this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
642 points (89.4% liked)

General Discussion

12084 readers
33 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


πŸͺ† About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


πŸ’¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with β€˜silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blady_blah 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Can someone explain to me what "collateral for loan is realized gain" means?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not an expert and i might be wrong, but here is how i understand it with an example:

You are a billionaire that wants to buy a new mansion for 100 million dollar. Even being that rich you probably don't just have that amount of cash sitting around in your regular bank account where it doesn't earn you any more money. That would be stupid. Instead you likely have it tied up in stocks.

Now you could ofc just sell some of those, turn around and buy the mansion with cash. But then you would have to pay taxes on the gains you have made so far with these stocks. Because up until those are realized (by selling them), they are just on paper and there is no taxable event. You have all the money you'd need for thousands of lifetimes already, but you still don't like paying taxes. So luckily there is a better way.

You go to a bank and ask them to borrow you the 100 million. You aren't named Donald Trump, so the bank will gladly give you the money for a very low interest rate, because they know you are good for it. They gladly do so since it is basically risk free and they can in a way just create that money. For you the amout of interest also doesn't matter because it is actually less than your stocks will on average give you in profits.

Now you haven't realized any gains, but instead have a "loss" through the loan and bought your 10th mansion. Over time you will either pay back the loan slowly and use the cost fo your loan to balance out some profits (and avoid taxes that way). Or you might just pay the interest and roll over the loans indefinitely.

We don't have immortality yet so eventually you will die having payed little to no taxes. However your heirs will have to pay inheritance taxes. But until then your wealth has enjoyed the compunding gains unhindered by taxes. And rather than directly passing on your wealth to the next generation you might have some foundation or other construct to keep taxes to a minimum.

[–] dfc09 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Basically (and I'm not an expert here), the Uber rich get tax free spending money without taking big taxable salaries by leveraging their assets for super low interest loans. Current tax codes don't consider these loans as taxable income, but they're being used for the same things us peasants use our income for. By considering these cash flows as taxable, billionaires wouldn't be able to hide behind the "it's net worth not liquid income" bullshit these use to dodge taxes.

[–] geogle 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Would this mean we are taxed on the value of our houses should we have a mortgage on it.

[–] xenoclast 4 points 8 months ago

Possibly this could be prevented by having floor and ceiling limits to this. Could even exclude mortgages if you remove corporate ownership and limit taxes to multiple mortgage situations.

Although honestly the simpler the rules the better for everyone. So maybe some people get screwed in a couple areas but would still be way better off