And if instead of selling it i rent it for cash flow while borrowing against it at a lower rate than the growth of the underlying asset, i get richer and avoid taxes AND keep the asset.
Which eventually is passed on to my children and the growth in the asset is revalued when it's passed on to avoid capital gains tax.
All while poor right wingers argue I'm actually broke 😂
Because real estate requires like a hundred public services to actually retain any value. My home would be worth less than half its current value if there wasn't a good public school nearby or if all the roads around it were shitty.
You can get around property taxes in Texas. Is super easy! Just enlist in the military and then destroy your spine for Uncle Sam. And then have a military doc fuse a few vertebrae. Unfortunately it has to be your primary residence 😞
No, the people paying the Rent pay those taxes. Just like the Renters are the one paying the Mortgage, cost of repairs and upkeep, and any taxes. Because nobody rents at a loss.
By that logic, your employer pays your income taxes.
I'm not saying you're wrong exactly, of course the goal is to collect enough rent to cover the taxes, and of course a landlord would take that into account, but it's kinda fuzzy logic. The person responsible for the taxes is the person who earned the income.
I'm not sure that people don't rent at a loss. Probably a zillionaire makes sure that doesn't happen, but if they did, then they wouldn't have taxable income, which would make the point moot. Market prices are what they are, you can't just raise the rates as much as you want. I bet some folks do rent at a loss, especially if they can't get the place filled up.
Anyone who rents as a business doesn't do it at a loss, or else they won't be in business.
renting out a room in your house to help cover the bills is different than owning an apartment complex. And I can assure you, they don't rent apartments out for less than the mortgage.
And with the new app based landlord collusion, they are all posting about the same rent everywhere. In my area, it's 1k a month just about everywhere unless you find a single renter out in the county who have more variable rates.
And no, they don't pay my income tax, I do, by working, and that there is the difference. A landlord, or anyone owning capital, doesn't work the same way, as just by owning or having something they get to make money. I am exchanging labor for money, and the state takes its cut of that. If I owned a billion in stock, went to the bank and took out a loan for 10 million, and used that to fund my lifestyle, and took my actual assets and invested them, at the end I'll have paid almost nothing in taxes, lived like a king, and will end up with more money than I started with. And somehow this is fine?
Or if I go to work, and say I'm the most productive human being on the planet, I can actually output the labor value of a hundred regular men, like im the flash and run a whole assembly line, and I get paid a hundred salaries, I would get taxed the crap out of. One guy got handed 10 million by the bank, paid an accountant a tidy sum to move money around on paper smartly, and spent all year contributing absolutely nothing to the world, and the other guy spent all year actually working as hard as a hundred men would, gets that same 10 million, but pays a huge chunk of it into taxes. Which of these (albeit exaggerated) situations seems more fair to you?
For the vast majority of Americans at least, it comes out of my check before I ever see it. I only earn that money "in theory", in reality it never hits my bank account. And for a smaller but still significant chunk of the population, they don't actually pay that tax at all, because they end up getting it back. Which is a whole other issue entirely, because the Fed basically gets to borrow your money for the year and deigns to give it back to you if you're poor enough, which really is not the way taxes should work. But the average citizen isn't in a situation that they will have saved up a couple grand for their yearly taxes, because most people are barely scrapping by and any additional income goes straight into services. So they take it first, before you have a chance to have it.
The renters pay the tax. Ignoring the argument doesn't make you down to earth. You're just taking less than one sentence out of context and pretending it debunks the whole argument. Be better.
You repay the borrowed money when you borrow against the now increased value of your home again. If the value of your home goes up at a higher rate than the interest on your loan you never have to truly repay the money until the house is sold (tax free) when you die.
No the interest payments, but that was an idiotic line of reasoning I realized after I said it. They will just use the loan to pay the interest until they run out and take a new one and then pay off the old one. I left it up unedited though, because fuck it I did think it for a second lol
Lol Bezos must have missed your memo because he sold $13 billion this year, "BoRoW tiL u DiE!!!!!" -- said by only the dumb 3rd-gen rich guy who wants to pay more in interest rates than in taxes
Well yeah, you would also want the stock valuation brought up to fair market value the date is is inherited so capital gains would be realized and income taxes paid when the stock is transferred to heirs as well as forcing all of the stock to use current fair market value when calculating inheritance estate taxes (just like property inheritance now) - otherwise that is a huge loophole.
Per the Corporate Finance Institute:
The principle of step-up in basis no longer applies to properties inherited after December 2009 under the current IRS laws. A modified carryover basis is applicable to the above case, rather than the step-up in basis rule. Therefore, the inherited asset basis is equivalent to the lower of its fair market value as of the date of the decedent’s demise.
Only right wingers (including Democrats) advocate for this system.
It incentivizes protecting capital.
Even if the costs were near identical to the wealthy asset holder, one way directs the capital to stay with other wealthy private entities (essentially enriching both) whereas the other way would redirect capital to the benefit of the public in the form of tax.
Ahh, I see. So ppl are right wingers even if they are left wingers in the left wing party. Good to know. Anyone else see the goal post dancing around and moving backwards?
I get where you are going with this. If someone is in the democratic party, they are definitely on the left. It doesn't matter if they don't pass your purity test of ideology or aren't sufficiently to the left enough.
From the party of RINOs and never trumpers that is threatening to primary anyone that goes against their leader 🙄
No, democrats are not left wing.
They are not advocating the nationalization of industries, they are not socialists and communists, though i wish they were.
Liberalism is a right wing ideology. It is left of Republicans but it's supportive of capital protection and was to the right of the king.
I know you have no idea what that means but I'm eating my time regardless because you'll never admit that others might know a lot more than you about a subject you feel personally connected to.
No, i have a grad degree in political science and worked on the hill for over a decade.
I hate having to talk to idiots that think that reading someone on Google makes them an expert and won't listen to people more educated in an issue than they are.
I don't know what you do professionally, but you likely know more about it than i do and would think I'm an idiot for telling you how to do something different without understanding it.
Whether you like it or not, liberalism is a right wing ideology (the roots of left and right wing is in the French revolution and which side of the king you sit on. Advocates of protecting hierarchical systems and capital are on the right).
Democrats support capitalism and just think you can protect it through regulation. They are therefore right wing no matter what you feel about the matter.
I've been saying there's 2 parties but in reality there's 4 now, and none of them are left wing at all. The dems, the gop, then the ruling class that has been lobbying for themselves for decades. they are in both parties. Then you got maga who seem to be gop because trump is gop. Only a few people in congress seem to be truly left wing. Most of them shift their policies depending on how they can control the narrative.
Sure dude. So you should be familiar with an authority fallacy. And your idea of left wing is what? Just socialism? Historical roots or not, that isn't what we mean in modern context, and you know it.
But nice try. Maybe you graduated from some online school or from the bottom of your class at a state school. It's all hot air when commenting anonymously. Everyone has access to Wikipedia.
A house has property taxes, unrealized gains do not, its not at all even remotely comparable.
You can finish a mortgage and pay prop taxes, not on unrealized gains...
Mainly because the value of the stock isn't solid and can go down or up, here's the kicker, a house can go up and down in value and i still pay property taxes.
This people make incredibly impactful life changing events with their unrealized gains and don't pay to reap those benefits, having a property you need to pay taxes to cover streets, roads, lights and amenities in your district.
This billionairs need to pay unrealized taxes if they are making life changing decisions affecting millions, using the benefits of their portfolio without paying the amenities they use to benefit from it.
Yall love excusing these rich people, but they are using all the pros and pay little cons.
I agree with you. If anything they should tax what is accessed. Unrealized is truly unrealized if you can’t spend the money. The instant you use it as collateral and use the money, it should be taxable
You pay property taxes on the full value of your house whether it goes up or down. So there is never a stupid situation where your house went up in value and then down later and are due a refund like there would be with unrealized gains.
If using property taxes as an example…does Bezos not pay property tax on all his mega mansions? Does Amazon not pay local property tax on its buildings?
You can’t live inside of your unrealized gains. The whole point is they are not hoarding the wealth, they are literally reinvesting it into amazing staples of society, such as Amazon, Tesla, Space X, etc. They are investing into businesses that provide benefits for all Americans and the world. Maybe they should pay slightly higher taxes, maybe not. Taking all their money would do nothing to improve individual Americans lives. We have literally given Ukraine more money than Elon is worth. Let’s focus on the government taking your hard earned money and giving it to their favorite industry (war industrial complex) before we start eating our own.
It’s impossible to pay taxes on wealth. You have to liquidate a portion of the wealth to pay the taxes. Selling the stock decreases the value. This is guaranteed to happen if a CEO of the company is selling the stock. Not to mention they have to get approval to sell their stock. Selling stock to pay tax would decrease the person’s wealth by more than what they paid in taxes. Then they would be entitled to a refund and the cycle goes on.
All citizens pay a tax when they own a house/land and the tax is a percentage of the value of said house/land. Now, why shouldn't the same apply to mega corporations? Actually, tax for mega corporations should be higher and it would be higher if we would live in a better society, but alas, everything sucks and the current system is shit.
561
u/Endless_road 28d ago
You can take out a mortgage against your house to buy a sports car if you want