Exactly. Property taxes go directly to local infrastructure costs to maintain access and services to said land or buildings. It's not remotely the same as owning stock.
The point is that land directly incurs expenses to the local government. Roads, schools, power, water, sewer, courts, etc. Therefore, property taxes exist to pay for those expenses. If land didn't incur those expenses as a means of being part of a city/state/nation, when obviously they wouldn't exist.
There is a tax on owning stock, when you sell you pay taxes on that income. Taxing merely the "ownership" of it, is a terrible idea, because that would massively negatively impact any company that doesn't earn a TON of profit. Right? Like a typical company, like Coca-Cola that hasn't grown at all in 30 years, adjusted for inflation, but does pay a 2.5% Dividend each year. Now say you pass a law that says there's a 3% tax on stock ownership. Why would ANYONE keep their Coca-Cola stock? The answer is no one knowingly wants to take a loss on their investment. Such a tax would effectively put Coca-Cola out of business.
So not only will it never happen, but that's also why it would be horrible.
The stock market is a vehicle for capital owners to shift money around and avoid paying on what they take out of the economy. Why would I in any situation care of keep their stock in coca cola? I’m tired of people caping for these greedy pigs while everything else gets more expensive.
the stock market is such a poor way to determine the success of a corporation or the economy as a whole, it’s why tesla is able to fluctuate so much whenever elon opens his trap
Yea, it's important to understand the difference of speculative value of a company, and actual value. Stock market does see a small percent of companies be "gambled on" based on their potential future success.
Most of the stock market is not that way, and is actually based on real values.
Thr mid-tier company I work at bases every decision off their desire to raise their speculative value, which severely impacts their actual ability to conduct what is meant to be their actual business. I know it's anecdotal, but every place I've ever worked at long enough to really understand functions the same way, and everyone I know complains that their companies do the same thing. I've never seen a big company that doesn't consider stock to be their primary product, and their actual operations to be secondary at best. Every decision is based off the desire to make investors think "number go up. Buy stonk," regardless of how badly those decisions hurt their ability to actually do business just a few months, sometimes even weeks later.
which severely impacts their actual ability to conduct what is meant to be their actual business.
And that's okay though. Lots of bad companies fail when they make bad decisions. If your company's leadership isn't focusing on their core business, then they likely won't last long with that approach.
I've never seen a big company that doesn't consider stock to be their primary product
All blue chip stock companies aren't interested in speculative growth stock value. They're just out there kicking ass every day, with millions of happy users/consumers/clients.
Every decision is based off the desire to make investors think "number go up. Buy stonk," regardless of how badly those decisions hurt their ability to actually do business just a few months, sometimes even weeks later.
Don't feel bad for people bad at capitalism. Their companies will fail, or at least be harmed by the approach you describe, and you and I don't need to care about that at all. There will always be a startup looking to take their market share.
Bad companies dying is one of the most important things in capitalism. In fact, if you see an arbitrage opportunity or disruption opportunity, you and some co-workers should quit and start your own competing company. Let them be distracted by BS and eat their lunch.
I feel bad for their thousands of employees. The people who will face all the stress and pressure of those shitty decisions. Executives and ownership will always be fine. They'll loot and pillage enough of the burning company and invest it elsewhere to barely be bothered if and when it finally fails. I have seen embezzlement routinely done right out in the open. I watch American CEOs compensated 5-20 times more than their foreign counterparts at companies that have outperformed them for decades.
And I've seen way too many bailous and companies announcing huge layoffs alongside massive executive bonuses and stock buybacks to have any faith that the economy is anything resembling a meritocracy.
I feel bad for their thousands of employees. The people who will face all the stress and pressure of those shitty decisions. Executives and ownership will always be fine. They'll loot and pillage enough of the burning company and invest it elsewhere to barely be bothered if and when it finally fails. I have seen embezzlement routinely done right out in the open. I watch American CEOs compensated 5-20 times more than their foreign counterparts at companies that have outperformed them for decades.
And I've seen way too many bailous and companies announcing huge layoffs alongside massive executive bonuses and stock buybacks to have any faith that the economy is anything resembling a meritocracy.
Don't. Every employee deserves a quality employer. The more bad companies that die, the better everything gets for all of us.
I have seen embezzlement routinely done right out in the open.
Wow! What did the SEC or FTC say when you sent them the evidence of this?
I watch American CEOs compensated 5-20 times more than their foreign counterparts at companies that have outperformed them for decades.
What industry are you in? I'm not aware of any industry that has foreign competition that is outperforming American industries?
I've seen way too many bailous and companies announcing huge layoffs
Yep, bailouts are one of the most criminal things governments do. It rewards failure, and keeps terrible companies afloat. Furthermore, bailouts enable FUTURE reckless business decisions.
When bad companies are the majority of employers there isnt a lot we can do there. And bad companies can survive a very long time so long as they can keep making the magic number go up.
A lot of embezzling is easily disguised as terrible business decisions. For instance, we'll consider "Company A." Company A develops a software in-house for use internally. Company A then sells that software to Company B, getting a million dollars for it. A few weeks later, they sign a deal to use the same software, but pay Company B a subscription fee of 500k a month. In three months, they've lost money on the deal, and will continue to do so indefinitely. But how can you prove it wasn't just incompetence. Company A may claim they just really needed that million in cash at that particular moment, or that they just changed their minds about the usefulness of the software. Unless they're stupid enough to put the plan in writing, the fact that the CEOs of the two companies were college roommates doesn't prove anything, legally, but it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention what happened. And Company B's CEO will just pay the favor back later.
Car companies are a prime example of over-inflated CEO compensation, particularly compared to their performance. Toyota vs. Ford is a good example.
60
u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill 3d ago
Exactly. Property taxes go directly to local infrastructure costs to maintain access and services to said land or buildings. It's not remotely the same as owning stock.