• Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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

      • Grandwolf319
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

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

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 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.

      • breetai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

          • breetai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • breetai@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

                  • breetai@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 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.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

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

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.)

          • breetai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

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

              • breetai@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Tax avoidance isn’t a crime.

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

              • explodicle
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

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

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      Ελληνικά
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • breetai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

          • breetai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • breetai@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Ελληνικά
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

                  • breetai@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 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.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • breetai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 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.

          • Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.