They are talking about another wealth tax for Washington State, but there is always the worry that the super rich will leave the state and take their money with them, thus reducing available revenue.
How focusing more on taxing big McMansions in the state? There are sure a lot of them. Homes tend to be exempt from these wealth tax proposals, though they do pay some taxes.
Some senior citizens get breaks on property taxes if their ongoing income is below a certain level. They still might own a home worth over a million, but their money is all tied up in the house. This break is unfair to renters who still have to pay indirectly through their rent; if not in subsidized housing. I'm fortunate to be in subsidized housing, but there is a long waiting list to get in.
Maybe the senior citizen homeowner tax break could be treated like a reverse mortgage? One could benefit from the tax break until the house sells, or gets inherited. Then back taxes could be collected.
Maybe there is already something like this in place, but I'll have to research it more.
I know that taxing homes is sort of a political no no.
Taxing business is more popular because it's taxing something "other;" rather than taxing people directly.
Ultimately business is just people also. If the owners and executives make huge profits, that can be taxed. It would be taxing the owners and folks making loads of money. Tax their personal wealth and their mansions.
On the other hand, some businesses can be on a thin margin. There may be a high volume of revenue, but it almost all goes back out to expenses. A business may have lots of capital, on paper, but that's the buildings and machinery it uses to do it's business.
Taxing business, especially if it isn't real profitable, falls back on people anyway, in terms of hurting customers, workers and the economy. It can kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so to speak; or at least send the goose flying out of the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment