There is a reason you don’t owe taxes on a stock you haven’t sold yet. For one thing, what if you have to pay tax at one valuation, and then it goes down later.
I think it would make sense to count borrowing against equity as tax-wise equivalent to selling that same equity.
With that loophole closed, together with raising the capital gains tax, I think the tax system would be much more in line with what people expect from it.
When you get a mortgage to buy a $750k house, do you want to be taxed as though you had $750k income that year? You’re just borrowing against the value of an asset after all.
What the government could do is stop loaning out money at 0% (i.e. printing free money which inflates assets, like stocks held by wealthy people). If the prime rate increased, the rate banks would charge on asset-backed loans would also increase, which would make it less attractive than just selling the asset and paying the capital gains tax.
That's now how borrowing money to buy a house works.
Anyone can start a company tomorrow and declare that they have a billion shares of stock in that company. They only become worth something because the person that started the company uses their own effort and ingenuity to make the company do something that is valuable to everyone else.
Taxation isn’t necessarily based on what’s fair or rational, it’s a way of financing public expenses. It might be more logical from the perspective of the people as a whole to tax wealth more and income less (for example) even though wealth is less logical and “fair” to tax than income or consumption.
And a trivial way to work around your proposed rule: borrow without collateral. Why would a lender be willing to do this? Because they know the other party is wealthy, that in the event of bankruptcy they have ways to collect, they make money on interest, and it is tax efficient under your new rule.
And in the meantime, they get to retain the full power and influence that comes with the stock/company that they control. The wealth inequality issue is as much about power dynamics as it is about dollars and cents.
> borrow without collateral
And it would be trivial to write the law to prevent that loophole. If a person has any unrealized gain over a certain amount, then any personal loan, secured or not, would qualify for some sort of realized gain tax.
Personally, I think it is simpler and more elegant to implement a wealth tax. It would encourage the wealthy to take more income or dividends to cover the tax, and it would also help shift investments towards more profitable/cash flow positive ventures. For example, all of the tech unicorns burning loads of VC money to acquire negative cash flow would be penalized under such a scenario.
You didn't avoid anything, you just deferred it until later.
By the way, if the bank "forgave" the loan, and said you don't have to pay it back, that forgiveness is taxed - usually in a form 1099. So there isn't a loop hole there, either.
No. You can roll indefinitely.
By doing that, ultra-wealthy _are_ realizing the value of their investments without being taxed. That's how this wealth is being accessed, and that's a large component of what drives these ultra-low tax rates for the ultra-wealthy.
Also I don't understand how a growing population leads to increasing prices, while there's so damn much unused land? Either there is enough new land, then people eventually spread out (and prices revert to the CPI, to the cost of construction), or there isn't enough land and homelessness increases as more and more people are completely priced out. Right now nearly every country is in the first situation.
I'm sorry, but HELOC is really just dumb.
It's not binary. People like to live near other people in cities. Demand to live close to one's job, friends, activities, and loved ones drives up prices in dense areas even with unlimited room to expand elsewhere.
Desirable locations are desirable even on an infinitely-sized map.
The reason that works is that basis is reset at death.
The free step-up in basis at death makes no sense for the very wealthy. The rule originates from the difficulty in determining the basis of assets of dead people. The very wealthy have accountants that track this.
Warren Buffett can pay capital-gains tax AND estate tax.
That is a far cry from taxing unrealized gains as income which is what a lot of people seem to want to do.
One question is whether we want to encourage pure ownership/holding of assets (the current stock ownership situation) or whether we want to encourage productive use of an asset (the current land ownership situation).
What "productive use" are you going to get out of a share of Amazon stock?
The company itself will do productive things, but taxing people to hold the stock is going to make them do what productive thing, exactly?
You might get a refund or you might pay more taxes when you sell, but there is precedent to paying taxes on stock that you currently hold.
Why would we want to do more of that?
No, I can't say I've ever heard of that happening. You should be able to sell to cover. This will typically happen during an open trading window and brokerages will offer an option for "sell to cover".
>Why would we want to do more of that?
I didn't make a value statement one way or the other. I'm just saying your claim is wrong and maybe your misunderstanding of taxation on stock is not the reason that unrealized capital gains aren't taxed.
That is a lot different than buying a stock at $10, having it go up to $100, and you now have to pay taxes on the gain (which may be temporary, the day after you pay taxes it could go back to $10).
The caveat would be that the capital gain during sale is calculated based on the difference from the price at vesting. So the original taxation is carried with you while you hold the stock which is the mechanism that you thought didn't exist for a reason.
For the second paragraph, it's not so different from real estate market fluctuations. You pay taxes based on the value of your property at a specific date even if that value tanks the very next day.