4 ms·

No different than me selling stock A, paying capital gains and then buying stock B, which could go to zero. You can handle your hypo the same way the tax syste

No different than me selling stock A, paying capital gains and then buying stock B, which could go to zero. You can handle your hypo the same way the tax system handles mine. You can deduct the capital loss from future gains.

nilsbunger 5y ago
Sure it’s different. You might not have cash to pay those taxes. When you sold and bought, you had an opportunity to set aside the $$ to pay taxes
- rhino369 5y ago
  If you are borrowing money, you have the opportunity to set that money aside to pay taxes. It's really no different.
  - nilsbunger 5y ago
    It's not easy to get a loan against illiquid assets in many cases. And even if you get a loan, if the asset goes to zero you still owe the loan balance, which could be huge compared to your normal finances. And you pay interest on that loan. It could work in some cases but I don't see how it's the same as selling stock A and buying stock B.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
You may never have future gains to match the loss. Why would we want a system that taxes people on an unrealized gain and then (maybe) gives it back to them over coming years?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > You may never have future gains to match the loss. C'est la vie. That's how Capital Loss deductions, Electric Vehicle credits and other non-refundable tax credits currently work: individuals may not have enough upside to maximize their benefits, That's just how the system works as it is impossible to balance everyone's competing scenarios. If you are eligible for a $7500 EV credit but only paid $3000 in taxes, you'll only get that $3000 back, and not the full $7500.
- pnutjam 5y ago
  Most American's live in that system, it's called being an employee...
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think we'd want that tax income because a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar tomorrow - making sure we increase cash flow in the short term and stabilize expected cash flow allows us to more accurately set the budget.

nilsbunger 5y ago

Sure it’s different. You might not have cash to pay those taxes. When you sold and bought, you had an opportunity to set aside the $$ to pay taxes

rhino369 5y ago
If you are borrowing money, you have the opportunity to set that money aside to pay taxes. It's really no different.
- nilsbunger 5y ago
  It's not easy to get a loan against illiquid assets in many cases. And even if you get a loan, if the asset goes to zero you still owe the loan balance, which could be huge compared to your normal finances. And you pay interest on that loan. It could work in some cases but I don't see how it's the same as selling stock A and buying stock B.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

You may never have future gains to match the loss. Why would we want a system that taxes people on an unrealized gain and then (maybe) gives it back to them over coming years?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sangnoir 5y ago
> You may never have future gains to match the loss. C'est la vie. That's how Capital Loss deductions, Electric Vehicle credits and other non-refundable tax credits currently work: individuals may not have enough upside to maximize their benefits, That's just how the system works as it is impossible to balance everyone's competing scenarios. If you are eligible for a $7500 EV credit but only paid $3000 in taxes, you'll only get that $3000 back, and not the full $7500.
pnutjam 5y ago
Most American's live in that system, it's called being an employee...
munk-a 5y ago
I think we'd want that tax income because a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar tomorrow - making sure we increase cash flow in the short term and stabilize expected cash flow allows us to more accurately set the budget.