3 ms·

Not really the same thing. As I understand it, the "constructive sales" rules were developed in response to hedge funds structuring transactions with forward c

Not really the same thing. As I understand it, the "constructive sales" rules were developed in response to hedge funds structuring transactions with forward contracts (and other clever instruments) to avoid short term gains taxes. Taxing someone for borrowing against something when they have not expressed a clear intention to sell doesn't really make sense. What would be next, taxing proceeds from refinancing a multifamily property? Taxing the refinancing of your personal residence? Taxing when using equity from a property as collateral on a loan? All of those are the same thing as what you are trying to tax.

cherry_tree 2y ago
It would be trivial to exclude one’s primary residence from any tax scheme otherwise involving capital assets
- bequanna 2y ago
  This is just a silly plan grounded in the idea that we need to somehow punish those evil billionaires. We can’t (and won’t) tax unrealized gains when there is no intent on selling.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > This is just a silly plan grounded in the idea that we need to somehow punish those evil billionaires. Or perhaps it's just a rather sensible plan grounded in the idea that billionaires also need to pay their fair share. Talk like "silly", "punish", and "evil" seems rather inflammatory. Makes those who use it come off as shills. > We can’t (and won’t) tax unrealized gains when there is no intent on selling. When those "unrealized gains" look, walk, and quack in effect exactly like realizing the gains of a sale, then it seems the actual intent -- being able to benefit financially from those gains -- has been realized, whether in the form of an actual old-fashioned sale or not. Doing it the fancy way, so as to effectively realize the same benefit, but not having to ever pay taxes because you're not calling it "a sale" is the very definition of a loophole. Why are you in favour of loopholes for billionaires?
    - bequanna 2y ago
      They are still holding assets which are at risk of loss. Unless they are using derivatives or something to fully hedge loss, it is absolutely not equivalent to a sale.

cherry_tree 2y ago

It would be trivial to exclude one’s primary residence from any tax scheme otherwise involving capital assets

bequanna 2y ago
This is just a silly plan grounded in the idea that we need to somehow punish those evil billionaires. We can’t (and won’t) tax unrealized gains when there is no intent on selling.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > This is just a silly plan grounded in the idea that we need to somehow punish those evil billionaires. Or perhaps it's just a rather sensible plan grounded in the idea that billionaires also need to pay their fair share. Talk like "silly", "punish", and "evil" seems rather inflammatory. Makes those who use it come off as shills. > We can’t (and won’t) tax unrealized gains when there is no intent on selling. When those "unrealized gains" look, walk, and quack in effect exactly like realizing the gains of a sale, then it seems the actual intent -- being able to benefit financially from those gains -- has been realized, whether in the form of an actual old-fashioned sale or not. Doing it the fancy way, so as to effectively realize the same benefit, but not having to ever pay taxes because you're not calling it "a sale" is the very definition of a loophole. Why are you in favour of loopholes for billionaires?
  - bequanna 2y ago
    They are still holding assets which are at risk of loss. Unless they are using derivatives or something to fully hedge loss, it is absolutely not equivalent to a sale.