A fix would be if you use unrealized capital to secure a loan, that unrealized capital amount to secure the loan becomes taxable. Of course that would tax people trying to get home equity loans though.

The problem is that people will always probe the tax code for loopholes that weren't considered. It's a cat and mouse game, except the cat is fat and lazy, and gets paid by the mouse.

you could create an exception: if you have <= $1M in unrealized capital gains, those assets are not subject to unrealized gains tax.

Eh, an exception for a primary home is common throughout the tax codes and the like. Just saying you realize capital gains on an asset used to secure a loan (unless it's a primary residence) would cover that without being out of step with everything else.

Sure, a billionaire could then use their $143M estate as collateral on a loan to avoid realizing the capital gains, loophole, but since you can only have one primary home, it's a very limited loophole.

Larry Ellison will write off the island of Lanai as his primary charging station.

The really great thing about taxing land, is that it can't escape where it is. Capital flight is a risk for taxing other forms of wealth.

And land is something of finite quantity that is actually taken away from the rest of society. Capital is produced, and made, and is not finite like land.

This is one thing that California got really wrong, it should be taxing land heavily, and income less.

> it should be taxing land heavily, and income less.

Wouldn't that inflate housing prices even more? Which disproportionally affect those in the bottom 90% or so.

Not an economist, but not necessarily. A heavy land tax would discourage buying real estate as an investment vehicle which might help drive prices down (or at least slow the rate of growth). It would also discourage leaving rental units empty.

I’ve always been in favor of a land tax like the Georgist’s describe.

I still think property taxes on stocks should be a thing. Americans pay income taxes from foreign sources, so why shouldn’t the rich also pay the same for overseas investments? Just close the loopholes with simpler tax laws. That could be like saying it isn’t hard to program some feature into software, though, so perhaps not.

Example: “Thou shalt pay 0% of all income and assets up to 20k, 10% to 50k, …, and 95% on up to 20mm.”

    > why shouldn’t the rich also pay the same for overseas investments?

They do. US taxes apply to global income. Can you give a specific example where they do not? Please don't write a lazy reply like "move all their assets to a zero tax location in the Carribean." They are still responsible to pay US taxes for any income derived from those offshore investments.

Framing this as a personal income tax concern is a bit off the mark.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_erosion_and_profit_shif...

No, look up prop 13, it heavily incentivizes sitting on land and never triggering a valuation reset. It’s a massive wealth transfer from the newcomers (who tend to be younger) to those who’ve lived there longer.