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.
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.