The discussion around property taxes often resurfaces in Korea, especially when elections are approaching, as it's a highly sensitive topic tied to wealth and economic policy. The original post highlights the cyclical nature of this debate and its political implications.
The *tteokbap* (떡밥, or 'bait') around property taxes is back in Korea, and many are wondering if it's a sign that election season is just around the corner. Even before the government has released any concrete plans on *where*, *when*, or *how much* these taxes might be, the debate is already fiery. Some critics are quick to dismiss property tax advocates as simply 'jealous' or 'resentful of others' success.'
However, the original poster argues that this perspective misses the bigger picture. They point out that compared to other income sources like salaries, business profits, or financial investments (stocks, bonds), real estate in Korea often carries a significantly lower tax burden relative to its value. This, they claim, is an open secret and a major factor discouraging investment in other sectors and even diminishing the motivation for hard work. It's a stark reality in Korea where too much capital is funneled into real estate, leading to a society where even children are heard singing about becoming 'building owners' (건물주, *geonmulju*) or owning 'apartments, apartments.' This obsession with real estate as the primary path to wealth is a deeply concerning trend for the nation's future.
🇰🇷 KOREAN REACTIONS 9
Before, it felt like the initial comments were trying to steer the conversation, almost like a 'divide and conquer' tactic.
You shouldn't directly compare taxes on income and taxes on assets. Assets are bought with what's left after taxes are taken from income, after all.
But most assets are bought with post-tax income, whether it's stocks, bonds, or cars... If the tax burden on stocks wasn't higher compared to real estate at the same asset value, then like in other countries, our personal asset portfolios wouldn't be 'all-in' on real estate, right?
It's unreasonable to directly compare income tax and holding tax. Real estate incurs acquisition tax, holding tax, capital gains tax upon sale, and income tax if rented out. Stocks have negligible transaction tax, no holding tax, and most individuals don't pay capital gains tax. How can the holding burden for stocks be higher?
It's a policy direction that only tightens, never loosens, and property tax is the last remaining one. This is totally predictable.
Besides real estate assets, what else taxes unrealized gains? The only example I can think of is car tax.
Do you even pay tax just for holding stocks?
Nope, you don't. Even Jae-dragon (Lee Jae-yong, the Samsung heir) doesn't pay it.
Yeah, you pay tax if you get dividends. You keep making comments that miss the point. You're always right, lol.