His tax rate isn’t related to his net worth, though. He didn’t get a check for $59b.
You don’t pay taxes on unrealized gains from investment vehicles, which is a good thing for the average person. Imagine having to pay a (mostly) perpetually increasing income tax on your 401k every year.
What needs to happen is the loans that banks give them against their non-liquid assets should be taxed as income.
The rich don’t pay taxes on unrealized gains. The poor do. You haven’t realized any gains on your house by owning it, but the taxes go up every single time it is re-assessed in value.
We absolutely pay taxes on unrealized gains. Property tax is the tax of unrealized gains. We do it for houses why can’t we do it for stocks? He’s getting dividend checks worth moillions every quarter.
Portfolio loans need to be taxed. Absolutely. You can pay 1% interest on a loan vs ~30% on income taxes. Something will need to be done about shell corporations holding personal assets as well. His yacht isn’t in his name.
Above 2 million, maybe. Hell, make it 10 million for fun but holy shit do not let someone with 400 million pretend they aren’t disgustingly rich parasites.
The difference between someone worth 100 million and someone worth 100 billion is about 100 billion. But yeah finding a good point to set a limit is hard.
It might be hard but I think buddy coulda done better than half a billion. We seriously need to stop low-balling our own shit, and hell we need to stop with the “offers” as if we can’t just make laws. It’s insane that we’re like this.
That doesn’t work. Houses are already taxed to hell, even unrealized gains on a house is taxed. So triple taxing when you use a house as collateral would hurt small business owners.
But the big difference is that one of those is taxable, and the other is a bullshit way the rich avoid paying into the society that let them get to that point.
Exactly the point. If the collateral is the same value as the loan, then the increase in value of the collateral is realized. Unless of course they’re valuing the collateral at the original value, when first obtained.
There is certainly some careful wording there that more intelligent people than us need to be writing. Both of you make sense, but I’m sure there would be ways to weasel out of one or the other. Something like “this or that, whichever is greater” would be a good start.
Pretending a loan is income and in turn taxing it as such, just because the ‘wrong thing’ was used as collateral, is nonsensically-arbitrary, I think.
Why not make a law against using unrealized capital gains as loan collateral? Or just force ‘realization’ of the capital at loan time, and they can pay the taxes on that. A home equity loan is against real property, so it wouldn’t be subject to the same issue.
Why not make a law against using unrealized capital gains as loan collateral?
Because that would outlaw home equity loans, for one thing. Anything you own that’s increased in value since you started owning it is “unrealized capital gains” by definition, until/unless you sell it, not just stocks.
The fact is, taking a loan out using stuff you own as collateral, regardless of what it is, is a perfectly normal thing to do that in itself deprives no one of anything. Lenders aren’t in the business of throwing money out the window—they make these loans because they get repaid, and then some. Someone who takes out a home equity loan and uses the money to renovate their house so that it’ll sell for an increased price beyond the loan amount + the interest rate, is making the exact same ‘move’ as someone who takes a loan out using their stock in a company as collateral, and uses that money to do things that make that stock increase in value beyond the loan amount + the interest rate.
Cmon, we can describe this process to discuss why it’s wrong, we can’t codify it into law that if you borrow against unrealized gains for the purpose of providing yourself a liquid income, you’re realizing the gains and must pay a tax on it?
People don’t take out home equity loans to spend on groceries, maids, or yachts. They spend it on improving or repairing their home. The purpose is the asset.
People don’t take out home equity loans to spend on groceries, maids, or yachts. They spend it on improving or repairing their home.
Having worked in a financial institution for many years, I can tell you that this is not even close to universally true. It’s very common to use it as a debt consolidation strategy.
Even assuming this is always true, you’re essentially saying that they use the money from the loan against which their house is collateral, to do things that increase the value of the house. But borrowing using your shares in a company as collateral, in order to invest into that same company to increase its value, is essentially an identical ‘strategy’. You’re just arbitrarily deciding it’s bad for one illiquid asset to be used as collateral, but not another, even if the goal (increasing the value of the thing used as collateral) is identical.
But that’s just the thing - they’re not borrowing against their shares to improve the company. They’re using that as their income, and when the loans come due they just take out another one to pay off the first one. Infinite money glitch.
Loans aren’t income. They only reason this ‘move’ works at all is because they are creating value at a rate that exceeds the interest rate + inflation. Other than the scale of the ‘tactic’, it’s no different from taking a home equity loan to improve your home so that the amount it sells for has increased by more than was lost from the interest on/repayment of the loan.
Realize that the lenders giving these ultra-wealthy these loans are not in the business of throwing their money out the window for fun. They make these loans only because they get repaid, with enough interest to make being without those funds in the meantime worth it for them.
Then the stocks used as collateral should be taxed as realized gains.
Since we’re talking about changes to the tax code, we could make it so that it only applies to loans over some arbitrary amount, say 10x the median yearly income of the bottom 50% of earners (within a certain time period to counter multiple smaller loans as loopholes).
Then the stocks used as collateral should be taxed as realized gains.
Why? They haven’t been realized. Literally nothing happens to collateral unless the loan is defaulted on. Do you think you should your house should be treated as realized gains (i.e. the same as if you sold it), if you take out a home equity loan?
we could make it so that it only applies to loans over some arbitrary amount…(within a certain time period to counter multiple smaller loans as loopholes)
This is literally impossible to realistically enforce, total waste of resources and effort to even try. Myriad ways to spread it out over different people/entities/etc.
His tax rate isn’t related to his net worth, though. He didn’t get a check for $59b.
You don’t pay taxes on unrealized gains from investment vehicles, which is a good thing for the average person. Imagine having to pay a (mostly) perpetually increasing income tax on your 401k every year.
What needs to happen is the loans that banks give them against their non-liquid assets should be taxed as income.
The rich don’t pay taxes on unrealized gains. The poor do. You haven’t realized any gains on your house by owning it, but the taxes go up every single time it is re-assessed in value.
We absolutely pay taxes on unrealized gains. Property tax is the tax of unrealized gains. We do it for houses why can’t we do it for stocks? He’s getting dividend checks worth moillions every quarter.
You don’t pay taxes on unrealized gains
When you use it as collateral it’s a realized gain and should be taxed the value of the collateral.
Portfolio loans need to be taxed. Absolutely. You can pay 1% interest on a loan vs ~30% on income taxes. Something will need to be done about shell corporations holding personal assets as well. His yacht isn’t in his name.
Just tax wealth at twice the rate of inflation above 500 million dollars.
Above 2 million, maybe. Hell, make it 10 million for fun but holy shit do not let someone with 400 million pretend they aren’t disgustingly rich parasites.
The difference between someone worth 100 million and someone worth 100 billion is about 100 billion. But yeah finding a good point to set a limit is hard.
It might be hard but I think buddy coulda done better than half a billion. We seriously need to stop low-balling our own shit, and hell we need to stop with the “offers” as if we can’t just make laws. It’s insane that we’re like this.
Nah, let’s tax them as realized gains, because if you are using your unrealized gains as collateral, is that not a form of realizing their value?
I don’t care TBH, whichever one costs them more.
That’s basically the same as taxing the loans as income, but I’m down to double tax them.
I don’t think so. Just trigger a tax event on anything used as collateral for a loan.
That doesn’t work. Houses are already taxed to hell, even unrealized gains on a house is taxed. So triple taxing when you use a house as collateral would hurt small business owners.
The value of the collateral would equal the value of the loan, though. It’s effectively the same thing.
But the big difference is that one of those is taxable, and the other is a bullshit way the rich avoid paying into the society that let them get to that point.
We’re talking about changes to the tax code.
Exactly the point. If the collateral is the same value as the loan, then the increase in value of the collateral is realized. Unless of course they’re valuing the collateral at the original value, when first obtained.
There is certainly some careful wording there that more intelligent people than us need to be writing. Both of you make sense, but I’m sure there would be ways to weasel out of one or the other. Something like “this or that, whichever is greater” would be a good start.
It would be fairly trivial to word it properly. The fact that loopholes exist is a feature, not a bug.
I suggest some other things need to happen to him.
That’s just treating the symptoms, not the cause. All of those assets would go to someone who would still not be paying taxes on them.
Didn’t say we had to stop at him.
If only there was a way to make sure the tax isn’t levied on normal people… Oh well.
The problem with taxing unrealized gains is that the value is always changing. It’s not real money.
You’d have to pick a point in time to capture the stock/asset value, and the wealthy would just tank the value right before.
You mean like the bank does when they loan the money?
The loan shouldn’t be able to be disbursed without realized gains/capital behind it, and they can’t tank the value without impacting their loan.
How about the moment they use it as collateral for personal loans they use as income?
But loans aren’t income. You have to pay them back.
Pretending a loan is income and in turn taxing it as such, just because the ‘wrong thing’ was used as collateral, is nonsensically-arbitrary, I think.
P.S. Home equity loans are also ‘loans against non-liquid assets’.
Why not make a law against using unrealized capital gains as loan collateral? Or just force ‘realization’ of the capital at loan time, and they can pay the taxes on that. A home equity loan is against real property, so it wouldn’t be subject to the same issue.
Because that would outlaw home equity loans, for one thing. Anything you own that’s increased in value since you started owning it is “unrealized capital gains” by definition, until/unless you sell it, not just stocks.
The fact is, taking a loan out using stuff you own as collateral, regardless of what it is, is a perfectly normal thing to do that in itself deprives no one of anything. Lenders aren’t in the business of throwing money out the window—they make these loans because they get repaid, and then some. Someone who takes out a home equity loan and uses the money to renovate their house so that it’ll sell for an increased price beyond the loan amount + the interest rate, is making the exact same ‘move’ as someone who takes a loan out using their stock in a company as collateral, and uses that money to do things that make that stock increase in value beyond the loan amount + the interest rate.
Cmon, we can describe this process to discuss why it’s wrong, we can’t codify it into law that if you borrow against unrealized gains for the purpose of providing yourself a liquid income, you’re realizing the gains and must pay a tax on it?
People don’t take out home equity loans to spend on groceries, maids, or yachts. They spend it on improving or repairing their home. The purpose is the asset.
But that’s just the thing - they’re not borrowing against their shares to improve the company. They’re using that as their income, and when the loans come due they just take out another one to pay off the first one. Infinite money glitch.
Fair enough, but if you want to start taxing the ultra wealthy, you have to start somewhere. Those loans are their main source of income.
Loans aren’t income. They only reason this ‘move’ works at all is because they are creating value at a rate that exceeds the interest rate + inflation. Other than the scale of the ‘tactic’, it’s no different from taking a home equity loan to improve your home so that the amount it sells for has increased by more than was lost from the interest on/repayment of the loan.
Realize that the lenders giving these ultra-wealthy these loans are not in the business of throwing their money out the window for fun. They make these loans only because they get repaid, with enough interest to make being without those funds in the meantime worth it for them.
Then the stocks used as collateral should be taxed as realized gains.
Since we’re talking about changes to the tax code, we could make it so that it only applies to loans over some arbitrary amount, say 10x the median yearly income of the bottom 50% of earners (within a certain time period to counter multiple smaller loans as loopholes).
Why? They haven’t been realized. Literally nothing happens to collateral unless the loan is defaulted on. Do you think you should your house should be treated as realized gains (i.e. the same as if you sold it), if you take out a home equity loan?
This is literally impossible to realistically enforce, total waste of resources and effort to even try. Myriad ways to spread it out over different people/entities/etc.