If it’s so small as to not be meaningful, why collect it? How could it benefit the state to have so little money? If the state professes a genuine need for such a small marginal increase in its revenue, then shouldn’t the individuals being taxed be able to make a similar case?
This is like the conversation over signing NDAs, where one party pressures the other by saying it doesn’t matter...
> If it’s so small as to not be meaningful, why collect it
You're mixing up to whom it's meaningful. Rich individuals will be unaffected, but it will benefit the state as the tax is collected from more than one person.
I understand that. In aggregate, it’s not a large additional amount for the state of California. How is it meaningful outside of CA insisting they would like to have it?
Taxes are not punishment. It's not meant to impoverish individual rich people. It's meant to get some money into the state coffers which pays for the infrastructure they use.
> If it’s so small as to not be meaningful, why collect it?
The way I see it, it is small for the taxpayer. It is not insignificant for the state.
Personally, I don't own any land and I'd be pretty happy if we stripped property tax from local government and made one uniform federal property tax set somewhere between five percent and ten percent of the market value of the property annually with the goal that you will pay about the sticker price of the property in taxes every ten or so years. In return, the state will grant a housing allowance to every eligible resident over the age of eighteen which covers two times the cost of a modest two bedroom somewhere in the US. It won't be enough for a two bedroom in mid-town Manhattan but we will have guidelines that enable you to live somewhere habitable (access to decent road/transit options, running drinking water and sewage, electricity, reliable wired Internet access).
No allowance is available to or for anyone under the age of eighteen. No provision shall be made for regional differences in cost of living. No exemption shall be made with respect to tax-exempt status or any other reason. All agreements made with local governments (like the ones corporations like Walmart make to not pay any property tax for a hundred years or something) will not affect the property tax they pay under this new tax regime.
If we implement this and close income tax loopholes, we won't need to have a wealth tax. We will also not need to vilify corrupt officials in the CCP government in mainland China and other investors for "parking" their money in empty properties in the west and driving up the cost of real estate. We will instead thank them for their contribution to our communities through property taxes.
The most important thing is there should be no loopholes in tax policy. I really think most people in the US will agree that we shouldn't be driving policy issues through tax credits/deductions. It makes no sense to me to give tax credits or deductions for buying a house, selling a car, having a child, saving money in a health saving account, investing money for retirement, or donating to charity. All credits and deductions (going forward) in personal income tax should go away forever. All of this is basically a human shield for the wealthy to hide their tax loopholes.
I understand that. In aggregate, it’s not a large additional amount for the state of California. (Most of CA’s income is aggregated from many sources.) How is it meaningful outside of CA insisting they would like to have it, in a way that precludes the taxed entity from claiming they have a meaningful use for it?
This is like the conversation over signing NDAs, where one party pressures the other by saying it doesn’t matter...