reo Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 1 hour ago, Titandan said: If they sell their property and end up leaving, where will next year's tax come from? The people who buy the property. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titandan Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 30 minutes ago, reo said: The people who buy the property. Simple economics. Mass sell off will cause a housing market crash. At least for the super wealthy properties. I'm assuming in the $6-30 million range. I foresee good tax revenue for the first year. Then it's going to taper off. No one wants to pay capital gains on property especially when property tax itself is already burdensome. But that's just me. Maybe Billie Eilish will make up for everyone else's loss, shorty! Jamalisms 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 52 minutes ago, Titandan said: Simple economics. Mass sell off will cause a housing market crash. At least for the super wealthy properties. I'm assuming in the $6-30 million range. I foresee good tax revenue for the first year. Then it's going to taper off. No one wants to pay capital gains on property especially when property tax itself is already burdensome. But that's just me. Maybe Billie Eilish will make up for everyone else's loss, shorty! The idea that society has to tiptoe around the ultra wealthy or everything collapses is backwards. Stable institutions, infrastructure, educated workforces, and functioning markets are what create wealth in the first place. Not the other way around. If someone sells a $10 to 15M property and relocates, the house doesn’t disappear. The asset remains. Someone else buys it. The tax base remains. Markets adjust. They don’t implode because a few high-end homeowners move. The economy is bigger than any one individual. CreepingDeath, and IsntLifeFunny 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 55 minutes ago, Titandan said: Simple economics. Mass sell off will cause a housing market crash. At least for the super wealthy properties. I'm assuming in the $6-30 million range. I foresee good tax revenue for the first year. Then it's going to taper off. No one wants to pay capital gains on property especially when property tax itself is already burdensome. But that's just me. Maybe Billie Eilish will make up for everyone else's loss, shorty! Fine, the housing market is over-inflated MadMax 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titandan Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 8 minutes ago, reo said: The idea that society has to tiptoe around the ultra wealthy or everything collapses is backwards. Stable institutions, infrastructure, educated workforces, and functioning markets are what create wealth in the first place. Not the other way around. If someone sells a $10 to 15M property and relocates, the house doesn’t disappear. The asset remains. Someone else buys it. The tax base remains. Markets adjust. They don’t implode because a few high-end homeowners move. The economy is bigger than any one individual. If the tax is only for the few billionaires, I would assume these homes would be the only ones affected. There's no incentive for anyone to own homes at the 6 million+ range if they have to pay 1%+ annually for property tax and in addition, capital gains tax. So how would these taxes work? Would you tax homes that are above a certain assessed value (e.g. $10 million plus)? Or would you tax based on a person's net worth? Any billionaire can start new LLC's and buy homes with each LLC instead of under their own name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titandan Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 21 minutes ago, reo said: If someone sells a $10 to 15M property and relocates, the house doesn’t disappear. The asset remains. Someone else buys it. The tax base remains. I think the number of people buying these type of properties will shrink because billionaires become billionaires because they typically don't spend their money. They are usually extremely disciplined in saving and investing in appreciating assets. A mansion is typically not an asset. It's a waste of money (liability) but billionaires make an exception on this part of their lives for whatever reason (keeping up with the billionaire Jones's?). But if there's an unrealized capital gains tax on top of it, I think many of these people will finally snap out of it and either downsize or move to a smaller home. People with FU money will probably stay and pay. But who knows... only one way to find out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 12 minutes ago, Titandan said: billionaires become billionaires because they typically don't spend their money Then how is it supposed to trickle down??? MadMax 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titandan Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 20 minutes ago, Starkiller said: Then how is it supposed to trickle down??? Common folk like you and me need to learn how to become successful. In my opinion, financial education is mandatory for a society to become successful. Welfare should be for those who cannot function in society. Imma be honest with you and some of my real life friends can relate to me. My wife (still feels weird saying this) has lived pay check to pay check all of her life. She has no idea how assets and liability works. I'm looking forward to going over how to budget and how to invest with her. She's into shopping and I'm into investing. Whatever extra we make, we will have some very tough conversations and planning to do but I will not live my life pay check to pay check. I've been there once when I was young and felt invincible. Now that life's responsibilities and unforeseen emergencies/situations happen with greater frequency, I refuse to live like that again. I'm having to grow up real fast... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 1 hour ago, Titandan said: If the tax is only for the few billionaires, I would assume these homes would be the only ones affected. There's no incentive for anyone to own homes at the 6 million+ range if they have to pay 1%+ annually for property tax and in addition, capital gains tax. So how would these taxes work? Would you tax homes that are above a certain assessed value (e.g. $10 million plus)? Or would you tax based on a person's net worth? Any billionaire can start new LLC's and buy homes with each LLC instead of under their own name. 1 hour ago, Titandan said: I think the number of people buying these type of properties will shrink because billionaires become billionaires because they typically don't spend their money. They are usually extremely disciplined in saving and investing in appreciating assets. A mansion is typically not an asset. It's a waste of money (liability) but billionaires make an exception on this part of their lives for whatever reason (keeping up with the billionaire Jones's?). But if there's an unrealized capital gains tax on top of it, I think many of these people will finally snap out of it and either downsize or move to a smaller home. People with FU money will probably stay and pay. But who knows... only one way to find out. If demand for $6-10M homes softens, that’s a price adjustment, not an economic collapse. Ultra luxury housing isn’t the backbone of a regional economy. Markets reprice when incentives change. That’s normal. On the billionaire point, they don’t become billionaires because they’re unusually frugal. They become billionaires because they own appreciating assets at scale. Their wealth grows through equity, capital gains, and compounding... not because they skipped vacations or managed a tighter household budget. That distinction matters. When wealth growth is primarily driven by asset ownership and then passed across generations, inequality compounds unless the tax structure counterbalances it. That’s a structural feature of modern capital markets, not a moral judgment. As for avoidance... yes, high networth individuals optimize around taxes. They always have. That’s why serious policy discussions focus on beneficial ownership rules and closing structural loopholes, not just whose name is on an LLC. The broader question isn’t whether behavior adjusts... it always does. The question is whether modestly higher taxation at the very top meaningfully harms the broader economy. Historically, markets adapt, capital reallocates, and institutions endure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 1 hour ago, reo said: The idea that society has to tiptoe around the ultra wealthy or everything collapses is backwards. Stable institutions, infrastructure, educated workforces, and functioning markets are what create wealth in the first place. Not the other way around. If someone sells a $10 to 15M property and relocates, the house doesn’t disappear. The asset remains. Someone else buys it. The tax base remains. Markets adjust. They don’t implode because a few high-end homeowners move. The economy is bigger than any one individual. That is true, but at the same time big businesses are also leaving high taxed states. Can't make up that lost revenue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 Duped dan, don't talk about taxes. You don't even know what a grasshopper is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Little Earl said: That is true, but at the same time big businesses are also leaving high taxed states. Can't make up that lost revenue. We’ve seen several high-profile “companies are fleeing high-tax states” headlines over the last few years. But it’s important to separate headline optics from what actually moved. Take Tesla. Yes, they moved their headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin. But the Fremont factory.... one of their primary production facilities... stayed in California. Their engineering footprint in CA remains significant. California didn’t “lose Tesla” operationally. It lost a corporate address. Same with Oracle. HQ moved to Texas in 2020. The Redwood Shores campus didn’t vanish. Large portions of their California workforce remained. Hewlett Packard Enterprise did the same thing... headquarters relocation, not wholesale operational dismantling. Even Chevron’s more recent HQ move doesn’t mean California’s energy infrastructure suddenly disappeared. Refining capacity and large-scale physical assets aren’t things you just pack up and move overnight. There’s a big difference between relocating a mailing address and dismantling an economic ecosystem. Corporate headquarters are relatively easy to move. Factories, talent clusters, supply chains, and industry networks are not. That doesn’t mean taxes don’t matter at the margins.... they do. But the idea that high tax states can’t “make up lost revenue” because businesses are fleeing in droves doesn’t really line up with how sticky large economic ecosystems actually are. Markets adjust. Capital reallocates. But major economic engines don’t collapse because a few companies change their incorporation address. When companies do actually leave, it opens up the market for others to take it's place. Edited March 2 by reo OILERMAN 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titandan Posted March 3 Author Report Share Posted March 3 6 minutes ago, reo said: On the billionaire point, they don’t become billionaires because they’re unusually frugal. They become billionaires because they own appreciating assets at scale. Their wealth grows through equity, capital gains, and compounding... not because they skipped vacations or managed a tighter household budget. That distinction matters. When wealth growth is primarily driven by asset ownership and then passed across generations, inequality compounds unless the tax structure counterbalances it. That’s a structural feature of modern capital markets, not a moral judgment. Three things can be true at once. You won't find me disagreeing with most of what you said here. How to become wealthy? - Earn enough money to cover all expenses and then some. The more you make, the faster you'll become wealthy. - Use the money saved to invest in assets instead of buying the latest and greatest depreciating liabilities (cars, gaming consoles, purses, fashion, luxury meals, Titans season tickets, etc.) Frugality, budgeting, and personal financial planning is always a trait that I see with my wealthy friends. I'm not allowed to say billionaire anymore (because of Strunky will get butt hurt) but my super wealthy friend "splurged" on a Tesla a couple years ago. His daily driver was a Ford Explorer. Just because he can afford a fleet of Bentley's doesn't mean he gets chauffeured around in them. The more you invest wisely with larger sums, the greater your wealth will multiply, and the longer you invest, the more effective the compounding effect will be. - Protect your investments, don't lose it, and grow it. Wealthy people don't become super wealthy and stay that way by giving their money away. And if they want to maintain their wealth, they sure as hell will not make stupid decisions(or indecisions) to pay unrealized capital gains tax. Their well-compensated CPA's and lawyers will make sure that they will utilize every loop hole possible to avoid taxes or they will escape a predatory system that's a threat to their wealth. The uber wealthy and big corps will always donate to politicians to make sure there's always a loop hole in the system. And as long as virtue signaling politicians publicly bitch about the unfair system that benefit the rich while getting bribes from the very people they complain about, they will continue getting votes from normies while enacting exactly zero change. So we all have a choice. a) Complain until something changes and hope that something will change to change our luck. or b) Start to "Act like a man!" And do something with our lives to better our situation. Do a little homework, make intentional life/financial plans, start doing what the rich folk do, and work our asses off until we become successful. I select option b. Everything else is a waste of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 2 hours ago, Titandan said: a) Complain until something changes and hope that something will change to change our luck. or b) Start to "Act like a man!" And do something with our lives to better our situation. Do a little homework, make intentional life/financial plans, start doing what the rich folk do, and work our asses off until we become successful. I select option b. Everything else is a waste of time. This isn't an individual problem. It's a systematic large scale problem with how the top % of wealthy get taxed. It's not about a person getting out of debt and getting ahead. The top corporations pay little to no income tax. They get government subsidies. They are the ones who need to "act like a man". "Start doing what the rich folk do"? You sound like ignorant moron on this subject. Can the common working man do this?: Elon Musk’s companies, primarily SpaceX and Tesla, have received an estimated $38 billion in government funding, including contracts, loans, and tax credits over the past two decades. Over two-thirds of this funding was allocated within the last five years, with 2024 alone providing at least $6.3 billion BTW dan what's your networth? reo, and Starkiller 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 3 hours ago, Titandan said: Three things can be true at once. You won't find me disagreeing with most of what you said here. How to become wealthy? - Earn enough money to cover all expenses and then some. The more you make, the faster you'll become wealthy. - Use the money saved to invest in assets instead of buying the latest and greatest depreciating liabilities (cars, gaming consoles, purses, fashion, luxury meals, Titans season tickets, etc.) Frugality, budgeting, and personal financial planning is always a trait that I see with my wealthy friends. I'm not allowed to say billionaire anymore (because of Strunky will get butt hurt) but my super wealthy friend "splurged" on a Tesla a couple years ago. His daily driver was a Ford Explorer. Just because he can afford a fleet of Bentley's doesn't mean he gets chauffeured around in them. The more you invest wisely with larger sums, the greater your wealth will multiply, and the longer you invest, the more effective the compounding effect will be. - Protect your investments, don't lose it, and grow it. Wealthy people don't become super wealthy and stay that way by giving their money away. And if they want to maintain their wealth, they sure as hell will not make stupid decisions(or indecisions) to pay unrealized capital gains tax. Their well-compensated CPA's and lawyers will make sure that they will utilize every loop hole possible to avoid taxes or they will escape a predatory system that's a threat to their wealth. The uber wealthy and big corps will always donate to politicians to make sure there's always a loop hole in the system. And as long as virtue signaling politicians publicly bitch about the unfair system that benefit the rich while getting bribes from the very people they complain about, they will continue getting votes from normies while enacting exactly zero change. So we all have a choice. a) Complain until something changes and hope that something will change to change our luck. or b) Start to "Act like a man!" And do something with our lives to better our situation. Do a little homework, make intentional life/financial plans, start doing what the rich folk do, and work our asses off until we become successful. I select option b. Everything else is a waste of time. I don’t disagree that personal discipline, investing early, and compounding matter. That’s just math. But we weren’t talking about how someone becomes financially stable or even wealthy over a lifetime. We were talking about billionaire scale wealth and tax structure. There’s a difference between: Building net worth through income + disciplined investing and Accumulating extreme wealth primarily through ownership stakes that compound at massive scale. Most people can improve their financial situation through better planning. Very few people reach ultra wealth status through budgeting alone. That level of wealth is driven by capital ownership, equity concentration, and market structure. Those are systemic dynamics, not personal virtue narratives. Personal responsibility and tax structure aren’t mutually exclusive discussions. One operates at the individual level. The other operates at the institutional level. We were discussing the latter. Titandan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.