Forces sale of illiquid assets
Owners whose wealth is tied up in a business or property may have to sell productive assets to pay the bill, harming firms and jobs.
- 3 counters
- 4 sources
- 3 people
The case for taxing wealth, argument by argument.
Owners whose wealth is tied up in a business or property may have to sell productive assets to pay the bill, harming firms and jobs.
You're making the "Forces sale of illiquid assets" argument against a wealth tax. Well-designed wealth taxes handle this with banding, de-minimis thresholds and deferral or instalment options for illiquid holdings — the same tools already used for estates and capital gains. Where past taxes forced fire-sales it was bad design, not an inherent flaw. And the forced-sale problem already exists, just upside down: high tax bills and the rising cost of living routinely force middle- and lower-income families to sell the few assets they own. The burden of forced sales falls hardest on those with least — not the wealthy. Learn more: https://wealthtax.now/arguments/liquidity-issues/
You're making the "Forces sale of illiquid assets" argument against a wealth tax. Deferral, instalments and thresholds handle illiquid holdings — and forced asset sales already hit working families hardest under the status quo, not the wealthy. https://wealthtax.now/arguments/liquidity-issues/
Raised as a counter-argument to rebut. “sometimes when I say things like that, people turn around and say, "Oh, but they don't have the money in cash. They'll have to sell the assets."”
Raised as a counter-argument to rebut. “what about people who are asset rich but income poor so like some old lady he's been living in a house that's suddenly been living in a house that's suddenly in”
Raised as a counter-argument to rebut. “how do you pay a tax on a house if you're not selling it”
“robin hood is saying it was simply a uh an issue of liquidity wasn't it in that they had to they had to they had to pay for the shares effectively before the mo”