Huh, I could have sworn the goalposts were over here in the "tax it" debate, not the "ensure it is taxed by a specific entity" debate.

There’s a certain amount of independence between municipalities, counties, states, and the federal government.

Except in a minority of cases (e.g. NYC), it is states and the federal government that taxes income and capital gains, and they are already not taxing citizens on the y realized value of their home.

So if one is upset about that, you have to take it up with local elections or introduce a measure with your state to prevent municipalities from levying this specific tax.

Yes the idea of property taxes is NOT to tax based on increase in wealth, just the current amount of wealth. And it serves a good purpose in municipalities who have to make sure infrastructure such as roads power and sewage systems are paid somehow. More expensive houses typically require more of those.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that wealth should be taxed but only at the county/municipal level? Or are you saying wealth can't be taxed because of federalism?

That's a different tax. Which speaks to my original point that the term "capital gains tax" is a thing, and seems to be misunderstood.

Tax on property is a completely different tax which works in a different way, and has a different name. A new tax on possession of robots could completely be a thing, but it just wouldn't be called a "capitol gains" tax.

Is that a big distinction? Is there anything limiting the states from preempting municipalities and levying at the state level?