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 it’s not extra taxing, it’s just triggering a tax event so realized gain is taxed at that moment instead of some time in the future, which for the billionaires is never.
It is triple tax. You pay tax when you buy the house, you pay yearly tax of the unrealized gain of the increase in your property value. On top of that you want to add a tax when you use property as collateral so in this case a house which small business owners frequently do.
Everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes. Get rid of deductions for corporations and people with revenue/earnings over a certain amount, say 500k. We need to stop complicating the tax code because that is why there are so many loopholes.
I’m in Canada, maybe it’s different. You pay sales tax on a new house when you buy it, just like any purchase. Theres also land transfer taxes an other fees. When it goes up in value and you sell, you pay capital gains (unless it’s your principal residence, and then there’s an exemption). But until you sell or some other tax event, you don’t pay any tax on its increased value until such a tax event happened. At that point it’s assessed and you owe any tax on the gain. So if a tax event triggers some tax owing (like if using it as collateral triggered this), then later when you sell, you wouldn’t pay on that gain again, only on any gain since the last tax event.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But it’s not extra taxing, it’s just triggering a tax event so realized gain is taxed at that moment instead of some time in the future, which for the billionaires is never.
It is triple tax. You pay tax when you buy the house, you pay yearly tax of the unrealized gain of the increase in your property value. On top of that you want to add a tax when you use property as collateral so in this case a house which small business owners frequently do.
Everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes. Get rid of deductions for corporations and people with revenue/earnings over a certain amount, say 500k. We need to stop complicating the tax code because that is why there are so many loopholes.
I’m in Canada, maybe it’s different. You pay sales tax on a new house when you buy it, just like any purchase. Theres also land transfer taxes an other fees. When it goes up in value and you sell, you pay capital gains (unless it’s your principal residence, and then there’s an exemption). But until you sell or some other tax event, you don’t pay any tax on its increased value until such a tax event happened. At that point it’s assessed and you owe any tax on the gain. So if a tax event triggers some tax owing (like if using it as collateral triggered this), then later when you sell, you wouldn’t pay on that gain again, only on any gain since the last tax event.
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.
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.
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.