A tax regime that replaced capital gains taxes on domestic property and financial securities with a 1 or 2 percent wealth/property tax would be superior to both the current regime and a universal wealth tax. This would also apply to primary residences which are often capital gains exempt.

economicspolicy
Suggested by steven.noble
Discussion
  • I'm interested to hear more about this, and particularly how it might alter the economic incentives behind investing. (Also, it's interesting to me to note that typically, asset managers operate exactly on those terms, charging 1% of assets yearly, regardless of returns.)
    Reply
  • Why this is a good idea for land property?

    First, a capital gains tax on residence is a major drag on the economy because it is a significant inhibitor on mobility, and there are good reasons to believe that worker mobility produces a lot of value. But if you only have this one carve out it acts as a feedback loop in accelerating prices because if prices are appreciating at all it becomes the most attractive place to put all your available investment finances, including leverage. It also inhibits other uses of land, eg creating rental suites from part of the home (at least in Canada, if you create a rental suite then capital gains applies proportionally).

    However, the elimination of capital gains is surrendering a lot of government revenue to people who have means to pay. So it can be recaptured with a substantial property tax. Furthermore, a large enough property tax will push purchasers to treat home selection more like a car purchase where they don’t just select the most valuable home they can afford. The tax dollars on the home behaves like depreciation on the car. Both mean a more expensive choice competes against future consumption.

    Reply
  • Is the difference between this proposal and a universal wealth tax that it gets rid of capital gains taxes at the same time?
    Reply
    • More that if only applies to domestic property and fimancial securities. One of the struggles countries have seen with a wealth tax is that the wealthy will move their wealth either to assets that are hard to track or hard to assess. The idea here is that those assets would still have a capital gains tax, so once they hit the market the taxes can be eventually applied. Financial securities and land are easier to track ownership and to assess from year to year. Removing the capital gains tax would be there to keep the investments on equal footing. Something that is unclear to me is how debts would work. With a property tax the tax applies to the full value of the property. But wealth taxes apply to net wealth, so the property value minus any debts, like a remaining mortgage.
      Reply
  • Is the percentage the same at any positive level of wealth, or is it progressive?
    Reply
  • What do you think the biggest impediments are to such a regime actually being enacted in countries such as the USA and Canada?
    Reply
    • Probably that it makes home owners worse off. They already have a capital gains exemption so there are only more taxes. Investment landholders and stock investors are trading one tax for another so they would be not as stridently opposed.
      Reply
  • How would this be implemented in practice?
    Reply
    • Roughly in the same way as property taxes to the city are implemented. We already do a pretty good job at tracking ownership of these types of assets.
      Reply