• 4am@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      People don’t take out home equity loans to spend on groceries, maids, or yachts. They spend it on improving or repairing their home.

      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.