It’s been awhile since I heard the term “McMansion!” A closer look at the bill shows that median price homebuyers in Seattle would see additional tax on their purchase, on account of home prices being jacked up by local market conditions.
Wasn’t there a property tax levy approved a year or so ago that tripled the amount costing levy that provides funding for homeless services?
Oh well, this time I’m sure it will work.
If your kid needs to be restrained in school, maybe the classroom isn’t the right environment for them.
Back in reality: a wealth tax would be a huge failure and end of costing normal taxpayers a lot more.
Case in fact: Norway's wealth tax
Instead of boosting tax income, Norway faced an economic backlash that left them with $500 million less in revenue. Why? Wealth fled the country—$54 billion worth of assets exited Norway as the rich decided to move their fortunes elsewhere
It's a hell of a lot easier to move from Washington to Florida, then to leave Norway and get new citizenship elsewhere.
So, if you want to see increased Sales taxes or reduced funding of government services a Wealth Tax is a great idea.
Remember when "progressives" Sawant and Bob Ferguson told us that Defund the Police would make things safer. Well, it's the same thinking. A wealth tax will make Washington more affordable. It's won't.
Unless it has changed from last year, the so-called Mansion Tax is not what you seem to think it is. Yes, it imposes higher taxes on the sale of extremely expensive houses, but it also increases taxes on the sale of apartment buildings. Even a small apartment building has the same value as very expensive houses. So this is mostly a tax on the sale of apartment buildings. Taxing apartment buildings means they are less likely to get built. This is what happened in LA when this kind of tax was imposed. We desperately need more apartments to bring down rent. Please research this bill and reconsider your support for it.
why tax wealth (that can move — to Bellevue or Baltimore) when you can tax the source of wealth? I don't care how big a house someone can build…but we should care about the land they put it on. That's finite and the value of it should belong to everyone. This is not a new idea, it dates back to Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and David Ricardo, so 200+ years of reading if you're game. There is vacant or underused land all over this city (think: surface parking downtown, storage warehouses, low-rise/converted houses in high-rise areas) and if a land tax was imposed, those would be redeveloped out of economic necessity. It would no longer make sense to keep idle, and it would be nice to see landowners have to scramble to make their rent payments. That empty lot across from City Hall, a hole in the ground since 2005 or so? A land tax would have had it developed so long ago it would look dated now. But the mayor and the council seem to be able to ignore it, as have have their predecessors.
To be clear "Taxing apartment buildings means they are less likely to get built" @ 4 is correct: you don't tax improvements or construction, at least not at the same rate. You tax land as remunerative, rather than speculative, property. Right now we have a uniform tax rate in WA that pencils out to about 1% on houses or skyscrapers. That doesn't make sense. Land used to make money should be taxed at a different rate than land used for housing. It puts an incentive on commercial land to make money to pay the tax and it reduces the burden on homeowners, which should be agreeable. And taxing the sale isn't the thing…it's taxing the possession, as a rent. As long as r > g (see: Thomas Piketty) taxing wealth is the best tool we have against inequality.
I don't expect this to happen, as this is a speculative town, full of real estate dealers and landlords (the state's flagship university has a college of real estate, so it's pretty deeply entrenched). The most propitious time for this to happen was back in the 40 and 50s, in the Soviet of Washington era.
It’s been awhile since I heard the term “McMansion!” A closer look at the bill shows that median price homebuyers in Seattle would see additional tax on their purchase, on account of home prices being jacked up by local market conditions.
Wasn’t there a property tax levy approved a year or so ago that tripled the amount costing levy that provides funding for homeless services?
Oh well, this time I’m sure it will work.
If your kid needs to be restrained in school, maybe the classroom isn’t the right environment for them.
Back in reality: a wealth tax would be a huge failure and end of costing normal taxpayers a lot more.
Case in fact: Norway's wealth tax
Instead of boosting tax income, Norway faced an economic backlash that left them with $500 million less in revenue. Why? Wealth fled the country—$54 billion worth of assets exited Norway as the rich decided to move their fortunes elsewhere
It's a hell of a lot easier to move from Washington to Florida, then to leave Norway and get new citizenship elsewhere.
So, if you want to see increased Sales taxes or reduced funding of government services a Wealth Tax is a great idea.
Remember when "progressives" Sawant and Bob Ferguson told us that Defund the Police would make things safer. Well, it's the same thinking. A wealth tax will make Washington more affordable. It's won't.
Unless it has changed from last year, the so-called Mansion Tax is not what you seem to think it is. Yes, it imposes higher taxes on the sale of extremely expensive houses, but it also increases taxes on the sale of apartment buildings. Even a small apartment building has the same value as very expensive houses. So this is mostly a tax on the sale of apartment buildings. Taxing apartment buildings means they are less likely to get built. This is what happened in LA when this kind of tax was imposed. We desperately need more apartments to bring down rent. Please research this bill and reconsider your support for it.
why tax wealth (that can move — to Bellevue or Baltimore) when you can tax the source of wealth? I don't care how big a house someone can build…but we should care about the land they put it on. That's finite and the value of it should belong to everyone. This is not a new idea, it dates back to Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and David Ricardo, so 200+ years of reading if you're game. There is vacant or underused land all over this city (think: surface parking downtown, storage warehouses, low-rise/converted houses in high-rise areas) and if a land tax was imposed, those would be redeveloped out of economic necessity. It would no longer make sense to keep idle, and it would be nice to see landowners have to scramble to make their rent payments. That empty lot across from City Hall, a hole in the ground since 2005 or so? A land tax would have had it developed so long ago it would look dated now. But the mayor and the council seem to be able to ignore it, as have have their predecessors.
To be clear "Taxing apartment buildings means they are less likely to get built" @ 4 is correct: you don't tax improvements or construction, at least not at the same rate. You tax land as remunerative, rather than speculative, property. Right now we have a uniform tax rate in WA that pencils out to about 1% on houses or skyscrapers. That doesn't make sense. Land used to make money should be taxed at a different rate than land used for housing. It puts an incentive on commercial land to make money to pay the tax and it reduces the burden on homeowners, which should be agreeable. And taxing the sale isn't the thing…it's taxing the possession, as a rent. As long as r > g (see: Thomas Piketty) taxing wealth is the best tool we have against inequality.
I don't expect this to happen, as this is a speculative town, full of real estate dealers and landlords (the state's flagship university has a college of real estate, so it's pretty deeply entrenched). The most propitious time for this to happen was back in the 40 and 50s, in the Soviet of Washington era.