Are you aware of the "buy, borrow, die" strategy? In short, you can borrow against the value of appreciated assets to get income during your lifetime, then pass the assets (and the debt) on in inheritance, and your heirs don't have to pay any capital gains tax because of cost-basis step up when they sell the assets to pay the debt. You effectively avoid any taxation on the appreciation.
But all the money you borrowed needs to have been spent, or it's subject to inheritance tax (or paying back the debt it came from), and all that spending needs to be on things that are taxed with VAT, with employees providing services you buy who are paying income tax, and the businesses you're buying from paying corporation tax, etc etc. Tax is never avoided; it's just paid through other means.
There's a reason it was pushed mostly by billionaires.
LVT is the most egalitarian tax. It's completely unavoidable for land owners, renters pay nothing at all, it skews highest on the biggest landowers and it doesnt disincentivize productive investment or productive work.
This is essentially the same thing as buying up land and leaving it fallow, but with human resources instead of land. In some ways this is worse, as society has already invested in training those workers.
Land is finite. Buy half of all the land and that won't exactly drive the creation of more land will it? It'll just drive up the price of existing land.
This is in a nutshell why some things in America are dirt cheap (e.g. electronics, clothes) while houses keep getting more and more absurdly priced.
This is the rich corporation PR that I'm talking about.
So here's Richie Rich not spending most of his income, but also not selling any shares unless he wants to buy something. In fact, he doesn't sell shares even then, because instead he borrows money to buy things, so there are never any capital gains. Without a consumption tax he pays no tax at all.
But you're saying we need this tax, whose practical effect is to tax middle class people on the inflationary component of asset price increases, because they spend more of their income. Instead you want to tax middle class people on their income. But then what benefit do they receive by using an income tax which immediately taxes all of their income?
For years Steve Forbes the billionaire was the face of "the consumption tax". You dont get richer or more corporate than that fucker.
I dont want to tax the middle classes on their income either. It's regressive just not AS regressive as a consumption tax.
I want a land value tax.
In this world, renters pay all of the expenses incurred by land owners via a payment we call "rent".
Note that LVT discourages diverse development. You see an empty piece of land that should be filled with condos. I see an open space that lets me see something other than condos.
There is law, economic or otherwise that a business has to make a profit. With an LVT you cant profit from land speculation only providing a good, well maintained property which uses space efficiently.
LVT does not discourage diverse development. It only discourages land hoarding and inefficient use of land (e.g. San Francisco's one family homes).
> capital gains tax exists but is deferred until you sell the shares and then rich people don't do that
This gets pretty quickly into the philosophical what-are-we-doing-here-exactly of taxes, but:
1) Shares don't do very much on their own, so there isn't really a problem with that. I mean, dude owns a billion in shares - if they earn income dude will pay tax, if they don't the only true to get to the value is to sell them.
I imagine there are some gaping loopholes involving charities and debt, but that isn't anything to do with the deferment of the tax.
2) Because of inflation - and asset inflation is markedly higher than CPI - CGT is effectively a wealth tax because fairly quickly most of the value of an asset is the inflationary component. I've got gold bars where I allegedly am making a 100-and-something% return and that just flies in the face of the inert reality of the metal itself. The tax is markedly unfair, anyone trying to be a responsible saver ends up paying much more of their income in tax than someone who just spends it on the day and it effectively becomes a wealth tax that stops anyone in the middle class moving up over time. Moving wealth between assets is catastrophic to your financial health once CGT is a factor.
There are a bunch of quirky distortions in the tax system. CGT might even be one of the contributing factors to why people don't tend to have savings (although the biggest factor is probably psychology). Rationally speaking saving is quite an inefficient use of money if you end up paying CGT.