Capital gain is the profit made on the sale of a capital asset.
There is no gain or loss until the asset is sold. Taxation is not deferred, it applies when the gain is made, i.e. upon sale.
There is no gain or loss until the asset is sold. Taxation is not deferred, it applies when the gain is made, i.e. upon sale.
If I buy a house for $100k, and next year some idiot pays $1M for a very similar house three streets down, did I just magically make $900k? Should I be taxed on that gain immediately? Should I be forced to sell part of my property to cover it? What happens when that sale occurs at a much lower price, due to my need to liquidate, did that lower the prices of all the houses in the neighborhood back to normal? Does only the first person to actually pay the tax owe the tax?
That's the reasoning we're applying if we tax unrealized gains on stocks (or any other asset). We take what the highest bidder is willing to pay for some tiny percentage of an asset, and assume that means everyone else could get the same price, yielding these theoretical valuations that have no bearing on reality.
Property taxes have a similar problem but that is a whole other can of worms. I'd love to live in a world where the local tax assessor is obligated to purchase your property on demand for 80% of what they say it is worth -- surely they would jump at the chance to realize an instant profit, right?
You simply can't establish value without an actual transaction. Without a buyer and a seller you are just making up numbers.
Yes you did, because now you can mortgage your real estate for that value and live in luxury. This is how most people make a good living, not by working or investing.
I know this is a very common technique that people use to effectively liquidate assets without incurring taxes, but I think it can (and should be!) solved without penalizing people who simply hold an asset.
Don't worry that if a loan was considered "making money" it would be taxed as income... which would make no sense at all. In fact, disguising transactions as loans while not intending to repay the money is a well-known tax evasion scheme, which tax authorities always keep an eye on.
The money is paid back during the course of decades, when that money will be worth 1/4, 1/3 or half to what it is worth now. And your real estate is ripe to be mortgaged again for another jackpot payout.
Hundreds of millions of people all over the world do it, and tax authorities applaud it. Who do you think writes the tax code?
That's incorrect on both counts. You did not make money and the loan is not a way to realize the profit since you have to pay it back, as explained before.
I think this illustrates that finance and accounting are very poorly understood topic and are easily used for sensationalism.
The money is paid back over a long period of time, while the currency depreciates in value and the real estate appreciates in value. The amount of people who have made a fortune through real estate appreciation probably outnumber by a factor of 10 to 1 the amount of people who made a fortune by business or a working career.
If I purchase shares in a company and then sit and do nothing, and the valuation increases by 10 times, then have I made money or not? I can sell the shares or I can mortgage the shares by borrowing against their value. Should that value increase be taxed?
If I purchase real estate and then sit and do nothing, and the valuation increases by 10 times, then have I made money or not? I can sell the real estate or I can mortgage it and borrow against its value. Should that value increase be taxed?
You make money if you sell. You don't if you use the asset as security for a loan.
This has been explained several times.
A loan is a loan, whether it is a secured loan or not. A mortgage is a secured loan whose security is real property.
You are effectively claiming that getting a loan is making money. Obviously you do not see that this is clearly not the case when thinking about it through a mortgage, but would you make the same claim with credit cards or a personal loan to buy a car, or a secured loan against, say, your car? My guess is that you wouldn't although it is the same thing as getting a mortgage.
A) Sell it and get that money right now, or
B) Mortgage it and get all or part of that money right now, then pay it back in the future.
By what kind of logic have you not made money from the value increase?
> You are effectively claiming that getting a loan is making money.
No, I said that you made the money when the value increased. Your ability to take a loan against it is the evidence that the value in fact increased. I never said anything else.
What lender do you know of who will voluntarily reduce your mortgage obligation if the property depreciates?
Mistake in logic. The money you received as a loan doesn't depreciate in value if the underlying asset depreciates in value. And vice versa.
As for interest, if your real estate has appreciated by a factor of 9 as in the example we're discussing, then interest rates are of minor concern to get the jackpot payout. As you certainly know, you wouldn't have to take out a loan corresponding to the entire value of your asset, and neither would most banks give it.
So parent has mortgaged their 100k house for a million - now what? How do they get out of their obligation to repay the mortgage - that is, buy the house back again for at least a million - without incurring penalties?
If there weren't repercussions for defaulting on mortgage payments, anyone could just trick lenders into buying their house immediately.
After they have repaid the mortgage they will own a million dollar house clear and free. Which they can sell or mortgage again.
I'm stating that the ability to mortgage or sell your house for a million is evidence that it has increased in value by 900 000.
In much of the US, you made a loss, since your property taxes will go up the next year.
> I'd love to live in a world where the local tax assessor is obligated to purchase your property on demand for 80% of what they say it is worth -- surely they would jump at the chance to realize an instant profit, right?
Absolutely.
We take what the highest bidder is willing to pay, as well as what the lowest seller is willing to sell for. So it's a completely fair way of fixing the value. If you think the price is too high, then why aren't other sellers rushing to sell for the same? If you think the price is too low, then why aren't other buyers rushing to buy?
If you by some hacker magic know of any way to circumvent this fundamental logic, then you will become the richest man in history within less than a year, since you will then buy for less than anybody is willing to sell for and sell for more than anybody is willing to buy for.
The agreed price for the last executed sale is the de facto value of anything traded. This has been a fact for hundreds of thousands of years by now.
In your specific example of other side - yes - just because someone who needs to sell a chunk for reasons like an emergency, retirement or consumption needs doesn't mean they are happy to sell the rest of the chunks at that price.
Market based valuations only work in case of very high liquidity publicly traded assets and only if you don't own a significant %.
This makes your argument weaker, not stronger though. If there isn't liquidity market based valuation doesn't work.
>>This has been a fact for hundreds of thousands of years by now.
It isn't and never was. Liquidity was always big part of it.
Of course you did! Assuming that "some idiot" is actually representative of the market.
Go sell your house for $1M ASAP, move somewhere else for $100k and keep the $900k profit.
> You simply can't establish value without an actual transaction.
Not perfectly, but you can definitely estimate it pretty decently for tax purposes. And you talk about the highest bidder in a market, but remember it's also the lowest seller. Markets are not generally distorted by "idiots" paying 10x. That's a straw man.