Did I say mandatory? I meant optional! You’re “free” to die in a cardboard box under a freeway as a market capitalist scarecrow warning to the other ants so they keep showing up to make us more!

  • Goodie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    164
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think a law stating you can’t borrow against unrealized gains would be sensible.

    You can keep your unrealized gains forever, live of your dividends for all i care, and pay no tax. But realizing them, either through selling or borrowing against, triggers a taxation.

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Mhm. There’s two very good reason unrealized gains aren’t taxed: volatility and cash flow. Are you and the government expected to swap cash back and forth everyday to correct for changes in the market? No that’s silly. Should people go into debt because they don’t have the cash to pay the taxes of a baseball card they happen to own that is suddenly worth millions? Also silly.

      For that same reason, using unrealized gains as security is dangerous, just like the subprime loans market was!

        • Mcdolan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah owning a baseball card worth money sure whatever, if you pawn that card sorry, pay taxes. You use that card a to secure a loan with lower interest rates than you’d get without then sorry, you are realizing gains whether or not you want to admit it. This goes along one of the lawsuits against Trump. He lied to get favorable interest rates by overvaluing his assets to get better interest rates. If that’s against the law why the fuck is that not counted as a “gain” to use assets to secure favorable interest rates?

      • Goodie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s a very good reason they should be taxed; half a dozen people are richer than god, and basically never pay any real amount of tax.

        • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          This would effectively lock out every small investor from the stock market due to the liability of both success and failure.

          • Goodie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            How so?

            “Oh no, I made money, better put a small percentage of my gains away for tax season, just like I do with all of my income, because I’m American and lack a good PAYE system”.

              • Goodie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                Someone here has made a false assumption. In fact, I’m pretty sure we both have made several. The question is who has made a fatal false assumption? Let’s go.

                My root comment, at the top of all of this, was my idea that perhaps we should consider gains “realized” when they are sold OR used as a collateral in a loan.

                Your assertion is that it would wipe out small investors.

                I would question how many small investors are using their small investments as collateral in a loan?

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            No it wouldn’t. The proposal out there right now has a floor of something like a million dollars. Most of us will never need to worry about that.

          • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I mean the stock market is literally gambling, so the risk of success and failure is already there. The proposal is whether or not we should allow people to use unrealized gains to secure loans without having to pay taxes on said gains at the point of taking the loan. This would only occur if you’re worth more than 100 million. You can afford to pay that tax.

            • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              I mean the stock market is literally gambling

              I’ve a better record of success than the most successful poker players. Is it ten years of good luck or the consequences of effort and skill?

              The proposal is whether or not we should allow people to use unrealized gains to secure loans without having to pay taxes on said gains at the point of taking the loan.

              Thus locking out all non-corporate investors from margin, prerequisite to options, prerequisite to risk mitigation and gains enhancement. The average investor looses the freedom to do much more than DCA a fund.

              This would only occur if you’re worth more than 100 million.

              1. It’ll never be passed in such a way. Legislation always favors the corporate and wealthy as they’re the ones that write it. It’s most perverse in finance and investment. There’s been nothing favoring human investors since the breakup of Ma Bell.

              2. It’s totally inadequate to save the republic from the nearly-unmitigated, algorithmically-optimized capitalism that exists today. The biggest fish, corporations, would simply get bigger by eating their biggest threat: humans with a lot of resources, but not the most affluent.

              The stock market is a tool. It’s not the cause.

              TL;DR:

              The neolib’s proposal is crap.

              This isn’t:

              1. legislate away most of corporate personhood

              2. restore the Glass-Steagall Act

              3. repeal the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        We’re talking about the stock market. And it would be quarterly or annual. Please stop exaggerating.

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s a precise moment in time you take a loan. Use that moment in time to calculate worth; tax.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Sure, but this shouldn’t apply to everybody. Unrealized gains up to $10 million don’t get taxed. Unrealized gains over that amount get taxed.

        If you pay it yearly you’re not paying this every day. People with this much money almost always go up in unrealized gains every year, so it’s not going to be a back and forth. It’ll be a yearly adjustment. No different than literally everybody else that pays taxes on their new wealth every year.

        Edit: as for the baseball card example, if you’ve got over $10 million in unrealized gains on baseball cards, yeah, maybe you pay taxes on that.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Or doing so, it counts the loan as income and is taxed accordingly. But seriously, the main aim itself can also be taxed. A house is…

      • Goodie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’d have to put some controls in there for that solution to work. Hitting new homeowners with an immediate tax on “earning” $1,000,000 to pay for their house seems a bit cruel.

        • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          The unrealized gains is for 100 millionaires or more. I don’t think there is anyone with 100million in unrealized home value.

          • Goodie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I was talking for a hypothetical world where that law isn’t a thing and simply paying capital gains in “realized” gains is.

            Nut hey, yeah, sure, 100mil works too.

        • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Capital gains are applied against a cost basis, in the case of your homeowner, their purchase price. Unless the house appreciates in value there is 0 capital gain, even if you made the mortgage a realization event and for some reason implemented this with no residence exemption or tax brackets. It’s mad how this point has to be repeatedly explained through this thread.

      • doctordevice@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Homes are taxed based on assessed value. They are already a form of taxing unrealized gains.

        Most of the population either has:

        1. no unrealized gains
        2. gains in a retirement account that we can’t borrow against
        3. gains in real estate that are taxed, but can be borrowed against
        4. a combo of 2 and 3

        I think it’s fair to ask that the rich play by the same rules. You can either borrow against your gains and pay taxes on them, or not pay taxes and not be able to borrow against them.

      • Goodie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Depends on the exact implementation, but sure, you could happily write a version where an initial home loan isn’t hit, and only “top up” loans against the INCREASED value of your home is targeted.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      How are you going to enforce that? The Bank can cite whatever they want for giving the loan.

      If we just tax them then it’s easily enforceable and it’s done.

      • Goodie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It can just be flipped on it’s head;

        How are you going to enforce taxing on value, the person can just cite whatever value they want for the asset.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          No they actually can’t. In stocks the price is publicly listed by a third party. In real estate an assessor gets involved. For commodities like cars they have to be unique or nearly so before there isn’t a third party listing it’s value.

          For edge cases, especially large real estate, we could always make a second law, one that says the government can buy your building at the value you gave the IRS if it’s significantly below market rate on dollars per square foot for it’s type (office, industrial, residential, etc), or that it’s represented as a higher value in investment reports or bank loans. We’ll frame it as a bail out, helping them offload toxic assets. Then the government sells the building on the open market. That way when someone like Trump decides his buildings are suddenly worth less than all of the surrounding buildings we can keep him from going bankrupt again.

    • C126@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Seems more reasonable than taxing unrealized gains, although I’d prefer if the debate was on how to cut absurd amount of spending rather than trying to find new tax streams.

      • Goodie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’d rather we went back to taxing the rich properly and stopped having crumbling infrastructure.