this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
1007 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3664 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago (4 children)

This is easy to solve. Count the loans as ordinary income. Problem solved.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I had to take an insane amount of loans out to get my nursing license. I'll be paying them off for over a decade. I don't like this idea

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Easy, put a 1 million dollar limit (as in tax kicks in after 1 mil)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

And exclude primary residence.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Imagine being being able to afford a residence

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

eexclude value of average (maybe median) cost of a dwelling off their dwelling.

fuck this "my primary dwelling is a $10m mansion"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Update the new personal exemption to 50k. 12.5k is no longer the poverty line.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

There are numerous things to make this proposal reasonable.

Count as income depending on amount of loan, nature of collateral, and usage of the loaned money.

A loan taken out against primary residence used for purchase of same residence under a million dollars? Not applicable. Proceeds used for education, within reasonable limits? Not applicable.

When a loan is taxed as income, provide for tax credits upon repayment reconcile ultimate use of "real" income. That way you avoid the "double tax" compliant they keep whining about.

I find the tax loans approach ultimately the most workable approach to close the loopholes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Exclude students loans and anything tied to an asset. These are unique loans only offered to the super wealthy or since there are equity based loans, just tax equity based loans

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Aren’t all loans tied to assets?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No.

That rich get loans that basically last their lifetime. They are income replacement. They are not tied to home, a car, etc.

They are just avoiding taxes.

I don’t blame them. It’s smart.

It’s why politicians need to eliminate it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And it’s tied to an asset. Stocks, real estate, something. That’s how loans work. The bank doesn’t just hand you money just for an IOU. It needs something to hold you accountable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No it’s not. They are not buying an asset with. It’s sometimes back with with an asset as collateral but it’s not tied to an asset. The loan isn’t taken out to buy a home. It’s taken out as living expenses.

It’s why a consumption tax would fuck the rich.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh, you mean as the destination of the money. But I wouldn’t be too quick to use this as criteria. Lots of people use loans like that because they get poor. Think HELOC, reverse mortgages,… Having a minimum value below which you are exempt seems much better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I didn’t exclude that from my comment.

One of the differences is with a heloc you have to make payments. The loans Elon gets for example don’t have payments.

They can live this way for years.

I’m not opposed to rich people. I’m opposed to gaming the system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Loans to entities with more than 10 million net-worth then.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Or just make loans taxable, doesn’t have to be the same as income- like capital gains tax.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Capital gains is much lower and doesn’t pay into SS, Medicare, etc.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like we could fix that too.

My point is, it doesn’t have to be “income tax”, it could be its own, much more painful tax.

(Who am I kidding, enough senators live off this stuff too.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Taxes are not supposed to be painful. They are supposed to be fair and fund the government. Painful taxes just causes avoidance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Tax avoidance is a crime.

Lock up the billionaires. I see nothing wrong with it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

That's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Avoidance is legal, evasion is not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Tax avoidance isn’t a crime.

Do you use deductions on your 1040? That’s tax avoidance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

No, count unrealized asset value as income.

You gained 2 billion in stock value, but didn't sell? You get taxed on that stock gain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I can’t support that. I myself once had 20 million in stock options but couldn’t sell it. By the time I could sell it, it was worth zero. Yet you in your system I would have paid taxes on it. Stock fluctuates in value to much. We just need way to force them sell the stock and then tax the stock as ordinary income.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Once it went to zero, it would have been a loss and canceled out?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well if I had to pay unrealized gains I’d have zero but have to pay taxes on 20 million.

It’s why we don’t do it. It would be overly complicated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No, you would pay taxes on the unrealized gains of your assets. So if your assets are worth 0, then you pay 0. If they are worth 20mil, then you pay taxes on 20mil.

Just a quick reminder, one of the main principles of capitalism is risk vs reward.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s my point. They were worth 20 million. Due to legal restrictions I couldn’t sell. As such I would have to pay taxes on 20 million. When I could sell they were worth zero.

So I would have ended up negative.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like that stock wasn't worth the risk then. That's capitalism in a nutshell brahski, people lose money betting on the market every day.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

It was part of my compensation. It didn’t cost me anything.

It’s naive to think we will ever tax unearned income. Not only is it against the law, it would destroy everyone.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So only corporations and billionaires can afford to own a home?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Pretty sure that is not what I said. Anyway, you are already taxed on the value of your home on a yearly basis, regardless if you sold it or not. Take your ball and go home.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

What he is saying your home is an unrealized gain which is true.

While we pay property taxes they are a small percentage and based on the tax value and not the fair market.

While not a fan of property tax they at least directly impact you by providing value to your local area. Why I don’t bitch much about property taxes. I’d rather pay those than federal taxes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're not taxed on the full appreciation of your home at income tax rates. If the government did, the tax on the appreciation would price people out of their homes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Really? We should let the people in the low income areas of my city that just saw their valuations jump up know, because that is exactly what is happening to them. Property value went up 300%, so did the taxes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah. I failed to consider you live outside of the United States of America. I'm sorry that low income earners are burdened by this kind of tax policy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago