percentage of the winnings (so a % of 50$). This means that if inflation was more than what's left over after the taxes are removed then I would effectively "lose" money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think his point was the initial dollar you invested was at some point subject to income tax to get it.
The (now gray) comment talks about being double taxed. That is, taxed twice for the same money. If I invest $100 (post-tax money) and sell the investment at $1000, I do not pay taxes on that $100. There is no double taxing. I do pay taxes on the $900 gain .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think you understand how capital gains work... If you invest a dollar today and get ten dollars tomorrow you’ve gained 9 dollars. When were you taxed for that?
They're saying if that growth occured over 60 years then you've just kept up with inflation. Might as well have just put it in a standard savings account and NOT get capital gains tax. *Well, maybe a standard money market account or bond.
Why is real estate always exempt from this stuff? Is there a good reason or is the special interest just large?
There's a fairness argument that can be made (but probably should only apply to primary residences only) - you buy a house for $100k in Seattle 10 years ago - now you want to move to another neighborhood into an identical house, but both are now worth upwards of $500k - you'd have to come up with the tax difference on the "profit" even though all you're doing is moving between nearly identical properties. Also stock…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. But really there should not be capital gains tax as it is double taxation - you have already paid income tax on the same dollar.
"Double taxation" as a concept is complete nonsense. You pay sales tax, property tax, VAT, etc out of money (or assets bought with money) that has already been subject to your income tax. You pay both federal and local income taxes on the same money. Tax systems are naturally layered, and have been since the beginning of civilization. There are good arguments against capital gains tax, but this is not one of them.