San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

Re:San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, b... by bhupy on Thursday November 05, 2020 @08:06PM (#25003856)

Not quite relevant, because we already tax land appreciation in the US today, it's just the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is also low because (in theory) we want to incentivize investment in the name of growth. There's no reason why we ought to apply the same incentive in favor of investment in real asset growth. A Land Appreciation Tax is just a capital gains tax just on real estate.

In fact, LVT would be unconstitutional at the Federal level today, but a Land Appreciation Tax would not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, b... by jelliclesfarm on Thursday November 05, 2020 @08:22PM (#25003929)

Why capital gains tax rate is lower

[..] The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption. ... Finally, a capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption.[..]

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, b... by bhupy on Thursday November 05, 2020 @08:28PM (#25003961)

Yup, that too. It’s another consideration that I don’t think ought to be made for land appreciation. In fact, because it doesn’t account for inflation, for the longest holders of land, a high LAT functions like a very mild LVT in practice, while also neutralizing the attractiveness of land as an investment vehicle in general.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, b... by dionidium on Thursday November 05, 2020 @11:14PM (#25004834)

Most homeowners don't pay capital gains taxes when they sell their home.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/capitalgainhomes...

[ Parent | on HN ]