▲ 649 ▼ The rich now own a record share of stocks, about 93% of U.S. households' stock market wealth is held by the top 10% (www.axios.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Why should "first home" be exempt? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Because people actually live in those. And, because of the never ending housing crisis, the "value" of houses goes up pretty rapidly. Which already sucks when you are paying property tax and needing to send the "Hey, my house isn't ACTUALLY worth that much" letter to the county every few years. But add on an overall tax for... not paying rent? And you are going to have a LOT of people priced out of owning their own homes. Which, like most of the previous poster's suggestions, just serve to consolidate "wealth" with the ultra-rich. Multiple homes? Fuck 'em. Yes, there is the occasional case of someone buying their parents' home or whatever. But mostly you are looking at landlords in that situation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Maybe. In that case, I think the "first home" should be exempt only if its your only home. If you have more than one, then I see no reason not to tax them. I'm sure it would create a lot of loopholes that would also need to be plugged up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago Ah. Ambiguity fart. Let me rephrase that to "one home per "household". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Because people actually live in those. And, because of the never ending housing crisis, the "value" of houses goes up pretty rapidly. Which already sucks when you are paying property tax and needing to send the "Hey, my house isn't ACTUALLY worth that much" letter to the county every few years. But add on an overall tax for... not paying rent? And you are going to have a LOT of people priced out of owning their own homes. Which, like most of the previous poster's suggestions, just serve to consolidate "wealth" with the ultra-rich. Multiple homes? Fuck 'em. Yes, there is the occasional case of someone buying their parents' home or whatever. But mostly you are looking at landlords in that situation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Maybe. In that case, I think the "first home" should be exempt only if its your only home. If you have more than one, then I see no reason not to tax them. I'm sure it would create a lot of loopholes that would also need to be plugged up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago Ah. Ambiguity fart. Let me rephrase that to "one home per "household". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Maybe. In that case, I think the "first home" should be exempt only if its your only home. If you have more than one, then I see no reason not to tax them. I'm sure it would create a lot of loopholes that would also need to be plugged up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago Ah. Ambiguity fart. Let me rephrase that to "one home per "household". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago Ah. Ambiguity fart. Let me rephrase that to "one home per "household". permalink fedilink source parent